Floor Statements

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

I appreciate the strong and eloquent statement of my friend from Texas, his support for this legislation and over 100 of our colleagues on bipartisan legislation that seeks to make a difference, as my friend said. I would like to express my deep appreciation for Chairman Hyde's hard work and passion on this item that has helped us get to this point today.

This legislation may be coming up under suspension of the rules, but for over 2 billion people around the world without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation, nothing could be more important for us to discuss here today. This is an opportunity for the House of Representatives to exert leadership on this too-often-overlooked, but critical, issue. Headlines today are devoted to the potential for a pandemic dealing with bird flu, and rightly so. But here and now, lack of access to water and sanitation is the number one killer around the world. We may take safe drinking water and sanitation for granted, but such is not the case for these hundreds of millions of people.

As my colleague said a moment ago, every 7 to 15 seconds, a child dies unnecessarily from waterborne disease. In the course of our brief discussion today, over 100 children will die unnecessarily. As a result of lack of access to safe drinking water, half the people in the world today who are sick, are sick unnecessarily because of this simple problem. This bill is an opportunity, not to create vast new programs and bet on new technology, but to refocus our foreign assistance efforts on a comprehensive, strategic series of investments. There are simple common-sense steps the world fully understands which will make a difference in people's lives, help transform their communities while building real local capacity for sustainable development.

Water and sanitation is crucial because it is a necessary part of every one of our foreign assistance objectives. Access to water empowers women and girls who in many places are unable to get an education or hold a job because they have to spend hours walking to fetch water for their families. They are at risk in many places of attack as they leave the village in search of safe water, and hours of dangerous toil means school is less likely or even impossible.

Safe water and sanitation makes people healthier and, therefore, more economically productive. Studies show at any given time the fact that half the people in the developing world being sick from water-related diseases, especially chronic diarrhea, saps their capacity to be economically productive.

We find that the economic benefits of investing in safe drinking water and sanitation is dramatic, up to $34 in increased economic productivity for every dollar invested. Poor countries with access to improved water and sanitation have enjoyed annual growth rates in their gross domestic product of 3.7 percent, while those without adequate investment saw their GDP grow at just one-tenth of 1 percent, almost 40 times greater for those with the adequate investment.

Poor people are already investing vast sums of money on unsafe water and access to water that comes via trucks. Investing in real water delivery systems will actually free up money for poor people to invest in their basic needs. There are even opportunities for microenterprise. In this way, these water investments can work the same as microfinance and debt relief combined.

Increasing access to safe drinking water and sanitation helps protect the environment, and not just for poor people in developing countries. Improving sanitation helps keep raw sewage from flowing into rivers and water sources. Protecting these natural resources helps keep water supplies clean and people healthier all around the world.

Safe water projects can empower communities, supporting them on their way to self-sufficiency. It builds the capacity for communities to design, build and maintain not just their water and sanitation systems; it can provide an inclusive process to bring together

their governments with their citizens, the components of civil society to develop the needs for democracy and good government.

As my friend alluded to, water can help prevent conflict and violence as, across the world, efforts to cooperate over shared water resources can serve as an incentive to limit conflict and a starting point for efforts to resolve conflict.

Finally, the Copenhagen Consensus group of economists, a group that, frankly, is skeptical of much foreign aid, rates the investments in water and sanitation as some of the best and most effective investments in development, growth, and ending poverty. This is not an investment that is going to end up in some thug's Swiss bank account. It puts local people to work while it saves their children's lives.

The scope and immediacy of this crisis in water and sanitation around the world was center stage when I and a number of my colleagues from the House attended the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa in 2002. There, while we were debating water and its role in sustainability, we were able to visit some of the desperately poor instant slums that had sprung up around Johannesburg. We saw firsthand the need for water and sanitation being at the forefront of those people's needs and, again, examples of cost- effective mechanisms that made a difference. I think that was one of the reasons why the United States and 185 other countries committed to cutting in half the number of people in the world without access to safe drinking water and sanitation by 2015.

