Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the cost of the war in Iraq climbs past $300 billion, and there are estimates that suggest the total financial cost will far exceed $1 trillion, there is another cost that is less measurable but no less significant: that is the stress on the military itself and the consequences for our fighting men and women, for innocent Iraqis, and the capacity of our Armed Forces far into the future.

The Pentagon has announced that the Army has met its recruiting goals for the 13th consecutive month, but we are seeing an erosion in the quality of recruits in our Armed Forces as more and more young Americans who disagree with what we are doing in Iraq have chosen to stay away. In order to meet recruiting targets, the Army has relaxed restrictions against high school dropouts and have started letting in more applicants who score in the lowest third on the Armed Forces aptitude test, a group known as category 4 recruits. Since the mid 1980s, category 4 recruits were kept, as a matter of policy, to less than 2 percent of all recruits. But by the end of 2005, the percentage of recruits who fell under this lowest category has reached double digits.

In my district, not only has the Army lowered its standards but recruiters have been pushed to violate the remaining standards in order to meet these recruiting targets. We have had two examples of where autistic young men have been recruited into the Army despite the regulations. As I have discussed on the floor of the House how outrageous this was, indeed, one of these young men did not even know that there was a war going on in Iraq. This all has terrible consequences for our efforts against the global war on terror.

This weekend's papers were full of articles and editorials about the role that our lowered recruiting standards may have played in the recent spate of reports of servicemembers being accused of atrocities in Iraq. What does this tell us about our efforts to eliminate the insurgency and win the hearts and minds of people in the Middle East?

We must also consider the long-term cost to our national security and to the military itself. These lower standards are impacting the Army's capacities and will continue to do so for at least a generation into the future.

There was a RAND Corporation study last fall that showed replacing a gunner who had scored 3A on the aptitude test with one who scored that category 4 that I mentioned a moment ago, reduced the chances of hitting targets by 34 percent. In another study, 84 three-man teams from the Army's active duty signal battalions were given the task of making a communications system operational, what you need to do in a theater of battle. Teams consisting of the category 3A had a 67 percent chance of succeeding. Those with category 4 personnel had only a 29 percent chance. More than two-thirds to barely more than a quarter.

There is also damage to the reputation of the good name of the United States military. We are intensely proud of the young men and women who have served under such difficult circumstances. It is not fair for their hard work and heroic efforts to be tainted by the action of others or for their job to be made more difficult or more dangerous due to substandard soldiers who are finding their way into the Armed Forces. When we lower recruitment standards or recruit those who have no business in the military at all, the consequences will be felt by our military in Iraq today and by the entire Nation for years to come.

One of the reasons it is imperative to have a sensible plan to scale down and transition our activities in Iraq, handing them over to the Iraqis, themselves, is to stop this erosion of our military capacity that has occurred because of the sadly inept management of the occupation by this administration and the Secretary of Defense. There was never a doubt about our winning the war in Iraq. They just weren't prepared to win the peace.

Our young men and women in the armed services deserve for us to get it right, because their lives are at stake. And we owe it to every American, because there are dangerous people around the world and the integrity of the military is critical to our fight to protect America.

Thank you.

I appreciate the tone of my friend, the gentleman from Hawaii, but I think it is time for us, instead of having a collection of proposals that are basically an attractive grab bag politically engineered that has some attractive provisions, there is a provision in there that is very attractive to me that deals with rural education.

I think it is important that, instead, we deal with this in a thoughtful, comprehensive fashion that doesn't entail the costs of hundreds of billions of dollars off the top, that doesn't have a lop- sided process in favor of drilling pristine areas and biased against protection, making it harder to protect.

There are technical items in here about calculation of oil shale royalties. These are provisions nobody in the House of Representatives fully understands. That bears more scrutiny.

The notion of allowing oil equipment to remain out there in the ocean and not being removed under current law is not necessarily of an environmentally benign era. Environmentalists are very concerned. I would reject this politically engineered energy grab bag and work together on a policy that is safe, economical and will happen sooner.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the rule, and I appreciate her interest in dealing with these sensitive issues, given the district that she represents. It was my privilege to have worked with her husband on some of these in the past, and I appreciate her following through, because it is critical to people in the greater Sacramento area.

As we have seen outside our window here in Washington, DC, it is critical to people around the country because flooding is not just something that occurs in storm-racked coastal areas or immediately adjacent to rivers. What we are finding is that there can be flash floods in deserts. We are seeing throughout a four-state region now the havoc that can be wreaked given torrential rain, having the ground soaked, having development that has taken away the natural absorptive capacity as wetlands disappear. This is an issue that everybody needs to be concerned about.

