Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy for permitting me to speak on this bill.

In a prior life, I spent 10 years administering programs like this with the city of Portland. Our community is like many around the country that have, as the gentleman from New York referenced, sophisticated planning and zoning regulations. These are elements that are developed as a result of local community pressure to balance interests.

I find no small amount of irony that some of these friends of ours who think that the courts are not capable of ruling on marriage want to strip away the powers of the Federal court to deal with issues of the Pledge of Allegiance, who all of the sudden want to overrule over a century of development that deals with planning and zoning in this country.

There are appeals that take place each and every day from coast to coast in almost every State of the Union where people have some differences of opinion. There are elaborate mechanisms that deal with local appeals, where there is negotiation that takes place between the development community, the local officials, planning and zoning boards that end up giving something that makes sense for the community, makes sense for the developer, makes sense for the protection of the environment and health and development standards.

Under this legislation, one time if a developer does not get what he or she wants on any meaningful application, whatever that might mean, they can be thrown into the Federal judiciary. I would suggest that there is a reason why the American Planning Association, Defenders of Wildlife, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Natural Resource Defense Council, the League of Cities, the people who are dealing with how to make communities more livable and to make them work, are opposed to this legislation.

This has, as has been pointed out, nothing to do with Kelo. These are areas where reasonable exercise of the planning mechanisms over 33 States have developed from coast to coast trying to look at the big picture and trying to balance it.

This is a stealth attack on what communities are trying to do to equip people to be able to deal with the consequences of growth and development pressures and what we learn on an ongoing basis about the impacts environmentally and in terms of better ways of being able to accomplish objectives in the development community.

I would respectfully suggest that it is far better to allow this process to work rather than trying to drag the Federal courts into it unnecessarily.

Mr. Speaker, from hurricanes and floods in Latin America to earthquakes in Asia, natural disasters are increasingly becoming a regular feature of life for large numbers of people around the globe. By 2050, two billion people are expected to be especially vulnerable to floods due to growing populations, indiscriminate logging on hillsides, rapid urbanization, and increasing development along coasts and in other hazardous regions.

Thankfully, as I have seen on trips to disaster-affected area, the devastating impacts of natural disasters can be mitigated by building in safer locations, constructing sturdier dwellings, enforcing sound building practices, and protecting natural ecosystems. For example, communities in Indonesia that had intact mangrove stands along their coastlines were protected from the full force of the December 2004 tsunami and faced less damage and fewer lives lost. In many Indonesian towns, the only buildings left standing were the mosques, having been built to a higher standard.

In 2004, the United States spent $529 million responding to disasters in foreign countries, making us the largest donor for disaster relief, recovery, and rehabilitation. However, according to a study by the WorId Bank and the United States Geological Survey, during the 1990s, $40 billion invested globally in preventive measures could have saved $280 billion in disaster relief funds and saved countless lives.

To address these issues, Mr. Burton and I are introducing the International Disaster Risk Reduction Act. This bill promotes the use of disaster mitigation efforts in foreign countries, authorizes assistance to help in those efforts, and requires that U.S. disaster relief efforts help make communities less vulnerable to future disasters.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop this charade on immigration. Since the Republican leadership is unable to reach an agreement with its members, or even their Republican president, they have become more interested in producing harsh rhetoric and meaningless acts than passing comprehensive and realistic immigration reform.

The House and Senate have each passed their respective bills. It is past time to convene a conference committee to reconcile these bills. Both chambers must work together to reach an agreement that produces true immigration reform instead of wasting its time harassing immigrants and local businesses and passing meaningless provisions that have little chance of becoming law.

Mr. Speaker, we have elevated to an art form here in Congress dancing around serious issues and avoiding our congressional responsibilities. Torture is a case in point, not extreme interrogation, but let's call it what it is: torture.

At the same time the President was asking Congress to rubber-stamp his policies of torture, the military was saying that torture does not give good information, and they were against it. Torture puts our troops at risk in giving our enemies the green light to torture our people. Torture lowers our image, our moral standing around the world.