The cost of meeting this goal is not an investment that is beyond our capacity. It is less than Europeans spend on perfume each year or that Americans spend on elective cosmetic surgery. In order to put it in perspective, it is less than the cost of one takeout pizza per American family per year that will enable us to transform people's lives. Unfortunately, despite our good work, despite the consensus in 2002, despite the growing awareness of this problem, the world is not yet on track to meet that goal.

The United States has not yet developed a comprehensive strategy to make that happen. It is not that we are unaware or that we are on the sidelines. We are spending a huge amount of money already, and the House just approved doubling our current investment in aid last week.

We have a wide variety of programs across the whole of the Federal Government. There are programs in the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, Interior, State, the African Development Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Agency For International Development, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, Centers For Disease Control, the Export-Import Bank, the InterAmerican Foundation, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Peace Corps, EPA, all have pieces of this puzzle. The problem is we have not brought them together in a comprehensive and thoughtful fashion. There is not enough coordination and strategic planning among the various programs.

Our current efforts are focused almost entirely on a very few places, most of the investment to be found in Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, the West Bank, and Gaza. I am not going to suggest at all that those investments are not worthwhile and important, but it is time that we refocus our efforts to make sure that we pay attention to areas of greatest need. For example, the lowest percentage of access to water and sanitation is in sub-Saharan Africa, and it gets only $7 million a year. The largest number of people without this access are in South and East Asia.

This legislation helps us take these many programs, give them the coordination and direction they need to make a difference.

The Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act establishes improving affordable and equitable access to water and sanitation as a major objective of our foreign policy. It directs the Secretary of State to develop a strategy with specific timetables, benchmarks and goals to bring together this vast array of programs that I mentioned to integrate water and sanitation into our development efforts and to meet our commitment that the United States and over 180 other countries made in Johannesburg.

It will ensure that water and sanitation is focused on the places with the greatest need, including efforts on building developing world capacity so that they do not remain dependent on our assistance over time. And it sets policy to assure that our assistance is as cost effective as it can be. That is one of the elements that came forward in our hearings. In talking to faith-based and other nongovernmental organizations, we learn there are a vast array of cost-effective mechanisms that will make a difference and will do it quickly.

I would also note that this bill would establish one of the Millennium Development Goals in U.S. law for the first time. This would be regarded as a very positive development around the world. Our efforts in this legislation are designed to provide our government, recipient governments and all their private-sector and NGO partners with the necessary tools and flexibility to increase access to safe drinking water and sanitation in an affordable and equitable way. It is the result of a long process that has included input from Members on both sides of the aisle, from NGOs, from faith-based organizations, environmental groups, engineering firms, water-related businesses, from the administration.

I am pleased and proud that our committee has been inclusive and thoughtful in bringing this together. I think it has the potential not just in healing some of the poorest countries around the world, but I think it is an example of the bipartisan cooperation that Members here are interested in.

As my colleague from Texas pointed out, this is a priority of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. He has introduced legislation, along with the Democratic Leader Harry Reid. There is an opportunity here for the two Chambers to come together quickly to be able to put legislation on the President's desk before we adjourn this year, and it will have an impact that will be felt, as they say, around the world.

I have mentioned the support, leadership, and passion of our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). I appreciate ranking Democrat, the gentleman from California's (Mr. Lantos) advice and counsel to me as I have been developing this legislation and moving it forward.

There are key staff members here: Lara Alameh, who has spent countless hours for the majority working with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), moving this legislation forward, and I appreciate her personal commitment and engagement; Robin Roizman from the gentleman from California's (Mr. Lantos) staff; my friend and colleague, Judah Ariel, who has made this a critical part of his role in our office. I appreciate the people behind the scenes who have worked hard to give us a piece of legislation that we can move forward with confidence and expedition.

Finally, I am pleased that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) actually had the idea, I am sorry that I did not name this legislation after Senator Paul Simon. Senator Simon gave me a copy of his book ``Tapped Out'' on his last visit to Oregon, something that I cherish. And he was the type of bipartisan, thoughtful, results-oriented legislator that we all should want to emulate. This legislation will be a fitting memorial to his memory. I appreciate what has brought us to this day.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit in the Record an expanded list of the groups and organizations who have made the legislation possible, who have worked with the staff, who have worked to refine it, and who are raising the public awareness.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have reached this point today. I am pleased that in the last week I think it is safe to say there has been more attention spent on Capitol Hill on providing safe drinking water for the poor than there has probably been in years. I think it is time well spent. This legislation will move us in that direction, and I am pleased that we have it here before us today.

