Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak and for her kind words and for the work that she and Mr. Kolbe have done in this important bill, fashioning, I think, something that is very, very good, given the minimum amount of money they have been given.

Across the world, this bill will enable the United States to cooperate with other donors, to partner with people in extreme poverty to improve their lives and well-being; but, Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that we can do a little modification to make this difficult bill a little better.

During consideration here, I will be offering an amendment with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to increase the Development Assistance Account by $250 million in order to support these smart investments to reduce poverty of the 1 billion people around the world who live on less than $1 a day, the children who will die every 15 seconds because they do not have access to clean water and sanitation.

The proposed increase would be offset by a reduction in equal amount from unearmarked funds in the Foreign Military Financing Account. This will not affect the almost $4 billion that is set aside for Israel, for Egypt, Jordan, or Colombia.

Mr. Chairman, the American people overwhelmingly support these investments to fight against global poverty. Recently, the Program on International Assistance Policy Attitudes found that 65 percent of the American public would support significant increases in U.S. assistance to fight poverty and disease.

This amendment will represent an all-too-rare occasion in this Chamber for bipartisan cooperation to shift money away from what are largely repressive regimes for unnecessary military assistance and put it where it will make a difference, saving the lives of poor families and especially their children around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today, along with Mr. Leach from Iowa, the chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on Asia, will increase the development assistance account by $250 million in order to fund clean water and other anti-poverty programs. This increase will be offset by an equal amount of unearmarked funds in the military foreign financing account; and as such will not, and I want to emphasize this, will not impact the military aid to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, or Colombia.

Over the last few years, it has become increasingly clear to people of every political stripe that we live in an interconnected world. How people in other countries live affects how we are secured at home, whether we are impacted by diseases like avian flu that thrive in poverty, whether our economy grows and creates more and better jobs.

By investing in poor people around the world, we invest in global economic growth, the kind of thing that will have a clear effect on our own economic future. It is also helping responsible governments get stronger, offering their own people a better future, and a smart investment in our own security from terrorism to bird flu. The capacity of responsible governments to partner with the United States in tackling these shared challenges is critical to our security at home.

Across the world, people living in extreme poverty are working, are struggling to improve their lives; but a billion of them live on $1 a day or less. It is critical that we expand our programs to help them in this work.

There is no doubt that the record of previous development efforts, including foreign aid, has been uneven; but the fact is we are getting better at it. We know what works. There is a global partnership that has emerged that does have a measurable, positive impact on growth in poor countries.

Thankfully, we now have the very best ideas of what kinds of steps are effective in providing the best returns in fighting poverty. The best tools, luckily, are simple: targeted programs to provide clean water, health care, improve agricultural productivity, and support good governance. This is not rocket science, as they say; but these are things that work.

Time and time again we have made commitments to fight against poverty, and we must now put those commitments into action.

In 2000, we joined with over 190 countries in committing to a series of ambitious targets called the Millennium Development Goals, including cutting in half the people living in extreme poverty by 2015. There are a series of other initiatives that have taken place to try and make sure that the rich countries of this world invest 0.7 percent of their gross national product in anti-poverty programs.

Currently, there is only one country in the world of the rich, developed countries that does less than we do in this regard. We spend less than 0.2 percent. It is time for us to live up to the commitments we have made. This amendment is a simple way to do it.

In fact, this is supported by people across this country. The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that two-thirds of the American public supports significant increases for our foreign assistance. It shows majorities of both Republicans and Democrats supporting increasing our investments.

Now, there are consequences for our lack of leadership. Mr. Chairman, every 15 seconds a child dies needlessly from waterborne disease. Half the people who are sick today around the world are sick needlessly because of a lack of fresh pure water and sanitation.

This is within our capacity to make a difference, and there is no great philosophical fault line. Indeed, Girl Scout troops, churches, synagogues, your local Rotary Club may well have been involved with these efforts; and they support these approaches and can do something about it.

This amendment would allow the House to decide if $250 million is better served by investing in people through good governments, health and economic development, or selling more weapons around the world, often to countries with questionable human rights records.

The most recent year that I surveyed showed that half the money that we gave for military assistance went to countries that the State Department ruled were not democratic. I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment to be able to realize this bipartisan objective.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I just want to clarify in my own mind. I heard Mr. Kolbe say that the effect of our amendment, there were about 900 million, if I heard him correctly, that was unallocated at this point. There is some report language in there that talks about where it might go.

According to the information I have, there is only $7 million that has been identified in report language for Armenia and Azerbaijan, and there is over a quarter billion dollars that is completely undirected. So I am wondering where the $70 million figure came from that you are citing here that our amendment would impact.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

In a moment, I would turn to my colleague Mr. Obey in case he has other thoughts to round out his, I think, important case on an important amendment, which I strongly support. The only adjustment that I could possibly suggest would be that some of the money that was of the $100 million be invested in water resources around the world, but I am pleased to step forward.

