Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I am offering with my good friends from Washington and New York simply shifts $50 million from military aid for Pakistan to the Emergency Refugee and Mitigation Assistance Account. It would leave $250 million in Pakistani military aid, the same level that appeared in the chairwoman's original mark.

In many areas of Federal spending, Congress has to make tough choices amongst important competing priorities. However, the choice between more military aid for Pakistan and assistance for refugees should be an easy one.

Anybody who has witnessed the news in recent weeks understands the military dictatorship in Pakistan has had serious problems in terms of its treatment of civil society. It is one of the worst nuclear proliferators, which could not occur without the knowledge of the Pakistani government. Yet it has been the third-largest recipient of military aid from the United States since 9/11, receiving $10 billion over the last 6 years.

Despite all that, Pakistan continues to allow the Taliban to operate in many parts of Pakistan and launch attacks against U.S. troops in Afghanistan. In fact, according to CQ Weekly, a U.S. Army officer stationed in Pakistan recently recalled watching a 2-mile-long line of Taliban fighters and suicide bombers walk across the border into Afghanistan unchallenged by Pakistani security forces.

Pakistan even has a ``peace agreement'' with the Taliban and other terrorists in one province along the Afghan border and agreed to slash military patrols in areas with a substantial al Qaeda presence.

At the same time, Pakistan's military dictator, General Musharraf, has dismissed the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and attempted to introduce restrictions on its television media.

Forty pro-democracy protesters recently killed by security forces; and, since 2001, over 1,000 people have disappeared.

On the other hand, Iraq is the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world. There have been 4 million innocent Iraqis who have been driven from their homes by violence and threats, including tens of thousands who are at risk because they helped the United States.

This humanitarian crisis is rapidly becoming a regional security crisis, as Jordan and Syria are at risk of being destabilized by the millions of Iraqis they have taken in, 2 million Iraqis in Jordan and Syria.

Despite this, efforts to provide assistance in the region are dramatically underfunded. The United States has admitted only 70 refugees since October, only one in April and one in May. It is not getting better. It is getting worse. I think this is a blot on Congress as well as the administration, turning its back on these refugees.

Adding $50 million in Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance will allow assistance to reach more displaced Iraqis and help mitigate the impacts of the refugee crisis on other countries in the Middle East. This amendment offered by Mr. McDermott, Mr. Crowley and myself has the support of the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Refugees International, the U.S.-India PAC, the U.S.-India Business Alliance and others who are deeply concerned about this humanitarian crisis.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I voted ``present'' on H. Con. Res. 21 because I believe it dilutes the definition of genocide and would ratchet up tensions with Iran without any likelihood of actually doing anything about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's dangerous anti-Semitism and Iran's ability to inflict harm on Israel. Instead, we need a new framework for relations with Iran that advances our interests and values through engagement and support for the Iranian people. At a time when we haven't dealt meaningfully with the serious and ongoing genocide in Darfur, I am not convinced it advances our long-term interest in strengthening the international legal regime against mass killing by defining another Muslim leader's call for Israel's destruction as genocide.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 17: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, first, let me begin by expressing my deep appreciation to the subcommittee for their work in providing an increase over the President's request for funding base cleanup. And particularly what we're talking about here are the legacy locations, places that have been closed in previous BRAC cycles, 1995, 1993, 1991, 1988. However, as we consider this appropriations act, I am concerned that we continue to dramatically underfund our commitment to communities impacted by these past BRAC rounds.

These communities are ones that have been penalized twice. They are penalized when the base is closed, and second, they are penalized because they are unable to make use of the land left behind because of hazardous contamination caused by unexploded ordnance.

According to the most recent Defense Environmental Programs' annual report, there is an estimated $3.5 billion backlog for environmental cleanup of these bases. This represents over 140,000 acres of land that remain unusable by local communities for economic development across this country.

At the current levels, Mr. Chairman, we are facing people who went through the trauma of base closure in 1988, for instance, in Sacramento; they are going to wait over 60 years to be cleaned up.

I appreciate the words of the subcommittee Chair and ranking member

in terms of what they are trying to do with the difficult issues regarding BRAC, and I appreciate there is a very generous number that have been established, maybe not completely adequate, to try and deal with the people who were just whacked in the last round of closure. But, for heaven's sake, we need to keep our commitments to the communities that have worked in good faith, that had their bases closed 5 years, 10 years, 15 years ago, and still are awaiting our meeting, our commitment to them.