I appreciate the words of the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, who has been focusing in a laser-like fashion, on these issues, along with the Chair, Mr. Oxley. We are seeing more progress that has been made in this area in the last 3 years, frankly, than we saw with the late Hale and Lindy Boggs, when the program was first set up. And it is important.

We are talking about areas now in the aftermath of Katrina where people understand, for the first time, the issues. The rule that has been offered up, one where we are going to have a number of amendments in order, which is going to permit an opportunity for us to deal with some serious legislation to try and teach one another about this issue, and to make it better over the long term.

One of the fundamental issues that is going to come up throughout the rules that are before us is who is going to be subsidized under this program. There are those who feel that, well, frankly, we shouldn't rigorously impose the flood insurance program. We shouldn't try to expand the net for people that are involved. We shouldn't make sure that people have flood insurance.

Well, frankly, I think history has shown in the last year that we do people no favors by not having an effective flood insurance program, by not helping people prepare; indeed, to the contrary. What we are doing is we are encouraging more people to be in harm's way. We are allowing some people to

avoid flood insurance, and we are shifting the burden on those who are responsible flood insurance policy-holders.

If we are able to avoid a single 10% unnecessary rate increase, this ripples across to save $150 to $200 million for 4 million policy- holders. It is a savings that is compounded over time. So it is $150 to $200 million each and every year.

Now, part of the problem of having people who should have flood insurance avoid that responsibility, and we are finding that there are almost a half million properties, vacation homes, second homes, commercial properties, that don't have flood insurance. What that does is that transfers the burden to those that do. It artificially inflates the rate that others pay inequitably.

In addition, it poses a problem because those people that don't have flood insurance that should, well, frankly, it tugs at our heart strings, and we come forward with aid to try and help people after the fact. We are spending billions of dollars that could have been avoided if we had been dealing with an effective flood insurance program, and if we would have implemented some of the initiatives that we brought forward for mitigation to prevent flood damage in the first place.

So, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be involved with the debate today. I join my colleague, Mr. Frank, in thanking the Rules Committee for allowing a full and vigorous debate. I hope we see more. This shouldn't be the exception. I hope it becomes a pattern.

This is one of those issues that is not partisan. It is not geographical. It is not philosophical. It is one of the things that simply good government, hard legislating, will benefit from a full and vigorous debate on the floor of the House, and I look forward to being a part of it.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, and for his leadership, along with the chairman, Mr. Oxley, and my friend, Mr. Baker. This is truly important bipartisan legislation to address the flood insurance program's challenges both in the short term and the long term.

I strongly support this legislation and appreciate the willingness of the committee staff to work with people outside the committee to be a part of the process. Those of us here on the floor have known for a long time that the flood insurance program, while an invaluable asset to communities in the floodplain, is not functioning as originally designed. Hurricane Katrina taught us we cannot just let the status quo continue, or the flood insurance program will cease to function. It will be in bankruptcy or people will lose their tolerance for Federal bailouts.

This bill is an excellent start, but you can be guaranteed that it is not the last time we will be talking about these changes on the floor. There are differing views about what needs to be done. Some have recommended making the program actuarially sound, and I agree with those measures. But one thing we have learned from Mr. Baker and from Mr. Taylor is that we have to be sensitive to the people who live in flood-prone areas. They are not just statistics of repetitive flooding, and they are rarely homeowners who are gaming the system. These are people caught up in the cycle of flooding and rebuilding who want to take steps to reduce their vulnerability.

In 2004, we did pass a bill to provide mitigation assistance to severe repetitive-loss property owners. We found that these repetitively flooded properties, which constitute just 1 percent of all the properties in the program, accounted for 25 percent of the flood loss dollars. Addressing these properties, we wanted to help move people out of harm's way, either literally, by buying them out, or helping them take mitigation actions, such as elevation.

Unfortunately, the repetitive-loss pilot project in the 2004 bill had not been fully implemented and we were not able to see the positive impacts before Hurricane Katrina. That is why I am glad the bill before us extends the pilot program so that it will have a chance to work. It also goes further to strengthen the flood insurance program and make it more fiscally sound over the next 50 years.

Some have argued that all properties owners who enjoy artificially low flood insurance rates should be required to pay actuarial rates. This would increase the premium enough to make the program more actuarially sound, saving $1.3 billion. But while I agree the program should move closer to risk-based rates, the response of policyholders to the loss of the subsidy is unclear.

The CBO estimates that some would reduce their amount of coverage or drop flood insurance all together. Many of these subsidized properties are second homes or vacation homes, and the legislation addresses these and I think is a good compromise. Phasing in risk-based rates for second homes will also ensure that families in New Orleans and Mississippi and other flood-prone areas that rely on flood insurance won't be forced to pay artificially high rates to subsidize somebody's second home or vacation home.

The bill also helps encourage participation in the program. Many people living in the floodplains do not have flood insurance now. Less than 40 percent of the property owners who are required to buy insurance actually do so.