I am a supporter of the historic agreement that Egypt entered into. I think the $60 billion American taxpayers have invested is justifiable, but I think it is time for us to take a step back and get real. I have listened to the argument that we have heard from a variety of people, including those who have been the most steadfast supporters of Egypt on the floor of this Chamber year after year in terms of patience running thin, in terms of the oppression of people in Egypt, suppression of the democratic process.

I find it a little farfetched to suggest that somehow everything is going to be fine with our relationship with Egypt if we give them $1.75 billion, but if somehow that is scaled down to $1.65 billion that somehow things are going to be upset; that it is a slap in the face; that Egypt is somehow undermined. Who else is going to give them this type of money and provide this type of steadfast support?

It is the wrong use of this money. I think Mr. Obey has suggested higher and better uses. Again, I only wish it was water resources. I think it is an important wake-up call for Egypt, but more important, I think it is an affirmation of our responsibility of how we use these resources to extend our interests in foreign policy. We shouldn't be trapped in time.

I think Mr. Obey's amendment is an important step in our exercising our responsibility.

I yield to Mr. Obey if he wanted to elaborate on his defense.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the intent of the bill, which is to improve competitive choice for consumers, lower costs, and increase innovation. I hope that is where we will be at the end of this process. However, currently, I have profound concerns about the loss of local revenues, lack of assurances for universal access, and the potential for anti-competitive behavior by network providers.

This comes to the floor with significant problems for local governments. The COPE Act will reduce Public Education Government, PEG, funding for Portland and Multnomah County by $2.4 million each year.

Proponents argue that more competitors will increase local revenues. However, the revenue is based on the size of the customer population, thus more competitors will not necessarily result in more revenue than already

exists. This bill also grants new authorities to the FCC to resolve local and private disputes. I am uncertain that the FCC possesses the capacity to effectively handle these local issues.

In the spirit of preserving innovation and providing equal access to web surfers and businesses alike, the Internet must remain a non- discriminatory, egalitarian, and open playing field. This is an issue that has often been referred to as ``net neutrality.'' I am concerned about the ability of the Internet to remain neutral and equal under the COPE Act.

This issue is particularly important to my district in Oregon as it has one of the highest broadband penetration rates in the country. I have received thousands of letters, e-mails, and phone calls from my constituents expressing concerns about the COPE Act's ability to safeguard the neutrality of the Internet. I support the Markey Amendment on network neutrality, which regretfully the House failed to adopt.

Lastly, I am concerned that the COPE Act does not ensure universal access for vital telecommunication services. Without strong ``build out provisions,'' poor and rural areas in the country are at risk of falling behind. Telecom companies will be able to cherry pick the most profitable areas and force cable companies to follow suit in order to remain competitive. History suggests that it is unrealistic to expect one company to continue to invest in all of its regions if a competitor applies market pressure to small concentrated areas.

This bill is the start of a long conversation regarding how best to address telecommunications in this country. It is my strong belief that we will be revisiting the concerns I have outlined should this bill pass, and it is my hope that through the legislative process, we can provide the American people the telecom reform they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, according to the American Diabetes Association, there are 20.8 million children and adults in the United States, roughly equivalent to 7 percent of the population, who are living with diabetes.

I would like to recognize three young athletes as they ride across America to raise awareness for Diabetes. Adam Driscoll, Jesse Stump, and Patrick Blair, riding exclusively fixed gear bicycles, left from Washington State on Sunday, May 14, 2006. They are hoping to arrive at their destination in Maryland sometime in early September. They are also riding to raise awareness for ``Kupenda for Children,'' an organization that provides support for children with disabilities in Africa.

Driscoll, Stump, and Blair will be accompanied on portions of the ride, by African born Emmanuel Yeboah. Yeboah, the subject of the feature length documentary, ``Emmanuel's Gift,'' overcame disability-- he is missing one of his legs--to ride 600km across Ghana, Africa.

During their ride the athletes plan to make public appearances in communities to get the word out about what they are doing. They welcome opportunities to schedule additional visits along the way.

To read more about this exciting and unique endeavor in honor of people with disabilities everywhere, and to follow the adventures of the athletes, please visit their web site (http://www.adventuresforthecure.com).

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 1: In the item relating to ``Development

Assistance'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $250,000,000)''.

In the item relating to ``Foreign Military Financing

Program'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $250,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, amidst the debate nationally about the tracking of calls of millions of Americans, questions about bureaucratic leaks here on Capitol Hill, and evidence that we are awash in information, the FBI approached an employee in Portland City Hall last week to solicit her to spy on activities there.

Mr. Speaker, the FBI has had a long and shameful history of spying on American citizens, information that Director J. Edgar Hoover used literally to blackmail people in government and treated Martin Luther king shamefully. It prompted some of my conservative friends to call for ripping his name off the FBI headquarters.

It is time for the FBI to get its priorities straight. Remember, this is the institution that couldn't deal with information it had before 9/ 11 about potential airplane hijackers.

If evidence of wrongdoing is in place, jump on it, but don't establish a spy network trolling for information. Let us keep the FBI on its important work. The American public deserves it.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this.