I strongly urge support of the amendment that I have introduced with Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

May I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what my friend from Florida said, and I have no interest in robbing Peter to pay Paul. But let's take it down to a very specific example that you are familiar with in Jacksonville. You had a base closed, Cecil Naval Air Station, in a prior round. Under the current schedule, this facility is not scheduled to be cleaned up until 2026, another 19 years.

Now, you are right, we have put a significant amount of money into the 2005 round of BRAC closures. We put $5 billion in the supplemental. And you have put in this bill which I appreciate, almost $8.2 billion. But where I take modest exception with the gentleman is that you can't spend it. The payout rate is about 10 percent. I am seeking to transfer 2 percent away from areas that you can't spend this year or next year or the year after that.

But I will distribute a list of people who have been waiting in some cases since 1988. They have plans ready to go. They are ready to clean up. If you talk to the companies that are the ordnance contractors, they are ready to go. They will clean this up. But we have got to stop the fits and the starts, where we don't follow through on our commitments.

With all due respect, if I had a facility in the 2005 BRAC cycle, I would like this Congress to start meeting its commitments from 1988 and 1990 and 1992 and 1995, because if we don't, subsequent Congresses are going to play the

same game. Because you can't spend this $13 billion, it will be dragged on and dragged out, and it will ultimately be diverted. Then we will be here, or some of you will be here, 10 years from now, and people will be wondering why the 2005 round of BRAC is waiting, like Mather Air Force Base, for 60 years, or why people in El Toro are waiting for 30 years.

With all due respect, I would hope that the subcommittee would build on its good work, but look at the payout rate for the $13 billion you have for 2005, which we estimate maybe will be spent, 10 percent.

Join with me in shifting a modest 2 percent of that money, so that we can keep our commitments to people who have been waiting since 1988, since 1990, 1993 and 1995.

I deeply appreciate the work that the subcommittee has done, and I appreciate Mr. Edwards, you have been encouraging and helping the work that I have done in the past on this with Mr. Farr. And it is important that you put $50 million in above the administrations request but I hope we can work to keep the commitment to the people.

I think I have 1\1/2\ minutes left?

Mr. Chairman, my Republican cosponsor is stuck in traffic, and I wanted Ginny to have a chance to speak on this. Evidently, she is not going to make it.

Mr. Chairman, I do think this is very important in terms of our keeping our commitments. I appreciate the work that the subcommittee is doing in this broad range of areas, but I would hope that you would work with us, because you cannot spend the $13.5 billion. The adoption of this amendment will have no effect on BRAC cleanup for the 2005 round for years to come, if at all.

But failure, failure for Congress to keep our commitments to these legacy BRAC programs, not only does it penalize these people who have been waiting in line for, in some cases, 19 years, but it makes it more likely, frankly, that people who are in the 2005 cycle are going to end up having Congress do to them what pass Congresses have done to the legacy BRAC.

I appreciate the work of the subcommittee, and I look forward to working with you, and echo my friend from California that it would be the worst of all possible worlds if somehow the next amendment, taking money away from these critical bases, was somehow diverted for another use. But I hope that we spare ourselves that problem by adopting the amendment before us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I am really bitterly disappointed that we would have somebody come before us to break the commitment that we have to the previous BRAC- round cleanups, communities across the country who are going to wait up to 60 years to have their bases cleaned up, to take that funding and further reduce it. I think this is a very cruel cut.

If you wanted to do something, you've got $13 billion in the 2005 BRAC account that is only going to be spent a maximum of 10 percent. Why in heaven's name would we reach back and penalize people who have been waiting in some cases since 1988 to have the Federal Government keep its commitment to base closure and cleanup. I think this is cruel. I think it is unjustified. I think that it is unfair to make these communities that have dealt with unexploded ordnances and military toxins and have land that is not available for reuse and penalize them for a small amount of veterans health.

I respectfully request that we reject this amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 19: Page 10, line 17, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

Page 10, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $201,000,000)''.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to close the ``Hummer Tax Loophole,'' which fixes a serious mistake in the Tax Code that provides an additional incentive for business purchases of luxury SUVs weighing over 6,000 pounds, such as the Hummer. This legislation is co-sponsored by my colleagues Ed Markey, Rahm Emanuel, and Allison Schwartz.