In parts of Mississippi and Alabama, hit hardest by Katrina, the coverage rate was only 15 percent. That means that people did not have access to insurance payouts to make them whole, and they are relying on grants and loans from the disaster relief programs that are paid by the taxpayer.

The challenge is figuring out how to make sure that more people who are supposed to have flood insurance do so, and this bill helps the situation by increasing the penalties levied for nonenforcement of Federal mandatory purchase requirements.

It also includes an important study on how to better enforce mandatory flood insurance.

The bill also addresses the inaccuracy and inadequacy of flood insurance maps. We are going to talk a little about this later in the day.

Current flood insurance is required only where there is a 1 percent chance of a flood on an annual basis and not in other low-lying areas where surges are likely to follow major storms. Many of the people who flooded in Katrina did not technically live in the floodplain. They were out of this 100-year cycle, or they lived behind levees and did not realize they should have flood insurance.

These updated maps are important, because FEMA uses them to issue flood elevation requirements. Communities want to have the confidence that their residents are paying the right amount for flood insurance, and we should be loathe to tinker with that.

In addition to directing FEMA to develop more sophisticated maps, this legislation authorizes FEMA to study the implications of requiring flood insurance behind the levees. This is a very important part of the bill. I don't think it has been given the proper attention by more of us in Congress. I hope that we will move towards requiring flood insurance for those situations.

The saying goes, there are only two kinds of levees, those that fail and those that will fail. But this study moves us in the right direction.

While this bill, I think, sets the stage, for moving us in the right direction, simple, common-sense steps strengthen the program and bring together a vast, diverse range of people, from environmentalists to fiscal conservatives, people in real estate, and most important, most important, people whose lives we saw torn apart living in flood-prone areas.

I deeply appreciate the work of this committee and our colleagues in making important steps that are going to make a difference for people for generations to come.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the amendment.

Let me say, I appreciate the intent that is offered by the sponsors of this amendment. I was prepared, however, to argue rather strongly in opposition in terms of the reimbursement mechanism that was involved, but I understand that that has been stripped out and it is now just purely a notification. While I am hopeful that, as this works its way through the process, we can deal with making sure that the notification process doesn't get in the way of trying to move this in an orderly fashion, I am not prepared to demand a rollcall or be cranky about it, because I do think you have adjusted your amendment so that it loses its onerous nature in the way that it was originally filed.

I appreciate the direction you are going and would look forward to working with the gentlemen to make sure that this furthers the public notification but does not bog down the process unnecessarily. As I say, I appreciate the direction that you are going.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I personally feel more comfortable about that. I didn't know it when I claimed time in opposition because I had some outdated information. I didn't realize how fast this legislative train was rolling, but I feel better now.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield myself 3 minutes.

Let me say, I appreciate the gentleman's deep interest in making sure that we are moving forward with reform in the flood insurance program and that we are dealing with some of the idiosyncratic ways that there are some folks that never get out of being an exception. With all due respect, that the approach that has been adopted by the committee is one that over the long run is going to be the most advantageous.

I share your concern, but as I have been working with the floodplain managers from the various States around the country, the people on the ground are concerned about the impact that the rapid movement towards dealing with these other subsidized residential properties would have. There is a very real problem because a lot of these properties do change hands frequently, in knowing what the impact is, and that many people would end up not seeking subsidized property, that communities may opt out, all this could end up being counterproductive. Particularly as it relates to the area, and again I referenced in my opening comments being sensitized by Mr. Taylor and by Mr. Baker, about some of the practical realities, particularly for low-income communities. While it seems that this would be a way to phase it in only when the property changes hands, this would have the practical effect of discounting the value overnight to the people who own these properties, many of whom may be low income. So it would depress the price of the homes that they own because the seller would be subjected to the higher premium.

You and I know that in the long run that is a more rational policy for the taxpayer and for the people who hold those policies, but there is a psychology that is at work with some communities and with some owners and it may well be counterproductive.

So, with all due respect, I would suggest that what we ought to be doing is looking for ways to phase it in over time with these communities, that we deal with emphasizing mitigation like we had in the 2004 legislation, because I fear there may be a double whammy, where communities are less interested in participating and that you may be penalizing some of the very low-income property owners in a way that I don't think any of us want.

So while I sympathize with the approach, while I applaud the committee for advancing the boundaries, this is one area where I would suggest that this, what looks like a simple phase-in, actually may not be a simple phase-in and may have unintended consequences.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. I have spent the last 6 years trying to inject some fiscal responsibility into the program. I have supported the work that the committee has done. But along the way, I have been sensitized to some of the impacts that we don't want to have that are unintended in terms of discouraging participation.