I thought it was appropriate for our friends from the Rules Committee to talk about Jed Clampett shooting his gun and drilling up oil that way because, truly, this is sort of a Beverly Hillbillies approach to energy policy. It is a comedy of errors, and my Republican friends are shooting themselves in the foot.

Their approach to solve our problem, putting as central oil exploration in the United States, produces no hope of satisfying our long-term energy problem. They focus on giving billions of dollars to oil companies for breaks that industry does not need. They are missing in action on serious conservation,

fuel efficiency and work on alternative energy.

But one of the silliest arguments I have heard is that in an area the size of Delaware, we are ``only'' talking about 2,000 acres. We are ``only'' talking, as my friend from California mentioned, about the size of the Dulles Airport.

That is like saying the Augusta National Golf Course which has 18 golf holes, 4\1/4\ inches in diameter, is only really have a golf footprint of less than 2 square feet.

Well, it is not just the hole that you are drilling, just like it is not the hole at the golf course. You have got golf cart paths, clubhouses, thousands of people who use it, irrigation, tool sheds, tee boxes.

My friend from Wisconsin could talk about all of the impacts of a golf course. If you are going to open this up to active oil exploration, you are going to have roads and ancillary activities that are going to produce a vast network, a wildly much greater footprint that is going to have serious economic and environmental consequences.

Madam Speaker, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even if you think it should be drilled, is absolutely the last place we should be looking for oil, not the next place.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

I am listening to my friend from Arizona. Two observations. One, everybody here is for all the good stuff. What matters is whether or not they are willing to actually invest in it. Where are their priorities? Where they are giving billions of dollars in unjustified breaks to oil companies who do not even need it, as opposed to starving investments in other programs.

The reference here to having a footprint the size of Dulles airport, hogwash. That is like saying a 300-acre golf course is actually only computed by the 4\1/4\ inch in diameter golf holes. Do the math. That ends up to be about 240 square inches. But it ignores the golf paths. It ignores the tool shed, the clubhouse. It ignores the irrigation system, the tool sheds, the restrooms.

The fact is that the 2,000 acres, multiplied by all the ancillary activities, extends to a wide, wide area, and the notion of using things like ice roads, of course the other side does not believe in global warming, but if you look at the shorter and shorter period of time each year that you can use ice roads, you find out that that is becoming less active.

You have 20 years before you get peak production to have ultimately a penny a gallon saving. It is a foolish investment. This is the last place we should be drilling, not the next.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill, and I could not agree with what she said more.

Our friend from Texas talked about a clash of priorities. It is not just about spending money. When you are giving a new tax break to those in this country who need it less, that is draining money from the Treasury.

What Mr. Obey talked about was dealing with priorities for our Nation's security. You have made a judgment that it is more important for a few to have a massive tax decrease as opposed to dealing meaningfully with security needs, and I will venture that the American public, given those two, would have no difficulty in agreeing with Mr. Obey. One is sad that we are not at least having a chance to vote on it today.

I will say that there are parts of this bill that I feel good about. One of the things that I have been working very hard on deals with efforts to contend with prevention measures to reduce the damage done by floods and other natural disasters. This bill deals with funding critical elements for the safety and security of the American public.

We think often of things like terrorism and border security, but in fact more people's lives are lost, more damage is incurred by natural disaster. I would like to thank the committee for fully funding the mitigation program for repetitively flooded properties authorized by our Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. That wasn't the case in previous years, but this year people have recognized the National Flood Insurance Program is in a severe crisis. It is $20 billion in debt. This funding will help put it back on the right track.

The repetitively flooded properties, which make up just 1 percent of the insured properties, account for 25 percent of the repetitive flood loss. Mitigating these properties will not only keep people out of harm's way but it will save other flood insurance policyholders thousands of dollars in premiums over the years. If we can reduce just one 10 percent policy increase, that is a savings to the policyholders of $160 million a year, every year, on into the future.

FEMA has already reported that their mitigation and building standards have resulted in saving $1 billion annually in reduced flood loss. If we can continue moving forward, each dollar that we invest in helping keep people out of harm's way, each dollar we invest saves $4 in damages later on, and that doesn't speak to the heart-wrenching loss that people face.

Now, there are going to come before us some amendments that really border on being goofy. There is an amendment being offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan to prevent FEMA from raising the base flood elevation in the mapping project. Think about it for a moment. This would be an amendment that would prevent FEMA from providing an accurate map for people in harm's way. Think about the thousands of people in Katrina that suffered loss to their property, loss of life because they didn't know they were in the floodplain. What in the name of all that is holy do we advance by preventing FEMA from doing its job? I sincerely hope that this misguided effort, should it come to the floor, will be rejected.

Finally, I hope that this is the last time, and that my friend, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who is here, and I come to the floor dealing with the Department of Homeland Security, dealing with FEMA, because FEMA doesn't belong in that agency. One of the reasons we saw the bumbling, the incompetence, the loss of life, the bureaucratic foul-up during Katrina is because FEMA got lost in the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security. We took an outstanding agency, stuffed it with cronies, shoved it into a massive bureaucracy and people's lives were lost as a result.