I would also like to thank the following groups for their support and assistance:

Mercy Corps, Water Advocates, Millennium Water Alliance, National Wildlife Federation,

the Environmental Change and Security Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, US Fund for UNICEF, Engineers Without Borders, National Audubon Society, American Council of Engineering Companies, Water Environment Federation, Water for People, American Council of Engineering Companies, Nature Conservancy, Public Citizen, American Refugee Committee, CARE USA, Food for the Hungry, the Institute for Sustainable Communities, Lifewater International, Oxfam America, Population Action International, Sister Cities International, WaterAid America, Waterlines, WaterPartners International, The Nature Conservancy, US-India PAC, Citizens for Global Solutions, and the Institute for MultiTrack Diplomacy.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time and permitting me to speak on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying legislation. I want to highlight the $200 million that has been set aside for safe drinking water.

I must acknowledge not just the leadership of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), but the special interests of the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, with whom I have been working on efforts to increase our commitment to provide sanitation and safe drinking water around the world, a United States priority that we have undertaken together with the United Nations; but it is one where we have not yet backed that up with dollars and with an overall strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this bill is an important step towards meeting that obligation. I am pleased that next week it appears as we will be voting on legislation, the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act, which will suggest that this will be a cornerstone in our foreign aid strategy.

At any given time, one-half of the people in the world who are sick are sick needlessly from waterborne diseases; and before I finish the 3 minutes that the gentlewoman has kindly allocated to me, more than 10 children will die from waterborne disease.

But the programs in this bill are more than just humanitarian efforts to reduce human suffering. As valuable as they are, they are cost- effective investments in shared prosperity, collective security, and a common future.

I hope that next year we will make it possible for the subcommittee to do its job easily and that the United States is not ranked 21st out of 22 donor countries in terms of how much we invest in ending global poverty compared to the size of our economy.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, additionally, that we are able to correct one area that is of deep concern to me, the loss of $50 million for the African Union Mission in Darfur, cut just at the point where security is getting worse, when the African Union is coming under attack, and the innocent people in Darfur are most in need of protection.

It troubles me deeply. However, overall I think the job that has been done by the subcommittee in fighting for our priorities and particularly in the renewed investment in safe drinking water and sanitation is to be commended. It will have a transformational effect, even this small amount. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that if Americans would allocate just what we give each year for elective cosmetic surgery, or the Europeans would invest what they spend on perfume, we could meet the targets that the United States and the United Nations have set to reduce the scourge of unsafe drinking water and lack of sanitation.

I appreciate the work that is here. I look forward to supporting the bill.

Last night, friends and colleagues gathered to honor 30 years of outstanding journalistic accomplishments of Neal Pierce, a founder of the National Journal, editor of the Congressional Quarterly, a prolific writer on public affairs, a syndicated columnist, and author of a dozen books.

His most important contribution has been his keen observations about State and local governments, especially about America's regions, our metropolitan areas that have been the location of the growth and cultural and economic progress that has made such an impact on America.

He has not merely chronicled these developments. His insightful analysis has helped make communities better. That is the ultimate role of the journalist and is deeply appreciated by his many friends, admirers, and readers, to say nothing of millions of Americans who have benefited from his analysis. We thank you, Neal.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me the time and permitting me to speak on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the frustration that we have heard on the floor, the reaction to the Kelo decision which I personally looked at those circumstances. I was troubled in terms of what was proposed in that city.

But I am concerned that we have the big picture in mind, because we have been dealing with eminent domain for decades. We do not have a national crisis here. What we had was a State and local government that did not do their job appropriately.

The Supreme Court, appropriately, indicated that this was not a constitutional issue. There are tools. There are remedies.