So as you are working with the committee in terms of refining this, I would hope that there would be some sensitivity, if this amendment passes, to the impact on low income.

For instance, one of the unintended consequences may be driving people who are in this circumstance to be seeking financing from sub prime lenders there by avoiding flood insurance, by very expensive financing mechanisms. It ought to go hand in hand with what we do in terms of having more mandatory coverage so there aren't people that are sort of drifting along, and that it doesn't have unintended consequences for having people and communities opt out, or for low- income people, being unduly disadvantaged. I sympathize with what you are saying, and I would be happy to work with you as well.

This is not a unique circumstance. What is happening is that, when you have a situation where development that might be federally financed, it might be a freeway project, it might be something in a military base, it might be something in a flood control, that changes the circumstance that results in people being in a flood plain.

Mr. Frank's point is that, regardless of the program, are you going to have the Federal Government somehow pay, are you going to stick four million flood insurance premium payers to pay the cost of the military or of the Corps of Engineers or of the road project? His point is, you shouldn't stick four million innocent flood insurance premium payers.

If you want to set a standard that the Federal Government will pay for these, then go ahead and do that. Finance it separately, but don't stick innocent people who have flood insurance..

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Part of what I find a little ironic is the notion that these flood levels will never increase for the lakes. I have heard already in the last 24 hours here in Washington, D.C. as people say, ``my basement has never flooded before''. Welcome to the world of flood management.

The Gentlewoman referenced global warming. We don't know where we are going in terms of melting the ice caps. But the point is, we don't have to get that far into the future and invoke former Vice President Al Gore.

We are not treating anybody unfairly under the mapping program. The National Flood Insurance Program is a voluntary program. If a community really feels that the building insurance requirements are too burdensome, they don't have to participate. Participation in the NFIP and its requirements is not a malicious financial burden on communities. It is a privilege that provides the community with the resources it needs to protect itself from floods.

This amendment would have the effect of delaying the implementation of flood maps meant to protect communities and having Congress intervene. And I, with all due respect, think our record in approving projects, we just heard from Mr. Rohrabacher, that actually increased flooding, is not a very strong record. For us to sit in judgment and second guess the experts, I think is wrong. It would be a terrible precedent.

Congress should not be involved with determining flood maps. FEMA determines base flood elevations using widely accepted statistical engineering analysis. Artificially preventing flood elevations from going up would be the same as underestimating flood risks and leading people to build homes that are not safe and putting Congress's stamp of approval.

There is no such thing as zero risk. A property in the 100-year floodplain has a 96 percent chance of being flooded in the next hundred years without global warming. The fact that several years go by without a flood does not change that probability. For example, water levels in the Great Lakes fluctuated. In 1986 the Great Lakes hit their highest levels in recorded history. This could happen again.

Raising the base flood elevations will not impact homes that were built before a revised map was issued. Nothing in the regulations requires a pre-existing home to be upgraded simply because a new map with a higher base flood elevation is produced. Only new buildings and substantially improved buildings that are started after the new maps become effective will be impacted.

We have heard after Katrina hit people were shocked. They didn't think they would be affected. We found out that we haven't done enough to include wide enough areas. This amendment would be a tragic and unnecessary step backwards.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 of the remaining 2 minutes.

The fact that Michigan has paid in more than they have received, or that 10 States have paid in more than they have received during the last 20 years is irrelevant. The point is that it is a flood insurance program. And some years you are going to get more; some years you are going to get less. And you don't look at it over a 10-year or a 20-year program.

We make it as fair as we can, and we look at the probabilities. We need to update all of the floodplain maps so that we minimize any fluctuation. If everybody who was upset that they got back less than they paid in was monkeying around with updating the maps, then the system would be more and more out of whack and there would be more and more inequity.

What we should do is allow FEMA, the Corps of Engineers, to do their job, to update all of the maps and make it fair. Make no mistake, make no mistake; if a tremendous flood comes, people are going to want their help now, and they will understand why they paid a little more at another time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I reserve the right to close.

I yield to the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, in the face of a significant tax problem for a growing number of American families, the soon to be 30 million taxpayers who will be forced to pay the alternative minimum tax unless there is a significant effort to address tax reform, the Republican leadership is again fixating on the inheritance tax. This legacy from Teddy Roosevelt and the progressive era of over a century ago is a tax on significant wealth most often the bulk of which is accumulated capital which had never been taxed in the first place. The outright repeal has actually been opposed by some of America's wealthiest citizens, such as Warren Buffett. Indeed, Bill Gates, Sr., the father of America's richest person--Bill Gates--wrote a book about why the elimination of the inheritance tax was a bad idea.

Since I came to Congress 10 years ago I have been supportive of making sensible reforms to raise the exemption, adjust the rates so that they are more gently graduated like they used to be, and provide deferral for owners of closely held businesses that wanted to continue in operation. Instead of a compromise that would be overwhelmingly supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, the Republican leadership continues to play games with families and businesses with this current bill.