The tax code allows small businesses to get a tax break for vehicles they use in business. In 1984, a limitation was put in place to make sure businesses didn't just buy luxury vehicles and write them off. These vehicles were described as under 6,000 lbs because, at that time, luxury vehicles over 6,000 lbs were not as pervasive. Today, there are many luxury SUVs that are more than 6,000 lbs, such as the BMW X5, the Hummer H1 and H2, and the Cadillac Escalade. Buying these vehicles entitles small businesses to an extra tax break, which constitutes the loophole.

This legislation closes the Hummer Tax Loophole by applying the limitation that currently applies to vehicles under 6,000 pounds to those over 6,000 lbs. In other words, businesses will no longer have an incentive to buy the biggest, most gas guzzling SUV on the market. Legislative language and regulations would guarantee that the limitation not apply to trucks or vans used for legitimate business purposes, such as farm vehicles, fork lifts, cranes and derricks, school buses, flatbed trucks, cement mixers, and other vehicles as designated by the IRS.

This bill will make sure that U.S. tax policy no longer encourages the purchase of the heaviest, most polluting, and least fuel-efficient vehicles for business use.

Madam Speaker, as we consider the FY 2008 Military Constructions Appropriations Act, I am concerned that we are significantly under funding our commitment to clean up communities impacted by base closures in the past. There is an estimated $3.5 billion backlog of environmental cleanup at bases closed during the previous BRAC rounds. Unfortunately, the funding levels in this bill are not enough to make a dent in cleaning up bases closed in previous BRAC rounds.

The bill does include significant funding to deal with cleanup at bases closed in the 2005 BRAC round. The irony is that the new round of BRAC has so much money appropriated that current outlays will spend less than 10% in the upcoming fiscal year of its budget authority while in the same vein the Legacy BRAC account will be spending nearly half of its budget authority in the same fiscal year. I appreciate that there is an increase above the President's budget for this effort, but it is simply not enough to make up for past years of Congress abrogating its responsibility of environmental restoration of past BRAC rounds.

Communities across the nation have waited decades for remediation and at the current levels of funding will have to wait for over 40 years before the job is done. In order to address this problem, I am submitting the following amendment with my colleague Congresswoman Brown-Waite in order to properly finish the job of environmental clean up at former military bases before we can fully address a new round of cleanup.

The amendment I am offering decreases by $201,000,000 the Base Realignment and Closure Account 2005 account and increases the Base Realignment and Closure Account 1990 by $50,000,000 in order to work towards this goal. CBO has scored this amendment as outlay neutral.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 2: Under the heading ``Base Realignment and

Closure Account 1990'', insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

Under the heading ``Base Realignment and Closure Account

2005'', insert after the dollar amount the following:

``(reduced by $201,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I support S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, because it is a critical advancement in scientific research. The medical possibilities from stem cells continue to excite the scientific community, holding great promise for therapies to alleviate human suffering from diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and cancer. Perhaps no area provides more potential to revolutionize the lives of Americans than the ability to avoid or cure debilitating diseases. It is time for the Federal government to be a full partner in the critical advancement of stem cell research.

This legislation enables scientists to pursue research in a responsible, ethical manner, through the utilization of the 400,000 surplus embryos currently frozen in storage at fertilization clinics across the U.S. The strict confines of this legislation present no threat to the sanctity of human life. I strongly concur with the National Institute for Health Director's statement that it is in the best interests of our scientists, our science, and our country to pursue all aspects of stem cell research--both adult and embryonic--to the fullest extent.

Mr. Speaker, Congress is in the process of updating the Nation's agricultural policy for the first time since 2002 to see if it can serve the interests of all America's farmers and ranchers. This is more than a farm bill, it is a food bill as well. Everyone who eats is affected by our food and farm policy.

Michael Pollan explained how the farm bill is the reason that a package of Twinkies, which contains 39 complex ingredients, costs less than a bunch of carrots straight from the farm. The farm bill should serve all Americans, not just a few special interests.

Today, 70 percent of the payments go to the richest 10 percent of the farmers, while 60 percent of America's farmers and ranchers get no support whatsoever.

It is time for a food and farm bill of rights that provides a comprehensive guide to reform the farm bill. We must move beyond the policies that were written for the Depression or the 1950s to one designed for the world we live in today; and, more important, the world we want to live in tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, if there's been any good news on the Middle East peace process over the last 7 years, it's that barriers to ending the conflict are less about final-status issues and more about the challenge of reaching the outcome that majorities on both sides know will be necessary: an independent Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, living side by side with Israel in peace, with a shared Jerusalem and a negotiated solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Against that backdrop, it is unclear to me what good comes from passing a resolution which would place Congress out of step with large parts of the Israeli political spectrum.