I hope this body has the wisdom to deal with the legislation the chairman is bringing forward, I think unanimously, from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to put FEMA back where it belongs, give it competent people, in order to save lives and save money.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 168, the Chabot-Andrews amendment to the Interior and Environment Appropriations, though I intended to vote aye, I accidentally voted nay. The Chabot-Andrews amendment would prohibit the Forest Service from building more roads for private timber in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. The timber program in the Tongass costs taxpayers approximately $40 million each year. I have long been a supporter of reforming the road building program in the Tongass, and have supported this amendment in the past. I am pleased that the amendment ultimately passed, and I sincerely regret that I accidentally voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, there is a Dear Colleague circulating on Capitol Hill that talks about our no-cost sugar subsidy program. I would suggest that each of our Congressional offices have a little contest, take the certified smart young interns that we have working for us and have a contest in your office. See how long it takes them to prove how bogus that claim is.

How long will it take them to find out that there is a $1- to $2 billion cost to the taxpayer and the consumer, that there are environmental costs for cleaning up the Everglades, that this program threatens over 500,000 American jobs in the candy industry that are being driven to Mexico and Canada

because our cost of sugar is two to three times the world price.

Those interns will find that 40 percent of the benefits go to 1 percent of the growers, and just two huge companies in south Florida get $120 million a year.

It is time to make modest adjustments and have a serious discussion about how to treat sugar in this assembly. I strongly urge approval of the amendment that Mr. Flake and I will be offering later today.

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

I am pleased that under the rule we will be able later in the deliberations to have a debate, a discussion, on a modest amendment to the sugar subsidy program. This is something that unfortunately flies under the radar screen here in Washington, DC. Any approach to look at independent analysts, to look at conservative groups like the Cato Institute, to look at environmental organizations, all document that the sugar subsidy program we have provides tremendous cost to the taxpayers, billions of dollars.

It starts by forcing American consumers and the industries that use sugar to pay two to three times the world market price. It puts at risk over 500,000 jobs that are still in the United States in the confectionery industry. We used to have more people at work in Hershey, Pennsylvania, in the Northeast, in Chicago making candy; but these jobs are being driven to Canada, to Mexico and other places because our price of the raw material, sugar, is so much more expensive.

We find that the sugar cane industry particularly is a cause of significant pollution in the everglades. This Congress has placed a $7.5 billion down payment cleaning up the everglades in part because of the significant expansion of cane sugar production because it is so heavily subsidized and produces a toxic run off of pollution.

It even drives up cost to the Federal Government in other areas you do not think about; $90 million that the Federal Government pays for food, for example, for U.S. troops, with added cost because of these subsidies.

This sugar subsidy continues at a time when we are cutting programs for other farmers for their environmental programs at a time when there is no help for many farmers, in my State that are short-changed row crops, the speciality crops, the nursery industry, and wine producers. We have an out-of-whack, hopelessly expensive, out-moded and anti- competitive trade subsidy program that will leave the taxpayer footing the bill for years to come.

We will have an amendment offered later today that will provide for a modest adjustment, downward, so the taxpayer will not be on the hook for quite so much and we can reduce the pressure on American industry that uses sugar and American consumers who will be paying over a billion dollars a year.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 90 second.

Mr. Chairman, the United States sugar program is one of the most archaic and misguided Federal policies that we have. It artificially raises the prices of sugar. It harms U.S. customers and consumers, and prevents developing nations from competing in the global market place.

One of the deep concerns I have is that people are circulating here with a straight face the assertion that this is a no-cost program. Nothing could be further from the truth. It drives up the price for American consumers each year, upwards of $2 billion a year. It undercuts industries that use sugar as a means of production like the confectionery industry. And it is part of an enormous environmental damage, like the everglades, where we are spending $7.5 billion in clean-up.

In the course of the debate this afternoon, we will have opportunities for people to focus on the need to eliminate this program. This amendment is a small step towards sanity, making a 6 percent reduction in the guaranteed price if it is adopted.

I strongly urge that my colleagues look at the facts surrounding this, look at what is going to be good for the consumer, for the environment, for the taxpayer, and taking a step toward a rational agriculture policy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a distinguished senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Two very brief points. One is, because of the nature of this lavish subsidy, it has concentrated activity so that 1 percent of the sugar producers get 42 percent of the benefit. A massive amount goes to just two companies in Florida alone.

Second, it is driving jobs overseas. We have three-quarters of 1 million workers who are in sugar-using industries that are at a competitive disadvantage and are moving out of the United States.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute again to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), my colleague and the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to inquire as to the time remaining. We have 2 minutes left?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Chairman, one of the problems here is this is not, with all due respect, some sort of major massive pruning. We are talking about a 6 percent reduction on how the American consumer and taxpayer is on the hook. That is not unilaterally disarming. That is not a massive overhaul. We need this modest step.

I look forward to working with the chairman of the Ag Committee, although I hope he is not the chairman of the Ag Committee next session, but in

whatever capacity I look forward to working with him to have that honest debate. The last time it went through the legislative process, the sugar provisions got worse, not better. It was more egregious. There were more things that were added to it to make it work against the consumer and the taxpayer.

