Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this bill finally fully funds the mitigation programs authorized last year by the Flood Insurance Reform Act, which I was pleased to coauthor with our former colleague, Doug Bereuter, which reauthorized and reformed the National Flood Insurance program assisting property owners who live in repetitively flooded areas. The programs in this bill are not funded by taxpayer dollars but by a transfer from the National Flood Insurance paid by premium dollars which authorized mitigation assistance to communities to elevate properties or move people out of harm's way.

Hurricane Katrina highlighted the importance of preparing for and mitigating against these natural disasters. While I am pleased that we have partial funding, I am disappointed that the administration has not requested funding for these programs earlier, an approach that could have, if fully funded and aggressively implemented, saved lives and property.

Unfortunately, the conference committee report cuts critical funding for other important mitigation programs. It provides only $50 million for pre-disaster mitigation, which is 67 percent below the House passed level and the President's request and 50 percent below the level for last year. This is what helps keep people out of harm's way.

But my deepest concern in the report, I must say, is a local concern, dealing with what it does to Portland's airport screeners with a reduction of over 2,000 from last year and the President's request. These have led directly to cuts in screener levels at over 200 airports across the country.

The airport that serves the Portland metropolitan area is hit the hardest in the country, losing over a third of our screeners despite an increase in our air traffic. These cuts will impact not just my community but those across the country and undermine our air transportation system.

The cuts will lead to longer lines and lost luggage. These proposed cuts will leave Portland less protected than it was before 9/11. We have introduced a resolution of inquiry to find out why in the world TSA wants to do that.

Unless we in Congress understand how TSA is doing the job of cutting funding for these screeners, they will come back to haunt our local communities and our already ailing airlines. I think our constituents deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both the rule and the bill. No matter how the proponents of the bill classify putting soft words and talking about it being reasonable or a compromise, it does not make it so. This is less about reform of the ESA and protecting species, and more about making it easier for the exploitation of the environment.

We have been in a state of stalemate for a number of years because the goal has not been reasonable refinement. There are things we could do right now to make the Endangered Species Act more efficient, more effective, for instance, adequately funding the enforcement and conservation mechanisms. But the goal was not modest reform and improvement; it was a radical adjustment.

The batting average analogy of my friend from Utah simply misses the point. It is not about just the species that have been restored. It is the protection that has been extended across America to make it possible that we are not losing environmental ground, and given the environmental circumstances, that is no easy task.

I have literally watched it work in my own backyard. I have an urban creek that flows 26 miles through the heart of my congressional district. The salmon listing under the Endangered Species Act prompted action by four local cities and two counties. We were able to come forward with an innovative streamlining agreement to meet the standards necessary to comply with the Endangered Species Act and move quickly through the permitting process. We have been able to make progress. I have seen it work when people are committed to doing so.

There are many troubling aspects of this legislation. Putting in the hands, we have seen in this administration, of political appointees really perverting the decisionmaking in the name of science, these are not people that I think we ought to turn this over to willy-nilly.

But the most troubling part of the legislation is found in the new entitlement program contained in section 14. It goes far beyond paying people to obey the law, far beyond compensating for loss of customary use. It actually would create a perverse incentive for developers to propose the most environmentally destructive projects possible in order to get higher payment from the government. If you think we have litigation under the Endangered Species Act now, wait until you see people coming forward right and left with bizarre proposals for development seeking compensation for things that were never customary uses.

It is not only an unfunded mandate. It is providing a form of environmental blackmail and promotes endless legal battles. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule and this radical rollback of the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. Chairman, I will support the bipartisan substitute amendment by my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) because it is an honest effort to make it a better alternative that does not include the most egregious parts of the underlying bill.

I would, however, just make one point. I take modest exception to the implication that was made from the other side of the aisle that somehow the Endangered Species Act and environmental legislation had something to do with the tragedy we witnessed unfurl in the Katrina-affected region. The GAO presented a report yesterday saying that the delays in the project, that none of the changes are believed to have had any role in the levee breaches. And, in fact, Corps officials believe that the flooding would have been worse if the original proposed design had been built. That was presented to Congress yesterday by the GAO.