This bill is tantamount to full repeal and will add hundreds of billions of dollars to our national deficit. The cost of H.R. 5638, estimated at $280 billion over 11 years, is 70 percent to 80 percent of the full repeal cost to the national treasury. Like previous legislative proposals to repeal the inheritance tax, this bill is a solution in search of a problem aimed at helping the most well-off Americans while deepening the Federal debt. This is the latest in a long string of fiscally irresponsible moves reflecting the misplaced priorities of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996 even though it was sought by a Democratic administration because I felt that it was unconstitutional and that no president either Republican or Democrat should have the unilateral power to change the law by themself. My reservations were justified when in 1998 the Supreme Court ruled this provision unconstitutional. It would be the height of irony for a Congress that already failed in its constitutional responsibility to check the inappropriate use of Federal power by this administration with a record of the largest deficits in American history to surrender even more authority.

The proposal that is being offered although called a ``line item veto'' is nothing of the sort. While it attempts procedurally to make it easier for the President to eliminate spending, it still may be found unconstitutional. What is especially troubling is the provision that would permit the President to withhold funding for an item in an enacted appropriation bill for up to 90 days regardless of Congressional action. This could have a devastating impact on transportation programs such as Amtrak which the administration has led a crusade to shut it down. Given the precarious financial situation that Amtrak faces, the ability to delay funding for 90 days could have the effect of pushing Amtrak over the edge in leading to its collapse.

Personally, I have been happy to vote against programs I thought were unaffordable as well as go after them on the House floor. During the 109th I have already led efforts with some of my conservative colleagues against wasteful non-priority programs such as the upper Mississippi lock and dam project and costly sugar subsidies. If Congress wants to get serious about fiscal discipline, then a few simple but important steps taken would make a significant difference.

For example, it is long past time to restore the pay-as-you-go budget procedures. This pay-as-you-go concept required Congress and the administration to adopt a sustainable budget policy where money to pay for either new spending programs or costly tax cuts would have to be provided without increasing the deficit. In addition, just letting Congress know what it's voting on would be helpful. The Republican leadership routinely overrides the requirements in our rule that provides for three days to review conference committee reports.

One of the greatest failures of Congress for the 10 years that I have been in office has been its inability to exercise fiscal discipline. During the Bush administration we have seen year after year of record- breaking deficits with the highest increases in over 50 years. If we simply commit to follow our already established rules, we would do more good and pose less harm than the budget fig leaf that is being considered today. This bill is an attempt to disguise the fact that we have a budget problem because of the administration and Republican leadership refusal to do their job and to provide the tools to help the rest of us do ours.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal minimum wage is now the lowest that it has been, adjusted for inflation, in over 50 years. Here in Congress we have not made an adjustment; we have not given the lowest-income, most hard-pressed economic citizens of our country any raise since 1997.

I thought for a moment that there was a glimpse of hope as we have seen a proposal that finally passed in the Appropriations Committee that would have made in order an amendment that would have raised it gradually from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. But now we see this is tied up in partisan politics, and it looks as though the Republican leadership is not going to allow the House of Representatives to vote on giving low-income Americans a salary increase.

Mr. Speaker, in my State of Oregon the voters have gone ahead and passed a statewide initiative that provides an automatic increase in the minimum wage, taking it out of politics. It is supported by our public, it is good for our economy, and it is good for our citizens. I hope we can do the same here in Congress.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Amidst questions of Federal funding and the efficiency of the budget process, there is a unique American success story, where a modest Federal investment has inspired a multibillion-dollar public-private partnership, the majority of the funds actually voluntarily provided by individual citizens supporting local education, cultural, current events, and even emergency information. I am referring, of course, to America's public broadcasting system, where every week more than 87 million Americans tune in to public television, and there are 30 million regular public radio listeners.

In virtually every community across the country, people can tune in to over 1,000 public broadcasting radio and television stations for programs that inform and inspire, for help with reading or job training, for the latest in digital services, for local news and unique information, and for a myriad of other special reasons. Because these local stations determine their own program schedules and often produce their own programming, they respond to community needs and leverage local support.

There has been a key role for us here in Congress. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes an annual appropriation that we provide in accordance with a statutory formula, the vast majority of which goes directly to public radio and television stations.

While this Federal appropriation accounts for only 15 percent of the entire cost of public broadcasting, it leverages critical investments from State and local governments, from universities, businesses, foundations and, most important, those millions of viewers and listeners of public radio and television who provide their voluntary contributions.