In yesterday's headlines across America and across the world, there was the story of the Canadian citizen we kidnapped and we sent to Syria, a country on our terrorist watch list, so he could be tortured. His ordeal did not end for a year. Three years later, he is walking around a free man, never charged and Congress, spineless, has not taken action to stop this barbaric, illegal and immoral practice. It is time for us, as we stumble towards adjournment, to deal with something meaningful, investigate this outrage, and legislate protections.

Mr. Speaker, three months ago we stood on this floor debating the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (H.R. 9) in an effort to make sure elections are fair, that every vote is counted, and that people have equal access to the polls. Yet today we are faced with the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 (HR 4844) which would directly disenfranchise people of color, rural voters, young people, low-income people, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.

At a time of decreased voter participation, it seems unwarranted to impose extraneous burdens on eligible citizens who want to participate in the democratic process. The identification requirements imposed by this legislation serve as a strong reminder of the poll taxes imposed by many Southern states in the 1950s to prevent poor and black Americans from voting.

According to the Department of Transportation, currently 6-12 percent of eligible voters do not have the proper identification mandated by this legislation. Acquiring the required documents places a huge time and financial burden on those least able to afford. For instance, a U.S. passport costs approximately $85, while replacing naturalization documents can cost up to $210.

This legislation creates an outrageous burden on my state of Oregon. In 1998, Oregon voters passed an initiative requiring that all elections be conducted by mail. Should this bill pass, our voters would be required to photocopy their identification every time they wanted to vote which further hampers the accessibility to vote by mail. As for voter fraud, during the last 15 years of general elections over 10 million votes have been cast by Oregon voters and yet only 10 people have met the criteria to warrant an investigation.

This legislation discourages voter participation, many who continue to lose confidence in our electoral system, while enabling voter discrimination in select communities. Overall, this legislation tries to create a solution to a voter fraud problem regarding voter identification that does not exist, while overlooking obvious and real problems.

Just last week during Maryland's primary elections many voters were delayed or turned away. In one county computer cards were not delivered to precinct workers while in another computers incorrectly read party affiliation and could not be tabulated.

Anyone who examined what happened in Ohio last election cycle, including voting problems and potential abuse due to the under funded and ill-thought-out congressional meddling, must wonder what will happen in the 2008 election.

Every American should be alarmed and outraged by Congress indulging in partisan political shenanigans regarding elections rather than implementing long overdue protections for the integrity of the ballot box.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 942, recognizing the centennial anniversary on August 5, 2006, of the Iranian constitution of 1906. I, too, introduced are solution recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution at the same time as Mr. King, H. Res. 967.

The Iranian Constitutional Revolution was a pivotal event in Persian and Middle Eastern history. In the face of a corrupt and authoritarian Qajar monarchy, and in order to defend Persian interests against British and Russian imperialism, the Persian people rose up and forced the creation of a parliament and the adoption of a constitution containing basic democratic rights for the first time in Iranian history.

In this time that the United States faces very serious and difficult issues with regards to Iran, this historic event demonstrates that the Iranian people's long-standing desire for democratic self-government, free from authoritarian rule or foreign interference. I believe that understanding these values common to the Iranian and American peoples, as well as Iran's political history, will help us develop a constructive policy towards Iran. It is also an important sign of support for the Iranian people and our Iranian-American constituents.

Mr. Speaker, today's house bill H.R. 6061 signals a complete abrogation of responsibility on the part of the House Republican leadership. If they were serious about solving the problems of immigration they would not just introduce another bill that will go nowhere in the Senate. They should instead convene a conference committee. The House passed an immigration bill on December 16th, 2005, and the Senate passed its own version 112 days ago. Instead of moving forward to have a serious discussion to resolve policy differences, they have ground the legislative process to a halt and engaged in acts of political theater.

The most notable of these acts was the series of well-publicized pretend hearings around the country, which were designed to score media points and not resolve differences to move the legislation forward. The introduction and passage of this border security legislation is the latest in a line of political acts. Rather than continue this game, the majority leadership should be willing to move forward in an honest effort to resolve differences and pass a real bill.