This is contentious enough, Mr. Chairman, so it would be nice if we could stick to the facts and not make implications that somehow the environmental legislation had anything to do with that tragedy. Knowledgeable people understand that in the long run environmental legislation, had it been enforced and applied uniformly, would have made things better.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the GAO report I just referred to.

Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project

what gao found

Congress first authorized the Lake Pontchartrain and

Vicinity, Louisiana Hurricane Protection Project in the Flood

Control Act of 1965. The project was to construct a series of

control structures, concrete floodwalls, and levees to

provide hurricane protection to areas around Lake

Pontchartrain. The project, when designed, was expected to

take about 13 years to complete and cost about $85 million.

Although federally authorized, it was a joint federal, state,

and local effort.

The original project designs were developed based on the

equivalent of what is now called a fast-moving Category 3

hurricane that might strike the coastal Louisiana region once

in 200-300 years. As GAO reported in 1976 and 1982, since the

beginning of the project, the Corps has encountered project

delays and cost increases due to design changes caused by

technical issues, environmental concerns, legal challenges,

and local opposition to portions of the project. As a result,

in 1982, project costs had grown to $757 million and the

expected completion date had slipped to 2008. None of the

changes made to the project, however, are believed to have

had any role in the levee breaches recently experienced as

the alternative design selected was expected to provide the

same level of protection. In fact, Corps officials believe

that flooding would have been worse if the original proposed

design had been built. When Katrina struck, the project,

including about 125 miles of levees, was estimated to be from

60-90 percent complete in different areas with an estimated

completion date for the whole project of 2015. The floodwalls

along the drainage canals that were breached were complete

when the hurricane hit.

The current estimated cost of construction for the

completed project is $738 million with the federal share

being $528 million and the local share $210 million. Federal

allocations for the project were $458 million as of the

enactment of the fiscal year 2005 federal appropriation. This

represents 87 percent of the federal government's

responsibility of $528 million with about $70 million

remaining to complete the project. Over the last 10 fiscal

years (1996-2005), federal appropriations have totaled about

$128.6 million and Corps reprogramming actions resulted in

another $13 million being made available to the project.

During that time, appropriations have generally declined from

about $15-20 million annually in the earlier years to about

$5-7 million in the last three fiscal years. While this may

not be unusual given the state of completion of the project,

the Corps' project fact sheet from May 2005 noted that the

President's budget request for fiscal years 2005 and 2006,

and the appropriated amount for fiscal year 2005 were

insufficient to fund new construction contracts. The Corps

had also stated that it could spend $20 million in fiscal

year 2006 on the project if the funds were available. The

Corps noted that several levees had settled and needed to be

raised to provide the level of protection intended by the

design.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of this amendment. I have serious concerns about the changes to the current Endangered Species Act being discussed today, both in the underlying bill and this amendment. I am especially frustrated that both bills repeal the critical habitat provisions of the ESA, which are crucial to the recovery of species. I plan to vote against final passage of any legislation that repeals this important provision.

But I will support the bipartisan substitute amendment by my colleagues Mr. Miller and Mr. Boehlert because it is an honest effort to present an alternative. It does not include the most egregious parts of H.R. 3824 which make a mockery of science and conservation.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a resolution of inquiry regarding the recent reallocation of Transportation Security Administration airport screeners that is leading to massive cuts in screener workforce levels at Portland International Airport, in my district, and at many other airports across the country. This resolution directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to turn over to Congress all the information in his possession regarding this screener reallocation. Only with this information can our airport authorities ensure that they were treated fairly by this process and can Congress do its oversight job to ensure that our air transportation system is safe, efficient, convenient, and an engine of economic growth for our communities.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the three final votes on Thursday, September 8th, 2005, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote No. 462: I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 3668, the ``Student Grant Hurricane and Disaster Relief Act.''