Now, this public support from the Federal Government is critical, because it helps fill in gaps in addition to inspiring those partnerships. Make no mistake, if the Federal government reduces or eliminates its support, there will still be public broadcasting in the large metropolitan areas, New York, San Francisco. My hometown of Portland, Oregon, will have public broadcasting.

But what will suffer is not just the quality of the programming, but the expensive service to rural and small town America which cannot generate enough resources to provide its own service. That will suffer.

Sadly, again, this year, public broadcasting is under attack in the appropriations process. One of the most dismaying cuts would be the advance funding program for 2009, ending a 30-year practice. It goes back to 1975, where the Federal Government recognized that the long- term investment in these partnerships require people to be able to plan for the future. So we have provided a cost-free guarantee of future funding. It has provided long-term stability to make this unique partnership work, but, sadly, the appropriators would eliminate this advance funding.

Another cut, which is hard to fathom, would be taking away money for digital conversion at the same time the FCC is mandating that all broadcasters need to be compliant by February 2009. This funding would be for the third and final installment, which is important for leveraging money from other partners, State matching grants, for instance.

At a time when public broadcasting is leading the way for digital conversion, it is ironic that our appropriators would eliminate this program. It would take away funding for educational programs like Sesame Street, Between the Lions, and Maya and Miguel, putting them at risk. At a time we want highly qualified teachers ready to teach, Internet-based teacher professional development would also be eliminated.

These major reductions in funding would have an immediate and severe impact on our communities and our constituents, as I say, especially in small town and rural America. These cuts from the appropriating process are despite strong shows of support on a bipartisan basis for our colleagues urging full funding.

Last year we had an embarrassing political battle here on the floor of the House, where a bipartisan majority had to overturn the worst of the cuts. One can only hope that we will be spared this saga and that the appropriating

process will provide the funds that American public broadcasting needs.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I find the exchange between the Chair, the ranking member, and the gentlewoman from Texas to be very interesting; I appreciate the sensitivity with which it is being approached by the subcommittee as we move on to conference. I hope that there will be a way, sooner, rather than later, that we can have a broader conversation about export controls and about dual use technology, because I am hearing on a regular basis that we are not correlating these in ways that are in the best interest of our national security and in terms of the way that we are practicing technology control in the ordinary course of business.

Now, in the International Relations Committee we have fallen a little short of the mark because we haven't come forward with legislation under our jurisdiction dealing with an update of this issue. I would hope that the conversation that the chairman talks about could be done in a broader context in terms of what we are doing, to make sure that we are not driving other areas of technology overseas and working to our competitive disadvantage.

I have also heard stories that I believe to be credible, which I look forward to maybe advancing further with the distinguished gentleman, where there have been situations where our allies are using our equipment, but we have artificial barriers in place to be able to have them use things like spare parts and technical manuals to be able to use them. I've heard there are odd sorts of jerry-rigged solutions that take place in the theater of battle that look to be on their face nonsensical and perhaps driving people to do things that in the long run may provide problems for protecting our technology.

While I have no objection to this amendment and I appreciate the words of the chairman, I am hopeful that this can be done in a broader context to make sure that we are achieving our objectives, not freezing things in amber rather working against the long-term interests of both American business and American technology.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the gentleman's opportunity to engage in what, in fact, the proposal is about, because there was a rather detailed proposal that was extended to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. It is cosponsored by the entire House delegation, 10 Northwest Representatives and Senators, a bipartisan effort, and it is dealing with the need to be able to have a bistate program to help support a strong defense industrial base.

It contributes directly to our national defense. We have outlined how it helps in terms of providing research and development on the reliability, cost-effectiveness and environmental performance of products designed specifically for the defense marketplace. It increases the ability to deal with workforce, to provide the products, to expand the reach of high-performance manufacturing techniques, and create more efficient and competitive companies in the defense sector, and to build the capacity of small and medium-sized companies to participate in this marketplace.

This is precisely the sort of thing that I think we would want to have to help the defense opportunities, not just in the Pacific Northwest, but to be able to scale it and take it in other parts of the country.

I could go on at great length. I will not, because I have been admonished that time is short and because others from the Northwest who are part of this are here.

But let me just say that I have been struck by, and one of the reasons I have been working on this for some time is the ability of small companies that I work with to make a difference, and that we have great difficulty in terms of scaling and being able to help them perform in this arena.

In my district we have Danner Boots, which far exceeds the capacity of the specifications that the Department of Defense requests. Our soldiers would be safer. In fact, that is the boot of choice for people who have young men and women going to Iraq.

We have had the same consortium develop HemCon Bandages, which have an amazing capacity to accelerate the clotting. In fact, it is the consensus that our troops should all be provided with this when they go overseas.

We have got small companies that are dealing with technology that others are going to speak to that I won't go into that are all a part of this consortium.