Only in Washington, D.C. would this be regarded as no-cost. That survey that has been talked about should have asked consumers: Do they like paying two to three times the world price of sugar? Do they like driving overseas thousands of confectionery jobs, making our trade imbalance worse? Do they like working against the ecological health of the everglades and then spending $7.5 billion of taxpayer money to start cleaning up some of the toxic residue of the sugar industry? And do they want to discriminate against poor countries like Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Mali that could benefit from freer trade in sugar?

I urge support of the Blumenauer-Flake amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Later this week, there will be consideration of an amendment from Mr. Flake of Arizona and me dealing with the notorious sugar subsidy program, proposing a tiny reduction in it. For anyone who wants a lesson in how your government works, a review of the politics surrounding the sugar quota system is a textbook example of how the political process can distort reality and why. A Dear Colleague letter is circulating touting the benefits of a ``no cost to the taxpayer sugar program.'' This does not pass the straight face test anywhere in America but Washington, DC. The most junior intern working in any congressional office who is doing independent research can quickly verify that this is not a ``no cost program.'' There are huge costs to the taxpayer, the government and the environment.

Straight off the top, this ``no cost program'' requires American consumers to pay almost $2 billion a year more for sugar and sugar- related products. Only in Washington, DC would $2 billion be ``no cost.'' Then there is the loss to industries for whom paying two to three times the price of the world price of sugar makes a big difference. There used to be a thriving confectionery industry, manufacturing in Hershey, Pennsylvania; in New England, in Chicago. Many of these jobs have since disappeared, being driven across the border to Canada, Mexico or elsewhere where sugar prices are dramatically lower. Only the powerful sugar lobbyists and the people who listen to them would think that $2 billion a year that will be required to store and purchase surplus sugar over the next 10 years would be no cost.

One of the most perverse effects of the sugar program has been to dramatically increase cane sugar production in the State of Florida. Over the last 50 years the amount of acreage surrounding the Everglades has increased 800 percent. All of this sugar production is in the Everglades. This expansion has devastating consequences. Pollution, polluted runoff, and changed water flow attributed to the sugar industry is a significant reason why we are paying seven to $8 billion as a down payment to clean up the Everglades and redo the plumbing. The sugar lobbyists in Washington, DC would lead you to believe that this is no cost.

How can this be? How can people pretend to believe this claptrap? Well, an important reason this travesty continues is to be found in campaign contribution reports. This industry is only 1 percent of American agriculture, yet it spends 17 percent of the campaign contributions for agriculture and countless millions more lobbying and producing bogus surveys currently circulating on Capitol Hill.

I suggest if Members want to do a favor for the environment, for the taxpayer, allow a junior intern to do your research to determine whether or not this has no cost. This research done by any college economics student, in any college political science class, or by the outstandingly bright young men and women who work for us as volunteers on Capitol Hill right now as interns can demonstrate to any Member's satisfaction that it is not worth the cost. It is time to approve the Blumenauer-Flake amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition. I am opposed to the bill.

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

Everybody on this floor wants to send the same loud and clear message: that Congress is united in its opposition to terror and we are all deeply concerned about the future and security of our close friend and ally, Israel.

This debate is not about our shared revulsion at those who would murder innocent citizens or sow terror for political purposes.

It is not about current law, which prohibits any assistance to Hamas or a Hamas-controlled government, which Congress unanimously reaffirmed earlier this year. For many people, we will find tonight that this is a very personal issue. For anyone who has visited Israel, you understand.

When I first visited Jerusalem, I couldn't help but be struck by how close the holy sites of the three great religions are, less than the distance of a Tiger Woods 5-iron shot. I will always cherish the opportunity in a more optimistic time, to visit a security checkpoint outside Ramallah, jointly manned by Israelis and Palestinians. The possibility of that moment, its fragility and the ramifications of failure, have been brought home to me repeatedly in recent years.

I was and am impressed by the diversity of opinions in Israel, by its vibrant tradition of democracy and heated debate. But I am also struck by how we are seeing elements of that vibrant debate within the American pro-Israeli community over the bill that is before us this evening.

As someone committed to Israel's security and to the vision of the two states living side by side in peace, I reluctantly oppose the legislation this evening, despite my deep respect for my colleagues who are bringing it forward on both sides of the aisle.

The bill before us is one that the administration does not need nor want. It sets permanent and inflexible limits on the United States, whether or not Hamas is in power. It could potentially limit the United States' ability to help our friend Israel if Israel decides in the future that working with a non- Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority is in their best interests.

Remember in 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin asked the United States to support a flawed Palestinian Authority because he felt it was important for Israel's security. Had the stringent conditions in this bill been in place, we would have had to have said no.

In 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked the United States to support the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. Had the stringent conditions in this bill been in place, we would have had to say no.

Should a future Israeli leader come and ask us to support the Palestinian Authority, after Hamas is forced from power, we shouldn't allow the conditions in this bill to force us to say no.