Rollcall vote No. 463: I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 428, expressing the sincere gratitude of the House of Representatives to the foreign individuals, organizations, and governments that have offered material assistance and other forms of support to those who have been affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Rollcall vote No. 464: I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 427, relating to the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Mr. Speaker, despite our recent flood insurance reforms, Katrina revealed that much remains to be done. Damage on a massive scale triggered payouts and borrowing that mean the program must be revised, including a significant one-time-only subsidy. We should reconsider who must be covered and how the insurance premiums will be paid as well as the tricky question of flood versus wind damage. And certainly more attention must be given to the role and responsibilities of communities to make their citizens safer. It is very likely that some of the weakest regulatory protections in the Nation contributed to the Katrina devastation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this critical effort to fix the flood insurance program today and reform it for the future.

Mr. Chairman, Head Start is a program with many success stories, providing more than 900,000 low-income children with comprehensive educational, medical, dental, and nutritional services. It is an investment in our future. I am happy to see some improvement offered in the School Readiness Act of 2005, such as abandoning block- granting, increasing accountability on academic performance and content, and teacher quality. Unfortunately, this bill falls short of the expectations set by my local community and I cannot support it.

It does not go far enough in providing additional funding for teachers so they may acquire bachelor's degrees by 2011. In Oregon, only 58 percent of the eligible children are being served. Instead of focusing on getting more eligible children into the program, the Republican Leadership is once again attempting to repeal civil rights protections by introducing an amendment permitting religious organizations to use federal funds to discriminate in hiring and firing decisions. Faith-based organizations have long participated in the Head Start program and have successfully received federal funding without discriminating.

Head Start is a bright light for families and children who need an extra boost into the future. It is a program that demonstrates that we care about all families within our communities. I cannot support a bill that discriminates and ignores equality protections.

Madam Speaker, we are united not just in our compassion for the victims of Katrina, but a sincere interest in doing recovery right.

Republicans and Democrats, both ends of the political spectrum, can agree that we do not want some Stalinist plan imposed on a manufactured community doomed to fail.

We need the courage to be partners respectfully, the wisdom to define the role carefully, the stamina to follow through thoroughly, and the integrity to avoid partisanship. We must meet the immediate needs of the refugees affected; but we must restore communities that are stronger, safer, and more sustainable.

We must involve all Americans with the skills and concerns starting with locals, wherever they may be. We must make this a model for how to do it right because it is not just about rescuing a damaged region; it is about how to make the Federal Government more effective.

Madam Chairman, I am proud to support H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. In this era of globalization, Congress must make a commitment to providing the right incentives and resources to keep our manufacturing sector competitive. I have met with a group of public and private organizations in Portland, Oregon, the Manufacturing 21 Coalition, and was told that a skilled workforce and incentives for innovation are their priorities.

This bill will provide funding for valuable research and development programs to develop new technologies and education dollars that will help ensure we develop a workforce that is able to efficiently work with new technologies. I was displeased to see that the Rules Committee ruled out of order some amendments that would have enhanced the benefits of this legislation. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the House is taking steps to ensure that we enhance manufacturing businesses in our local communities.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his courtesy in permitting me to speak on this proposal. I applaud what the committee has done, moving forward with specific tax relief that is going to make a difference for people in this devastated area.

I am hopeful that this will signify the start of a creative effort on the part of a number of committees, people on both sides of the aisle, to figure out ways that we can have assistance that is commensurate with the challenge and, in fact, employs some of the techniques that we have used in other parts of the world.

Some of us visited the tsunami-ravaged area days after that devastation, and we saw on the ground people in Indonesia, in Sri Lanka, and in Thailand that were being put to work virtually overnight with a cash-for-work program that had people doing essential labor- intensive work that made the community better so that the recovery could proceed.

I would hope the creativity, ingenuity, and bipartisan spirit demonstrated by the Committee on Ways and Means on these important provisions could be extended to other committees, other parts of our organizational efforts here to have a program so that every able-bodied person in the three States who wants to be able to work restoring their community is given that opportunity. It will be far cheaper in the long run than employing expensive contracts from people out of State, and it will give people a sense of ownership and involvement, and it will get money circulating in those devastated local economies.