Last but not least, the notion here is having skin in the game. Well, this is matched by a 50 percent match by local sources. It is a public- private partnership where we are not looking for something that has dropped out of the sky, but is matched by the Federal Government. I think anybody who reviews this proposal will find that it is cost- effective, that it is important for the Defense Department, that it builds on proven technologies and opportunities and speaks to gaps that need to be filled, and will have application not just for the Department of Defense, but for others that work to serve it.

So, in the interest of time, I will conclude on that point and invite anybody to look at this proposal that has been offered by my colleagues from the Northwest. I think they will be satisfied that there will be full value offered, and it is worthy of support.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that the greatest deliberative body of the world's democracies cannot provide an opportunity to give voice to the concerns that are shared by Americans. Instead, we are given a White House press release against terror and for staying the course. That is not a plan. It is a bumper sticker.

Our troops won the war against Saddam Hussein over a thousand days ago, and they have been paying the price ever since their victory because they were not properly managed, staffed, trained, or equipped. Of course, nobody is in favor of an arbitrary cutoff. On my Web site I detailed an approach that I think ought to be taken to focus our priorities and stop short-changing, for instance, our battle in Afghanistan, slowly spinning outside of control. But it is sad that the Republicans can only think of two choices: stay the course, cut and run.

If the White House and the Republican leadership believed in democracy in America as much as they say they do in Iraq, we would be debating the resolution of Mr. Murtha's, for example, here. Americans could see their hopes and their concerns not just debated but acted upon.

But, sadly, it is going to take another day and different leadership to give Americans that type of democracy here in Congress. And in the meantime every day our troops will continue to pay the price in Iraq as American prestige is assaulted around the world.

It is sad and it is unnecessary, but it is the hand that we have been dealt.

Mr. Speaker, it is a disservice to the American people that the toughest challenges to our Nation at home and abroad are not addressed in a straightforward manner.

More than 1,000 days after the war in Iraq began, we continue to fund it on an emergency basis deceiving the American taxpayer of the true cost of this war through a budgetary maneuver that simply pushes the enormous cost onto the next generation. It is no longer appropriate for Congress to approve this funding as an emergency. We must account for this through the normal budget process to ensure that taxpayer money is spent responsibly and with accountability.

As for our response to protecting Americans at home from disasters, 75 percent of the American public is at risk from one or more natural disasters, such as floods, fires, or earthquakes--yet the Federal Government continues to pour money into disaster-prone areas without any forward thinking plans. Instead of funding upfront mitigation, planning, and preparedness for disaster-prone communities, we spend even more money in emergency supplemental for things that we should know by now to expect. Our bizarre budget rules make it cheaper to appropriate billions after the fact than to invest millions in proven prevention programs.

This emergency supplemental demonstrates Congress's complacency in dealing with tough choices and avoids fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy; and I agree, this is a difficult challenge that the committee has faced. I look forward to full and vigorous debate.

I would just call attention to one element here on page 77, where the committee expresses its reservations about using land use and economic development as measures for new starts in terms of transit projects; and I would respectfully suggest that we need to have a serious conversation with the committee and staff, because they are sort of missing the boat in terms of what we did laboriously in the transportation and infrastructure committee for the last 2 years. There are 84 communities around the country that are interested in streetcars under the Small Starts Program to be able to move forward in something that isn't as expensive as light rail or heavy rail.

The whole reason communities are interested is because it has very powerful economic development impact, and it can prevent congestion in the first place because it encourages development along that streetcar line. The streetcar line can be built quickly, cheaply; and it prevents people from having to move out to vast stretches of the countryside and then come in.

I would hope that we would be able to work with the subcommittee to be able to give them examples of what is happening around the country and why people in Chicago and Charlotte are interested in what has already happened in my community in Portland, Oregon.

The subcommittee's suggestion that somehow this money come from HUD community block grant funding is a little off base because my understanding is those monies aren't supposed to be for transportation. The streetcar program, the Small Starts Program, is very definitely transportation, very definitely transit; and it enables us to avoid some of that congestion in the first place.

I look forward to a conversation with the committee at a later date.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill, and I too understand that there are tremendous challenges that are faced by the subcommittee with its interesting and broad jurisdiction.

I rise to speak on one particular element that actually should help the subcommittee, and that is dealing with the Small Starts provision. The Small Starts provision was carefully crafted in last year's reauthorization after 3 years of work with people around the country to provide a simple, cost-effective way to reduce congestion, to promote economic development, and to streamline the bureaucracy, instead of the massive effort that is undertaken for the New Starts, the elaborate cost-effectiveness, the massive amount of money that is involved, and I know and appreciate that. I appreciate what the committee has done in approving the administration's recommendation for a project in my community. These are difficult, expensive, hard projects. That is why I have been working on the Small Starts. The Small Starts projects are ones that do not need massive Federal outlay. Small Starts do not mean that you have to rip up communities for weeks, months, in some cases years to construct them. The technology is available now to build a streetcar, a trolley, 3 weeks per block face. That's three weeks per block. They do not need to be massive projects with huge amounts of money.