Questions of border security and immigration reform should be dealt with in a very serious manner. By choosing to play politics with an important and sensitive issue we are just breeding more cynicism on the part of the American public and making scapegoats out of both undocumented immigrants as well as the many who are here legally and are feeling increasingly uncomfortable because of this polarization.

Fortunately, the American public will have a say in November and have a chance to vote for new leadership and bring an end to the charade surrounding immigration and border security reform.

Mr. Speaker, hard on the heels of the anniversary of 9/11, instead of dealing meaningfully with the concerns of the American people, like immigration and the economy, instead the House deals with horse slaughter rules and Indian gaming. There is no meaningful action or even debate on how the Bush administration's war of choice has left Iraq in shambles and civil war.

North Korea and Iran are more threatening and dangerous than when labeled the ``Axis of Evil.''

We are losing ground to the Taliban in Afghanistan, where the NATO commander cannot even get the troops he says he needs.

Independent polls show America's standing in the world at the lowest ever recorded.

The good news is that there will be a chance in November's election where we will be able to not just send a message but change the leadership here in the House and start a new direction for America

Mr. Speaker, extreme care should be exercised when Congress legislates in areas affecting tribal sovereignty and issues important to Native Americans.

It is troubling that H.R. 4893 comes to the House floor under a suspension of the rules, which implies the bill is non-controversial and is one which has consensus support and no need of extensive debate or modification.

This is not the case with this attempt to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Gaming Association, and several tribes in the State of Oregon have expressed their opposition. The rules suspension does not permit Congress to debate potential changes and indeed all debate is severely limited.

I am deeply concerned that any changes to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act be carefully considered and fair and balanced for all parties involved. Sadly, this proposal does not meet that test.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 994 states that America is safer today than it was on September 11th, 2001. This is hardly clear considering that the 9/11 Commission has given failing grades to how the government has responded to security needs.

Today, NATO lacks the troop strength in Afghanistan to combat the Taliban along the southern region. Today, we continue to fight a war of choice in Iraq longer than we have fought World War II. Today, 2,673 soldiers have died while our military continues to be stretched. And, today, Iran and North Korea continue to develop their nuclear technology unabated.

Here at home the situation is also troubling. Instead of debating any meaningful legislation for the American people, we spend our time debating things such as Horse Slaughter and Indian Gaming. We have yet to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations such as improving emergency communication technology that directly led to the deaths of many of our brave first responders on that sad day. Instead, the Majority party prefers to attempt to score some political points rather than doing the job the American people have sent us here to accomplish.

Today's resolution should have been a bi-partisan effort to honor those who died and the family and friends they left behind. Sadly though, the Majority party has made it yet another day of divisive politics.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the people of Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in Portland on their

Centennial Celebration. Holy Redeemer has long held a place in my heart, and I have been honored to represent the people and parish for nearly 30 years. Holy Redeemer is well known for its positive contributions to the neighborhood and the residents of North and Northeast Portland. Since 1906, the church has been a community anchor and a center of education, spiritual support, justice to all people, and good works.

Catholic education has played an important role in Oregon, and more children have graduated from Holy Redeemer School than any other Catholic grade school in Oregon. The gift of education liberates people and in turn has made Portland and Oregon better communities. We owe thanks to the founding priests and brothers of the Redemptorist Order, the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, thousands of parishioners, and now the Congregation of Holy Redeemer Catholic Church for making my Congressional District and all of Oregon a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my concern with two bills to be considered under the suspension of the rules today: H.R. 138 and H.R. 479. These two bills would remove land from the Coastal Barrier Resources System, CBRS.