Madam Speaker, I am hopeful that we will be able to use the creativity to bring other people together for a planning effort that involves the people in Mississippi, in Alabama, and in New Orleans, because we are going to be putting at least another $100 billion on the ground. We ought to make sure that this is not just a monument for rapid Federal reaction. It should be a model, for the very first time on this scale, taking this blank slate and working with the people who had their lives turned upside down, and making them full partners in putting the pieces back together.

Mr. Speaker, for several years I have come to the floor of the House using the perilous situation that faced New Orleans as a rallying cry for us to get our policies right dealing with water resources, floods, and disaster mitigation.

We now have a wide variety of plans and proposals that are flying about, which is encouraging. But it is important that we do it right, that any plan that we undertake is comprehensive and harnesses the forces of nature to solve problems rather than create them.

It is important that we start now with the vast sums of Federal money that is flowing into the gulf region, and it is critical that we involve the local people in shaping their own destiny.

Last but not least, we must implement long overdue reform to the way the Corps of Engineers operates, and even more important, how Congress treats the Corps of Engineers. This will go a long way towards not just helping New Orleans and the Katrina damaged area; but it will make all our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor of this House repeatedly over recent years using this specific example of New Orleans as a call to arms to change how we do business. I cannot tell my colleagues how disappointed I am that we are having before us today a proposal that does not provide an opportunity for this Chamber to adequately discuss what is at stake and to deal with opportunities.

The devastation of Hurricane Katrina has presented us with an unprecedented opportunity to focus the spotlight of public attention and political concern on how to do not just the best job of helping the victims of this tragic storm but in making it less likely that others suffer needlessly in the future. Preventing future devastation is the best way to honor the memory of thousands who have died and respect the losses of hundreds of thousands or more who are living.

But we are not going to have the opportunity now to come forward with important issues that bear on over $50 billion. We need to be debating how the Federal Government can use taxpayer dollars to put people, places, and property back in harm's way. We should be working to make sure that citizens are directly engaged in the work of disaster recovery and mitigation, planning the future of their communities and putting them to work immediately, the same way I saw when I was in the tsunami region earlier this year. In just 1 week we were already putting tsunami victims to work on a cash-for-work program restoring their communities.

We need to clarify the role that the Federal Government is going to play in disaster prevention, mitigation, and relief because we are throwing billions of dollars at problems that we could have taken steps to minimize in the beginning. Congress should encourage and support State and local responsibility for disaster prevention, mitigation, and recovery; and we must employ natural solutions wherever possible.

We cannot do that today. There is no reason that we are not able to have a rational discussion. I hope this is the last time the Committee on Rules treats us this way.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak and allowing this to move forward. I appreciate his leadership and partnership with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) for the follow- through on the important flood insurance reform that was, as he mentioned a moment ago, enacted this last year.

The committee has been focused on making sure that the promise of flood insurance reform is, in fact, realized. While our hearts go out to those who have suffered what has happened in the gulf region, I think the spotlight of this terrible catastrophe will help us follow through on the important work that we have started with the committee and in terms of dealing with the flood insurance program.

I acknowledge that what we are doing here today is an important, necessary step. The additional $2 billion in borrowing authority is unprecedented, but the floods are unprecedented. I think we should acknowledge on the floor that this is just the down payment; that the $2 billion, by no stretch of the imagination, is likely to be enough. We are probably going to be back asking for another $2 billion or $4 billion before we are done, but it is important to allow FEMA to move forward at this point.

I hope that this will enable us to provide a platform for further reform. I hope, and I appreciate the prodding that the subcommittee did earlier with FEMA and its performance. It is appalling to me that FEMA never pushed forward requesting the mitigation funds that were authorized. Now we have the money in the House version of the appropriations bill, but we need to move forward to see to it that this Congress puts money in place that will move people out of harm's way.