Unfortunately, this bill defines the Palestinian Authority to include the Palestinian legislative counsel, as long as members of Hamas are in the Palestinian Parliament. We would have to say no to Israel's request.

As has been pointed out with Libya, the debate over Libya, sometimes we allow diplomatic relations with imperfect regimes because progress can best be made through engagement instead of isolation. This bill goes far beyond the ramifications of January's election and Hamas' rise to power.

It would restrict relations with and support for Palestinian groups and institutions that have nothing to do with terror or rejectionism. It places sanctions on the Palestinian leaders and parts of Palestinian civil society who support peace with Israel, oppose terrorism and who, if the two-state vision comes to pass, will form the backbone of a democratic society.

There is, in this legislation, no recognition that Palestinian society is deeply divided, and that it makes no sense to put sanctions on President Abbas, reformers, even activists for democracy, peace and coexistence. The bill would prohibit the assistance we give to schools that teach peace, to democratic and peaceful political organizations, to groups promoting cooperation with Israel on shared environmental challenges.

It would even punish the democratic opposition by prohibiting visas for moderate Palestinian legislators or government officials who oppose Hamas. It would prevent the PLO, of which Hamas isn't a member, and which was not impacted by the election of Hamas, from having representatives in Washington or at the United Nations. I am afraid that this legislation may well backfire by actually strengthening the hands of extremists.

Remember, this past winter, the House, in our wisdom, voted to demand that the Palestinians prevent Hamas from running in the legislative elections, telling the Palestinian people to reject them. I don't think it was any accident that Hamas election banners had: ``Israel and America say `no' to Hamas. What do you say?''

I can't help think that any objective appraisal would suggest that the United States Congress, telling them what they could do, may well have provided that extra boost for Hamas' prospects at the election.

This bill provides no diplomatic horizon, no sunset. It is in perpetuity. It does little to prioritize on the basis of our strategic interest and provides no prospect for Palestinian reform coming through the process of negotiations. In so doing, it weakens the hands of those who advocate for peace negotiations and supports those extremists who believe in violence.

Democracy is a complex process in the Middle East and all too rare in the Middle East. The election of Hamas shows that for the kinds of democracies we want to see, elections aren't enough. We need to promote the kinds of democratic institutions, free civil society, conducive to sustainable, liberal democracy in Palestinian territories.

The President needs to be free to do just that, with congressional oversight, not congressional prohibitions and micromanagement. I understand the sincere concern that many people who support this legislation have, but it is too onerous and burdensome on an administration that needs to practice diplomacy.

Democracy is a continuing process that helps transform those who practice it. I agree with the rabbi from my district who wrote that, ``change is everything in politics, no matter how bleak the situation currently is,'' in expressing his opposition to this legislation. We cannot support Hamas or other terrorist groups, but neither should we close the door on change.

Most of the Members of this body consider themselves to be strong friends and supporters of Israel. So do I. That is why I will urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, invoking the Bush doctrine, the previous speaker talks about humanitarian assistance. One of the concerns that the Bush administration has in not supporting this bill is that it is too narrowly drawn, talking about ``health,'' and not broader humanitarian assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I will discuss that later in the course of the evening. Due to the mandatory nature of the bill, its lack of a general waiver, the executive branch thinks it is unnecessary. It already has ample authority to impose all its restrictions, and constrains the executive branch's flexibility to use sanctions as appropriate as tools to address rapidly changing circumstances.

These are the words of the administration. And I think the Congress would do well to consider them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Dean of the House.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, I would yield myself 5 minutes, because I have been sitting here reflecting on my good friend from California's comments about people who suddenly are the best friend of the administration who have been critical of them.

Well, I have only been here 10 years, not as long as my distinguished friend, but one of the things I have tried to do with Republican and Democratic administrations alike, when it comes to foreign policy, is to attempt to be supportive when I agree but to be clear that when I disagree, when I think they are wrong, to stand up.

I take a back seat to no one in terms of my opposition to this administration's reckless conduct in Iraq. I have been consistent on that from the beginning. One of the concerns I had about this administration was their disdain

for nation-building. You will recall the rhetoric of then Governor Bush.

But part of our obligation as Members of this chamber is to be supportive when we can. Because in the conduct of foreign policy, it would be nice if it did stop at the water's edge. I appreciate that the administration has changed its position on nation-building and has actually requested more assistance than it looks like this Congress is going to give them for foreign aid.

When they were willing to work with us in water and sanitation, I embraced that. I think we should reinforce positive things that we can agree on. That is what the American public wants. I do not think we should be reflexive and negative.

The administration has raised a legitimate concern about flexibility, about being able to implement it, and these are consistent with Republican and Democratic administrations in the past in terms of not wanting sanctions to go on forever and wanting to have the flexibility to respond, not after 25 days of consultation according to very, narrow little channels, but to be able to act responsibly to practice diplomacy.

The history of this House of Representatives is not very illustrious when it comes to many of these questions. Congress has sort of flitted around and has been subjected to the pressures of the moment and has not always been a constructive ally.