Created by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, CBRA, CBRS is a Reagan-era free-market conservation program that denies Federal subsidies to development in certain coastal areas. It was created with three goals: to reduce risk to people and property, to discourage development in ecologically sensitive coastal barrier islands, and to save taxpayers from having to pay for building and rebuilding in high- risk areas. The program included 450,000 acres of coastal barrier islands in 1982 and was expanded to nearly 1.3. million acres in 1990. A unique program, CBRA doesn't preclude development; it just ensures that the Federal Government does not subsidize construction in inherently risky, environmentally fragile areas. This has been a highly successful program: a 2002 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report estimated that the CBRS will save taxpayers more than $1.2 billion by 2010. In addition, at a time when our Nation has been losing our precious, fragile coastal ecosystems at an alarming rate to both development and coastal erosion, this program has discouraged development in those areas.

I believe that Congress should be working to expand this highly successful program and using its free-market approach as a model for other legislation. This is why I am disappointed that during my time in Congress I have only seen us moving in the wrong direction. The program has been slowly experiencing death by a thousand cuts. It has been more than 15 years since Congress added land to the system, and each Congress brings another set of technical corrections that remove acreage from the program. Even though most of these ``boundary adjustments'' are small, much of the land is ecologically significant.

I hope that my colleagues will join me during the next session of Congress in looking for ways to improve and expand federal programs to discourage development in ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas. Unfortunately, it appears that we have chosen to observe the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, a painful reminder of the dangers of development in disaster-prone areas, by weakening a program that has been proven to save lives, money, and the environment.

Mr. Speaker, after 5 years the President who ignored the memo that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States is belatedly taking steps to bring to trial suspected terrorists. Why the sudden change of heart? Well, the public is fed up with the bungling, the secret prisons and torture. The Supreme Court has ruled that the administration's approach was unconstitutional. All of this has created a political tide that has forced the President's hand.

But now is the time for the Congress, which has been asleep at the switch allowing the administration's despicable excesses, to do its job. Instead of rubber stamping the administration's flawed and belated proposal, Congress should do what it should have done in the first place: Ensure that justice is done, the enemies of the United States are punished, and America's tarnished image of justice is restored.

Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the opening of Portland's pioneering MAX--Metropolitan Area Express--one of America's first light-rail lines. Since 1986, MAX has been one of our region's most visible icons of livability--and has served as an inspiration to cities across the Nation and around the world. Instead of building yet another expensive and destructive freeway that would have divided and degraded Southeast Portland, we created MAX and coaxed higher-value investments from Federal transportation dollars. While this was certainly controversial at the time, our decision led to a renaissance for both Gresham and Portland and increased value for our entire region.

This anniversary gives us the opportunity to think about how our current decisions will be celebrated in another 20 years. If we are to continue our success, we must leverage what we've accomplished in the years ahead.

With light-rail, that's exactly what we're doing. In the last 20 years we have built three more extensions: Westside MAX, Airport MAX, and Interstate MAX. We are also hard at work on extending the system to the south and are hopeful that the next project will cross the Columbia River, expanding our regional system to include Vancouver, Washington.

The overwhelming popularity and success of our light-rail system is a testimony to wise investments, meaningful public participation, and regional leadership that took the political risks to make it all come together. The result has been a regional transportation system that truly supports the communities it serves and provides people with reliable and efficient choices to cope with congestion, skyrocketing oil prices, and global warming.

My heartiest congratulations to TriMet, elected officials, business leaders, and citizens throughout the Portland region for this amazing success story.

Mr. Speaker, next month marks the 100th anniversary of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, a pivotal event in Persian and Middle Eastern history. In the face of a corrupt and authoritarian monarchy, and in order to defend Persian interests against British and Russian imperialism, the Persian people rose up and forced the creation of a parliament and the adoption of a constitution containing basic democratic rights for the first time in Iranian history.

To mark these events, I will be introducing a resolution recognizing and honoring the 100th anniversary of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, which I have drafted with the support of leading members of the Iranian-American community and the input of preeminent scholars of modern Iranian history.

At a time when the United States faces very serious and difficult issues with regards to Iran, this historic event demonstrates that the Iranian people have a long-standing desire for democratic self- government, free from authoritarian rule or foreign interference. I believe that understanding these values common to the Iranian and American peoples, as well as Iran's political history, will help us develop a constructive policy towards Iran. It is also an important sign of support for the Iranian people and our Iranian-American constituents.