This resolution is disconnected from the reality on the ground. At a time of rocket attacks in Sderot, retaliations in Gaza, and renewed fears of war between Israel and Syria, it is, at a minimum, inappropriate for either the United States Congress or the Bush administration to stand in the way of whatever moves for peace Israel may choose to make, yet that is exactly what this resolution does. We should be more engaged at promoting a return to a peace process, not less, and we should be encouraging compromise, not intransigence on the difficult issues.

Jerusalem is Israel's capital and a city of unmatched significance for the Jewish people. I will never forget my first morning in Israel and what it was like to go on a run around the Old City. However, I must oppose a resolution that reaffirms the need to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem prior to a peace agreement because, as both Presidents Clinton and Bush have recognized, this harms our efforts at diplomacy and, therefore, the security of Israel and the United States. Instead, we should keep faith with the Biblical injunction to ``pray for the peace of Jerusalem,'' reject this senseless resolution, and recommit our support for serious efforts at peace in the Middle East and security for Israel.

Madam Speaker, today, Representative Ramstad and I are introducing legislation that revises the Internal Revenue Code, IRC, to treat pet trusts in a similar manner as charitable remainder annuity trusts, CRATs. It will allow estates and donors with CRATs with a pet, or its guardian as

a beneficiary, to receive a charitable deduction for the remainder interest when the trust is established. The bill provides a tax incentive for people to arrange for long-term care of their pets, which will result in a reduction of society's burden in caring for ``unwanted'' dogs and cats after the guardian dies.

Currently 39 States and the District of Columbia allow pet trusts, which is a specific legal arrangement providing for the care of companion animals in the event of the guardian's death or incapacitation. When the pet passes, the remainder of the trust is then distributed to one or more pre-designated charities. Recognition of these trusts by the Federal Tax Code will allow for long-term planning of care for pets, as well as encourage people to engage in charitable giving. The legislation bears no cost burden for the Federal Government and brings relief to animal lovers and shelters alike.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Congress is poised to approve a short-term funding proposal for Iraq without strong conditions to phase down this war. I, for one, will not vote for it. But the sad fact is that we don't yet have a majority in this House to end the war.

Yet it is hardly a victory for the Bush administration. Congressional support is slowly crumbling, even among Republicans, as the politicians are catching up to where most Americans are on this war.

I would urge people not to be discouraged by the vote today, but to keep up their spirits and their pressure. Americans will be heard, and this nightmare will end.

Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 2316 and 2317--bills that significantly reform the lobbyist-lawmaker relationship for the better. By opening the lobbying process to greater oversight, we will reaffirm our commitment to accountability and transparency in Congress. Although I am deeply frustrated that stronger reform measures were abandoned, I believe this pair of bills represents an essential step toward a more honest and open government.

Earlier this year, my colleague Greg Walden and I reintroduced H.R. 1136, the ``Ethics Reform Act of 2007,'' with provisions that tighten lobbyist disclosure and reporting. I am pleased to see similar provisions--such as quarterly disclosure requirements, electronic filing, and a public database of disclosure data--in H.R. 2316.

I am also pleased to see increased gift restrictions, tightened reporting requirements, and stiffened noncompliance penalties included in these bills. These are critical components of effective lobbying reform whose adoption will help to clearly delineate an appropriate boundary between lobbyists and lawmakers.

However, I must also voice a deep concern: these bills do not go far enough. The Senate easily passed--by 96-2--a more stringent bill which included stricter penalties and tighter lobbying restrictions on Members of Congress and their families. The House, in contrast, weakened the lobbyist, ``cool-off'' period in H.R. 2316. We can, and must, do better. With the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, I look forward to improving these bills in conference.

Madam Speaker, I do not support the motion to table the Resolution regarding Representative Murtha. My vote is not a statement of judgment on the allegations since I don't know the facts about what happened, and that's exactly the point. The issue deserved debate or a referral to the Ethics Committee. If Tom DeLay had been accused of threatening a Democrat on the House floor, I would expect the same. A discussion of a potential violation of House Rules is in order if we are going to be the most ethical and transparent Congress in history.