As we know, this House passed a draft by only one vote immediately before World War II. Lots of simple, commonsense straight-ahead solutions that we have been involved with have not always been the best and most carefully crafted.

I come forward not being a fan of this administration in many areas, in many areas, but in this one, as I listen to them, as I look at the requested flexibility, as I look at independent experts, as I hear from religious leaders back home and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, I see a wide range of people that support the concerns that the administration share with us.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, to respond to my distinguished colleague, nowhere here have I said I want the administration to have unrestrained flexibility. Not once. And I am not expressing delight that we are on the same side.

What I said was when I find I am in agreement, I look forward to ways to work with them. When I see them move in directions I wish they had done with Afghanistan and Iraq, for heaven's sake, I am going to move in this direction with the stakes so high. With all due respect, it is not a question of giving unlimited flexibility to the administration. I have never said that, am not interested in it.

There is a framework here in terms of the sanctions that we are talking about, things like extending beyond the narrow definition of health to deal with humanitarian assistance and environmental cleanup. There are a whole host of things that could have been dealt with here in the ambit of this legislation.

I share with my good friend an interest in having this administration be more accountable to Congress and come forward and answer our questions. I would like oversight about what is going on in Iraq and what is going on in Afghanistan. Heaven knows I would.

But that does not mean that we ought to have unnecessarily restrictive and burdensome activities that are going to work against what I think are the interests of the Israeli people, the Palestinians and citizens of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Madam Speaker, as I yield the gentleman from New York 4 minutes, I would give myself 30 seconds to make two observations.

One, there will be no aid to Hamas, whether this bill passes or not. It is against United States law to give assistance to a terrorist organization.

Second, I would reference the exact language of the word where the exemption is assistance to meet basic human health needs, not broad humanitarian. The language of the bill is actually quite clear.

Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, Mr. Hinchey, for 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as I prepare to conclude my presentation and yield back my time this evening, I truly have enjoyed the give and take that we have had this evening under the leadership of our subcommittee chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, the work that has been done by staff members on both sides of the aisle, the passion, the emotion, the concern, and the professionalism that we have witnessed.

I personally have appreciated it. I think it is a healthy give-and- take that we have had. I think it is an important debate. It is not the last word that we are going to enjoy. I would simply make a couple of points in closing. I continue to be concerned that we not talk past one another. There is going to be, under existing United States law, no aid for Hamas. It is illegal to give assistance to a terrorist organization. Hamas certainly is.

And they are not going to be entitled to aid regardless of what happens with this bill. I continue to be concerned that the language of the bill is not, as some of my friends who have spoken on the other side of the aisle refer to, talking about how humanitarian aid can go through. That is not what the bill says. It is health that is the automatic pass-through.

Education, as has been referenced, is not a part of the automatic exemption. This lack of flexibility is one of the reasons why this bill is opposed by Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek, Shalom, Churches for Middle East Peace, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The bill sets permanent and inflexible limits on the United States's ability to be involved with Israel and Palestine, whether or not Hamas is in power. And that is a mistake. It goes far beyond dealing with the ramifications of January's elections, and Hamas's rise to power, essentially Palestinian moderates and institutions that have nothing to do with Hamas.

Most independent observers feel that that is counterproductive and it may well end up backfiring and actually providing further strength to the extremists. I listened to the delightful exchange between Mr. Lantos and Mr. Frank on the floor earlier. I always marvel watching two parliamentary masters go back and forth. I listened to Mr. Frank's argument tying it back to earmarking. And it was a thoughtful and amazing argument.

But one of the concerns I have, given the nature of Hamas, and listening very carefully to Mr. Frank's words, is they are going to claim credit any way they can for anything that happens, much as we see political processes generally do that.

It is important that in our desire to stop Hamas from either assistance or a foothold for claiming credit, that we are very surgical about what we do for the Palestinian people, and the ability to move forward with peace.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to review the administration's concerns. They have stated that they feel it is unnecessary, as the executive branch already has ample authority to impose all its restrictions. It does constrain the executive's ability in the flexibility to use sanctions as appropriate to address rapidly changing circumstances, which we all sincerely hope happen for the positive in this troubled area of the world.

Their concerns about the mandatory nature of the bill's sanctions, the relative absence that relates to activities absent an unachievable certification, a lack of a general waiver authority on its key ban on assistance, and that these limitations should be time limited.

The administration has also raised the concern that the exemption for ``basic human health needs'' is too narrow and should be broadened to ``basic human needs''. Indeed both sides on the floor this evening often used those two terms interchangeably, but they are very different under the bill.

But I do think we have reached the point where both my leg and my store of information here has been exhausted. I wanted to make one last point, because there has been reference this evening to the joy of serving with Mr. Lantos.

I never cease to marvel, when we are in the midst of this, that he adds a dimension to the debate that I think is very important. I never cease to learn something in the course of what happens in the committee or here on the floor. Reference has been made to him as the only Holocaust survivor who has walked these halls.

And it adds a dimension, not just to this debate, but one that carries through in activities in Asia, in Africa, in the bigger picture across the world.