The program of Small Starts was designed to be smaller amounts that will deal with relieving congestion and relieving the necessity of other more elaborate efforts for economic development.

We have 84 communities around the country with people that are looking at the streetcar technology and using the Small Starts program. If the committee will work with us and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with what we have authorized in SAFETEA-LU, we have the potential of providing the same sort of economic jolt and the relief of congestion without the costs, without the elaborate procedure, without the delay, and without the community disruption that are attendant with light rail and heavy rail.

I was disappointed that the subcommittee decided not to be funding it, but I am more concerned about the language in the subcommittee report that betrays a lack of understanding about why we developed this program to begin with. It is something that can help large cities like Chicago, where there is great interest in it; small cities like Kenosha, Wisconsin; and cities in between like Little Rock and Charlotte. And I would hope that as this legislation works its way through Congress that we will be able to work with the subcommittee and people in the other body to be able to harness the potential savings, economic development, congestion mitigation that can be a part of the Small Starts program.

I would think given the very difficult task that this subcommittee faces, with which I sympathize, that we ought to embrace this approach because in the long run it will give you more bang for the buck, more satisfied communities, more reduction in congestion, and more economic opportunities.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this for a moment and look forward to working with the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we are having some interesting ongoing conversations with the Department of Transportation. I went across the street to visit with him at FTA immediately after the enactment of the legislation. There is no need for us to delay this process for months and years.

I find no small irony to what we just heard. This bill contains billions of dollars of subsides to the airline industry on top of hundreds of billions of dollars that was spent in the past for an industry that has produced a net profit of zero in its 75-year history.

Why does Amtrak have problems? We have consistently underinvested in their capital needs. Any objective analysis suggests that they need to be adequately funded for capital, but this Congress consistently underfunds it. We cut it by another $200 million, and we will not even pass the authorizing legislation.

We are not going to kill Amtrak, because the public won't allow Amtrak to be killed; but it is time for us to stop this charade, give a modest amount of money to meet its capital needs, be able to reverse the outrageous act where they fired David Gunn, an operational genius who was dealing with the management problems of Amtrak, and they fired him. It is time to stop the criminal mismanagement of Amtrak by the political process.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. I rise in support of the open rule. I join my colleagues in praising the leadership of Mr. Kolbe, with whom I have had an opportunity to learn a great deal from his tutelage as Chair and his commitment to foreign affairs, and to watch Mrs. Lowey and Mr. Kolbe make the most out of the difficult budget hand they have been dealt.

This is, in fact, a great investment of American tax dollars. It is not just the right thing to do morally, but it does make markets for U.S. goods, it helps developing partners around the world in commerce, and it is much cheaper than the military option. Think of what could have been accomplished with the trillion dollars we will have spent in Iraq.

It is time for us, however, I think, for us to consider some adjustments in philosophy and direction. I know there is going to be some proposals later in amendments that would deal with issues regarding Egypt, where we have given some $25 billion since 1979, and, sadly, the repressive tactics against journalists, against people who would exercise their Democratic rights is a sad commentary. And I do not think that we need to be held hostage for putting vast amounts of military assistance into Egypt at a time when they are not responding in ways that are consistent with what we are trying to do. I think sending some modest signals that we are not going to be held hostage is important.

Indeed, one-half of the top 25 recipients of United States' arms in the developing world are undemocratic, according to the United States State Department's own record. I think that is an unfortunate commentary. And I will be offering an amendment later in this debate, with my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), who chairs our Subcommittee on International Affairs on Asia, to divert $250 million from the military aid to put it in assistance that would make a difference for foreign countries around the world to deal with the fact that there are a billion people around the world who live on a dollar a day or less; that every 15 seconds, a child dies from waterborne disease. Indeed, one-half of the people who are sick today anywhere around the world are sick needlessly from waterborne disease.

This Chamber, last year, supported bipartisan legislation, the Water for the Poor Act, named after our colleague, Senator Paul Simon, that has the potential of being transformational for these people. But what we need to do is to invest money to make that the case. So I am going to strongly urge that my colleague look at this proposal, much to be commended, but to look at one specific adjustment, putting money away from arms to undemocratic areas where, frankly, it is not the highest priority, and, instead, invest 250 million additional dollars for this critical economic and development aid.

Remember, last year, in the total budget for the entire world dealing with this problem of waterborne disease, the entire budget was only $200 million, after we had worked and worked and worked. This budget currently only provides $50 million. We can do more, and I strongly urge consideration of the Leach-Blumenauer amendment.