I am a former local official. I dealt for years, as public works commissioner for the City of Portland, with things that dealt with redevelopment. We rarely if ever used eminent domain. The fact that it was there made a difference to be able to do things the public wanted.

I hope that Members reflect on the dangers of having the Federal Government rush into something that is appropriately the province of State and local affairs. Think about what the approach you are advocating here would have had on cleaning up Times Square. This was an area that for years was a center of violence and vice. Eminent domain was used to transform Times Square with the crime rate plummeting and change the face of that area.

There are communities around the country where this has been done. Look at the Roxbury neighborhood in Boston or look out the door here of the Capitol at Pennsylvania Avenue, where eminent domain was used in the 1960s and 1970s to reformulate the face of it.

I understand the sensitivity. We do not want it abused. But, for heavens sake, we should be careful before we rush in with a Federal solution which may have unintended consequences.

Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court Ruling in Kelo v New London sparked many fears among citizens that their property was at risk of being taken away by the government. These fears, however, are unwarranted and stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of eminent domain.

Eminent domain is a power granted local governments by the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court decision in no way precluded the rights of States to place further restrictions on eminent domain and to more narrowly define public use. The court leaves these rights to local officials and citizens for public debate. In my experience as a local elected official, eminent domain was the absolute last resort, but it was an important tool to have if was absolutely necessary.

In the discussion on the House floor today, my colleagues failed to recognize the many benefits we experience thanks to eminent domain. Twenty years ago, Times Square was a notoriously dangerous neighborhood in New York City. Eminent domain was used to take 13 acres of land, condemning 56 lots and moving 404 tenants. The public-private redevelopment included a highly successful mixture of for-profit and non-profit theaters, retail facilities, hotels, and office buildings. What was once a blighted, unsafe neighborhood is now a safe and vibrant city center.

Connecting the U.S. Capitol and the White House, Pennsylvania Avenue is one of this country's most important thoroughfares. Fifty years ago, however, it was a street bordered by many problematic land uses and buildings that significantly detracted from its role in the life of Washington, D.C. and America. In 1972, Congress created the Pennsylvania A venue Development Corporation, which in turn exercised the power of eminent domain to revitalize this important avenue of American life.

This bill is a hasty political response to a narrow Supreme Court decision. I am concerned that it is overly broad and will have many unintended consequences for our States and communities and hamper their ability to build safer, healthier and economically secure neighborhoods. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and allow local governments to reform eminent domain laws in manners consistent with their communities' needs.

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support of H.R. 4128 the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.

I am pleased the House of Representatives recognizes the importance of protecting private property rights, and clarifying legitimate takings by the Federal Government and discouraging takings for private development.

Without a doubt, I am a strong defender of private property rights. Uncompensated regulatory takings of private property have become an immense problem across our Nation. As Federal, State, and local regulations have increased in number and scope, property owners have increasingly found themselves unable to use their property and unable to recover the losses that result.

In Kelo v. City of New London, decided June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the city's condemnation of private property, to implement its area redevelopment plan aimed at invigorating a depressed economy, was a ``public use'' satisfying the U.S. Constitution--even though the property might be turned over to private developers. The majority opinion was grounded on Supreme Court decisions holding that ``public use'' must be read broadly to mean ``for a public purpose.''

This decision does not take into sufficient account the distinction between projects where economic development is only an instrumental or secondary aspect of the project, and those where economic development is the primary interest. I am concerned by this decision.

Our founding fathers believed so much in the sanctity and importance of private property that they felt it needed to be protected in the Constitution. However, due to the recent ruling, government officials can confiscate private property if they simply argue the local community will receive an economic benefit to do so. In fact, the Institute for Justice estimates that over 10,000 homes nationwide are in danger of being destroyed by aggressive local governments. Now officials can seize the homes of private citizens to generate more tax income to fuel big government spending programs.

Justice O'Connor had it right when she stated, ``under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process.''

Property rights are civil rights. There can be no individual freedom without the power of an individual to control their own autonomy through the free use of their own property. The Supreme Court's decision poses an immediate threat to that essential freedom, and the most likely victims will be the most vulnerable in our society if Congress does not act.

Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that Federal powers should not be used to enrich the powerful and the wealthy, but the first response to Kelo should be from responsible local and State governments, not the United States Congress. One narrow Supreme Court decision should not be the basis for an overbroad Federal amendment that will have many unintended consequences.

Earlier I asked what would be the impact if this legislation had been passed for the revitalization of Times Square, where eminent domain transformed one of the most notorious places in America or the Dudley Street neighborhood initiative in the Roxbury Dorchester area in Boston or just outside our window where we have had Pennsylvania Avenue restored using eminent domain.

I would strongly suggest that the gentleman from North Carolina's approach is a more reasonable and prudent one. We do not have a crisis at this point. State and local governments should be dealing with this in an appropriate fashion. We should not have overbroad legislation that could have many unintended consequences.

Mr. Speaker, while I supported the Agriculture Appropriations bill when it was originally considered on the House floor, I was disappointed in the conference committee's failure to maintain some essential programs and I voted against the conference report.

The agreement further delays mandatory country-of-origin labeling for meat or meat products. Congress recognized the importance of this program in ensuring food safety when it passed the 2002 Farm Bill and the need is even more apparent now. It is perplexing why, in a time of mad cow outbreaks and the threat of bioterrorism, we would cut funding for this important program.

I was also disappointed to see a change to the organic standard, that was not performed in a transparent manner. I am hopeful that in the future Congress can work together more productively to pass an agriculture bill that reflects the values of Americans and properly funds the programs that are important to them.

Mr. Speaker, this week we mark the passing of a unique and important figure in Oregon politics and civic life. Donald Stathos was a small-business man, state legislator, and a creative and vibrant force in our community. He was best-known as the father of Oregon's Bike Bill in 1971 which created an allocation for cycling, long before the cycling craze hit this country. The bill was a typical act of foresight on behalf of an extraordinary man which led to our states leadership in promoting cycling for all ages.

Mr. Stathos was a creative legislator not bound by narrow ideology or partisan interests. When there was a rash of campus and other violence and bombings during his career he had the courage to sponsor legislation dealing with the control of explosives and as a result had his office firebombed. Either a right-wing extremist or a printing error left his information out of the voting pamphlet in the state's most populous county. Had this not of happened he might well have gone on to a statewide elected office; however, the man was not defined by the offices he held but rather by his beliefs.

Donald Stathos' zest for life and his friendship will be sorely missed.

Madam Speaker, our Chaplain reminded us that our actions on the floor of the House are felt around the world. Well, today, one half of the people who are ill around the world are sick needlessly from water-borne disease, and up to 5 million are going to die this year as a result.

We know how to solve this problem, and the solution is affordable. For less than what it costs our Europeans for perfume in a year, or less than what Americans spend on elective surgery, we could fulfill the United Nations commitment to cut in half the people without safe drinking water and sanitation by the year 2015.

Sadly, the United States, despite its leadership in the United Nations on this issue, still does not have a comprehensive program to address this crisis. Our International Relations Committee is sending to the floor bipartisan legislation to correct this policy deficiency. H.R. 1973, the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act, will establish safe drinking water and sanitation as a core foreign policy principle and create a plan. Today is the last day to add your name to the list of sponsors. I ask that you do so before it reaches the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak against this resolution. I understand the frustrations that have been expressed by some of our colleagues here on the floor about the BRAC safety valve. I understand their frustration. We were in the crosshairs in my community, and some of the issues that were raised earlier about the friction within the Pentagon, the inability to appropriately focus on the value of the Air Guard and there were some other issues that were at work here. I think this process is helping.

I appreciate the debate here on the floor. I hope that we are able to further clarify the role that the Guard, especially the Air Guard and Ready Reserve, play as opposed to the Pentagon.

The BRAC process in our case allowed us to make the case. We pulled together as a community. We were able to document that the transfer of the Air Guard actually would end up costing the taxpayer money, and we were able to demonstrate that it would leave a whole sector of the Northwest United States vulnerable, taking away critical air support that has loomed larger as we deal with the role of homeland security in our national defense.