But there is one other accolade because Mr. Lantos is a professor, and I appreciate the scholarly approach he brings that tempers his experience and his emotion that makes this a learning experience. And I truly believe that as a result of his input this evening that this has been a valuable learning experience for me, and I think it has enriched the record. Whatever happens with this legislation as it goes through the course of the legislature, as I do not doubt that it will pass tomorrow, that we will all be a little more knowledgeable as a result of this, and I think, in the long run, we will be able to do our jobs better, and for that, I thank him.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency launched the P3 Award, a competition that focuses on the three components of sustainability: People, Prosperity and the Planet. Groups of undergraduate and graduate students from all around the country collaboratively design and develop projects that improve the environment, economy, and livability of their communities. These projects range from developing green tea polymers to treat cancer, to using bio-composite materials in load-bearing elements in buildings. All of the projects involved

in the 2006 competition were innovative and novel, but only a few won the P3 Award, making them eligible to apply for grants of up to $75,000.

Among the winners is a group from Portland State University in Oregon. Michelle Guthrie, Candy Lai Kuen, and Kristen Lans designed an educational and interactive website called WISE--Whole systems, Integrated Site design for Education. The website, hosted by a friendly and informative owl, guides students through a multi-step process to improve the sustainability of their school campus, and ultimately, get them interested in improving the sustainability of their communities at large.

Portland State University has a long standing reputation for innovative and progressive thinking, offering programs that foster and promote sustainability, so it is no surprise that this award-winning project came from Portland State minds. The project, as well as the university community itself, serves as a strong example of the educational values we need to promote in this country.

I want to congratulate the project adviser, Pramod Parajuli, and the entire university community on this tremendous success. Most of all, I congratulate these women whose combination of talent and commitment lead to the development of this exciting and valuable project. I am honored by their service to our community.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am sad that we don't have maximum flexibility under the way the rule is structured to speak to the needs of American veterans; and I will vote against it. But I hope that we can spend this time also focusing on some broader issues.

Luckily, there is a provision that will permit me to provide an amendment today to help with the cleanup of the vast toxic legacy that America faces in every State of the Union from unexploded munitions and military toxins, from training exercises, from old military depots, from having shells lobbed by generations of cadets at West

Point that have been in the Storm King Forest. Every State in the Union, over 3,000 sites, have been identified as areas that need cleanup.

I want to say I appreciate what Mr. Walsh, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Farr have done with this important military quality of life committee in starting to focus on this. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the real problem is that Congress has been missing in action when it comes to cleaning up this toxic legacy.

I had a Member of this body yesterday tell me, well, we really don't need to put more money in it. He wasn't sure that it was worth it. Let's just have barbed wire around them, keep people out and save the money for things that are more important. This is a Member that I deeply respect but who betrayed a tragic lack of understanding of exactly the scope and magnitude of this problem and what would be the benefit of handling it properly.

I could tell this gentleman that there were dozens of cases where innocent civilians, in some cases children, have been killed because bombs have turned up in the back of a subdivision that people have just walked away from. Or the gentleman rototilling his yard in Five Points, Texas, rototilling up a bomb. Or three times since I have been in Congress we have had to pull firefighters out of forest fires because bombs were exploding, generated by the heat.

Now these are not things that we can simply walk away from. There are areas where munitions break down over time and the toxic leaks into the groundwater which creates a larger problem.

There is also the notion that there are 10 million, 20 million, 30 million acres or more, nobody knows exactly how much, polluted or potentially polluted that is not available for hunting and fishing, that is not available for redevelopment, for housing, for industrial use, to be put back on the tax rolls.

Ultimately, this is a responsibility that the Department of Defense and the Federal Government is going to have to assume. Putting up barbed wire and walking away doesn't solve the problem.

But one of the things that I would hope would focus attention by Members of this assembly is not just the long-term benefits, not just cleaning it up, not just returning it to productive use but think about who is at risk, because it is our soldiers, their families, the employees of these bases and their neighbors that are most at risk.

What is to be solved by kicking the can down the road and ignoring it?

Last, but by no means least, if we get the technology right that will enable us to find out whether it is a hubcap or a 105-millimeter shell that is buried under the ground, that just doesn't help us clean up these 3,000 sites in the United States. That same technology would save the lives of our soldiers right now who are at risk every day in Iraq from roadside bombs, from land mines. That is how I lost my first constituent in Iraq, was a young man killed by a land mine.

By Congress continuing to be missing in action not taking a significant step to clean up this toxic explosive legacy, we are not just putting at risk the environment, we are not just putting at risk children who are playing in subdivisions or firefighters who will fight in the next forest fire where there are bombs and toxic legacy, they are putting at risk our soldiers, our men and women overseas who won't benefit from the techniques and the technology.

I appreciate what the subcommittee has done trying to train the attention. It is time for this body to step up and agitate to make their job a little harder and for our friends on the Appropriations Committee in Defense appropriations to invest in doing this right.

I oppose the rule. I look forward to bringing an amendment later in the debate to be able to at least put a little bit of money to deal with the problem in other parts of the United States now.