I hope the committee will work with us to look at other adjustments that may be necessary in the flood insurance program. Certainly the notion that people who live protected by levees, and I use the term ``levee protection'' advisedly, may not need flood insurance. Well, I think we are seeing an example of where, in fact, they probably do need flood insurance.

I think there are other questions that we need to explore. I know the Committee on Financial Services is exploring other aspects; and I appreciate consultation with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Ranking Member Frank), is about issues in terms of the viability of small financial institutions that have been wiped out. Well, I hope that with the same spirit of necessary reform and accommodation, we can look at how we finance the flood insurance. Can we afford to put $2 billion, $4 billion, $6 billion of additional flood losses on the backs of 4 million policyholders? It seems to me from a distance that that would be both unfair and undesirable.

I hope that this is the first step to be able to move forward with these longer-term reforms. I appreciate the work that the committee is doing. I appreciate moving forward with this expeditiously, but our work has just begun, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on these next important steps.

Mr. Speaker, as we all reel from the devastation of Katrina, what is surprising is that so many claim to have been surprised by an event both predictable and inevitable.

This is the moment when the Nation's attention is trained upon not just this tragedy but what we must do to prevent future unnecessary suffering and loss. Today with a majority of Americans at risk from natural disasters, this is more important than ever for us to get the job done right.

Four years ago, we got it wrong as FEMA lost its focus in the vast Homeland Security bureaucracy. We need to listen to each other this time and to the consensus of independent experts. We need to deal with the long term and to find an appropriate Federal role. We need to use the forces of nature to protect against the power of nature. We must assure that each step along the way that we take as a Congress leaves our communities more liveable and our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

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

The devastation of Hurricane Katrina has presented us with an unprecedented opportunity to focus the spotlight of public attention and political concern on not just doing the best job possible for the victims of this tragic storm but make it less likely that others suffer needlessly in the future. I think that this is the best way to honor the memory of the thousands who have died and respect the losses of tens of thousands more who are living.

I agree that the last thing we need to do is to jump to conclusions or be satisfied by drawing up a list of suspects responsible for what went wrong. There will be plenty of time to do this as the sad tragedy continues to unfold; but after having been in Congress for a decade, the greatest danger now I fear on the floor of the House is that we, under the pressure, will adopt a quick fix so that Congress looks like it is doing something.

While we focus relentlessly on rescue and relief, it is not too early to think about how to make sure that not only the residents of the Gulf of Mexico States are better off in the long run, but that all Americans are safer and more secure.

What is frustrating for me is not that this was just so obvious. I am tempted to ask how any official could assert the failure of the levees was unforeseen. Steps could have been taken to moderate the losses. I truly believe that thousands of people were killed, injured or lost their homes unnecessarily, and we must assure that it never happens again.

As Members of Congress, we are all concerned about the administration's well-publicized problems with performance, but I also know that long-term security must also start with State and local governments who must pay careful attention to making sure that people are not put in harm's way in the first instance. Businesses and individuals are going to have to share responsibility for their actions and their policies.

I am also concerned that we here in Congress acknowledge our responsibilities, because ultimately they are our budgets. We establish the Corps of Engineers' project list. We are the ones who put FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security. It is important for us to draw the right lessons from this situation. The rushed reaction to 9/11 put FEMA in a flawed Department of Homeland Security, which haunts us today and contributed to the misery of Katrina's victims.

We should establish fundamental principles from the outset that guide reconstruction. One critical overarching principle which is obvious, but sadly has not been practiced in the past, is that there should be no Federal investment that merely puts people back in harm's way and leaves the environment the same or worse than before. Our investments and our actions must leave people and the environment better than it was before. We must make a commitment for what we do in metropolitan New Orleans and indeed throughout the tri-State region of devastation to be a model about how to do it right. We must use this specific opportunity on a broad level to do the planning correctly.

As someone who has been working on these issues since long before coming to Congress, I look forward to working with all my colleagues, for we must come forward with our suggestions to advance the serious discussions and highlight the critical elements that must be included in any final plan. We must, at the end of the day, make sure that these communities are more livable and that all these families, indeed all American families, are safer, healthier, and more economically secure.