I would hope that our friends on the Armed Services Committee would focus on adjustments that may need to be made to the BRAC process to allow a higher priority attached to homeland security in these decisions in the future. It was not as clear when the BRAC legislation was enacted almost 20 years ago. I think things have shifted. I think it is time to readjust it.

I would also hope that this would be an opportunity for us to focus on what we are leaving communities with after the bases are closed. I have come to the floor pleading for more support from Appropriations and more attention from the Armed Services Committee to unexploded ordnance and military toxins.

The problem we are facing right now, after the 1988 BRAC process, we still have a dozen communities where they have not finished cleaning up those bases. Indeed, the Mather Air Force Base in California, in Sacramento,

closed in 1988. The cleanup is not going to be completed until 2072. That is not fair to communities where bases are closed.

While I support the BRAC process, I oppose the resolution. I think, in the main, BRAC has worked. I hope we are able to clarify the role of the Guard and the Ready Reserve as it relates to national security.

I do hope this is a wake-up call to what we are leaving communities with, and we can accelerate the cleanup process.

Madam Speaker, every day on the floor, we have much spirited debate. Often there is some agreement. But I think there is one thing that every Member of this Chamber can agree, the needless loss to water-borne disease of a child every 15 seconds. Four children will die before I finish my 1-minute here this morning. This sum is a tragedy that we must and should act to avert.

The good news is it is something we can change. We can make water and sanitation a cornerstone of United States foreign aid policy. We have legislation moving through our House International Relations Committee, passed unanimously, that would make this important change. There is legislation on the other body, encouragingly introduced by both the majority leader and the minority leader, that is parallel in nature.

Yesterday, Chairman Hyde and I invited each Member of the House to join over 60 other bipartisan cosponsors to add their names to H.R. 1973, the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act. This critical bipartisan legislation will enable the United States to fulfill our international obligation and prevent this tragic, unnecessary loss of life around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to S. 397, the Gun Manufacturers Liability Protection Act. It is hard to imagine how people who have lived through the sniper experience in Washington, DC, and those who deal with potential terrorist acts in the United States would want to specifically weaken potential sanctions against people who abuse their business of selling firearms.

This legislation would have given a pass for the infamous Tacoma, WA, gun dealer who ``lost'' more than 200 weapons, one of which ended up in the hands of the sniper who killed 11 people in Washington, DC. Why anyone would want to shield people for that sort of reckless and illegal behavior is mystifying and it is certainly not worthy of passage by the House of Representatives. Were it not for gun politics, this legislation would never have seen the light of day.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following votes on Monday, October 17th, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote No. 521: I would have voted ``aye'' on approving the Journal.

Rollcall vote No. 522: I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 457, recognizing the importance and positive contributions of chemistry to our everyday lives and supporting the goals and ideas of National Chemistry Week.

Rollcall vote No. 523: I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 491, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to raising awareness and enhancing the state of computer security in the United States and supporting the goals and ideas of National Cyber Security Awareness Month.

Madam Speaker, the turmoil surrounding the Katrina aftermath and some of the winds of change here in Washington, DC, obscures the fact that every 15 seconds a child dies needlessly and hundreds of millions of people worldwide are sick from waterborne diseases. But a small bright spot is emerging for the United States leadership potential on this issue. I commend Senator Frist for his personal concern and leadership in the other body and bipartisan legislation co-sponsored by Democratic leader Senator Reed. In the foreign ops bill there is $200 million in the Senate version dedicated for water objectives, a significant increase given that we are currently only spending $8 million in the entire continent of Africa.

We await floor action on our bill out of the House International Relations Committee, the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act, where Congress can act to pull together the pieces for a global water strategy. It is easily within our power to meet our commitments to extend safe drinking water and sanitation to over a billion people in need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3893, the ``Second Energy Special Interest Act of 2005.'' The Bush administration's energy policy and the machinations of the Republican leadership on this subject have an Alice in Wonderland quality.

It was the Vice President, after all, who said that energy conservation may have been a virtue but it was no basis for a national energy policy. Yet just last week the President was compelled by circumstances to urge the only things that are really going to work to get us out of this energy crisis: conservation, the use of mass transit, and changing American driving habits. Unfortunately, the administration has not put forward any concrete proposals or recommendations for conservation initiatives. Instead, he has cut funding for the conservation and efficiency programs we already have in place.

It is unconscionable that this most recent energy bill completely misses the point. We're not going to drill, dig, and subsidize our way out of this energy crisis. Burning money is not an efficient way to produce energy. We must have an energy program for this century, not the 1950s. This new energy policy should consist of more efficiency, new technology, and less petroleum.

If we're going to spend more money, it should be invested in programs that actually help people. Higher fuel efficiency standards, public transit, and even bicycles, will do much more to reduce our dependence on foreign oil than what's in this bill. If just two percent of trips taken nationwide were taken by bikes, we would save more than two thirds of a billion gallons of gasoline a year and up to $5 billion in total consumer driving costs.

Increasing fuel economy standards by a mere 1.5 miles per gallon-- less than 10 percent--over the next 10 years would save more oil than we currently import from the Persian Gulf and more than we could ever recover from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, combined.

Last but not least, this bill's focus on making it easier to build more refineries by limiting our environmental standards completely misses the point. The fact is, the energy industry makes more money by restricting refinery capacity; the refiners' profits have jumped 80 percent over the past 5 years. As long as the oil companies stand to make more money with limited supply, this approach is doomed to fail.

This energy bill is not only a missed opportunity, but it is a cynical effort by Washington Republicans to exploit the tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to give more subsidies to oil companies and to roll back environmental laws.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following vote on Tuesday, September 27 and Wednesday, September 28, 2005, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote 501: I would have voted ``aye'' on the Department of Justice Authorization Act, H.R. 3402. Despite passage of the Manager's amendment, this bill does ensure that programs which help prevent violence and assist survivors are continued. I also support provisions in this bill that help local communities with additional resources to provide better support and security to victims of domestic violence.

Rollcall vote 500: I would have voted ``aye'' on the Democratic Motion to Recommit, offered by Representative Stupak, which would have given the Justice Department authority to prosecute oil companies engaged in price gouging.

Rollcall vote 499: I would have voted ``nay'' on the Managers Amendment offered by Representative Sensenbrenner. The amendment significantly weakens the bill's emphasis on domestic violence grant funding for communities of color. Racial and ethnic minorities already face complex issues in reporting and accessing assistance for domestic violence; we cannot shortchange this population.

Rollcall vote 498: I would have voted ``nay'' on the Rule for consideration of H.R. 3402, because it did not allow for consideration of many important Democratic and bipartisan amendments.

Rollcall vote 497: I would have voted ``aye'' on the Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2360, offered by Representative Sabo, which would have prevented the reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security from further weakening federal emergency preparedness capability.

Rollcall vote 496: I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 209, supporting the goals and ideals of Domestic Violence Awareness Month and expressing the sense of Congress that Congress should raise awareness of domestic

violence in the United States and its devastating effects on families.

Rollcall vote 495: I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 438, a bill to name a postal facility in Berkeley, California, after Maudelle Shirek. Ms. Shirek has provided a significant service to this country fighting against injustice, poverty, and housing discrimination.

Rollcall vote 494: I would have voted ``aye'' on H.J. Res. 66, supporting the goals and ideals of ``Lights On Afterschool,'' a national celebration of after-school programs.

Mr. Speaker, the tragedy that was Hurricane Katrina is also an unprecedented opportunity for us to help those damaged areas in a thoughtful, comprehensive fashion. A small example is the St. Charles street car. The oldest street car line in America, located in New Orleans, dates back to 1834, when it was a horse-drawn street car. It is not just a historic landmark championed by former Representative Lindy Boggs, but this is something that could be the center of a revitalized New Orleans. For a relatively modest amount of money, it could quickly guide and inspire new investments throughout New Orleans in a way that would be an example of a cost-effective, well-planned vision for the future.

I urge my colleagues to join in an effort to support a vision of New Orleans that deals with its history, thoughtful planning, and careful economic development: Restore and expand the historic St. Charles Street street cars.