Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, one reason I came to Congress is to make the federal government be a better partner to communities. One of the simplest ways to achieve that objective does not require new rules or regulations for local or state governments, and it does not require massive outlays of our budget driving us even deeper into deficit. The simplest answer is for the federal government to follow the same rules that all others must follow.

To this end, I am reintroducing the Post Office Community Partnership Act. This bill outlines minimum community contact procedures that the United States Postal Service must pursue for any proposed closing, consolidation, relocation, or construction of a post office. Simply put, the bill requires the Postal Service to comply with local zoning, planning, or other land use laws.

This legislation has had the bipartisan support of the majority of the House of Representatives. Once, it even passed the Senate only to become the victim of the politics of postal reform. In recent sessions there have been efforts at more comprehensive legislation that all include some variation of this bill as an enticement for passage. The pressure from our legislation has in fact encouraged some within the Postal Service to make significant progress. I've met with members of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commissioners, and the National League of Postmasters, and they have made progress. There are outstanding examples of where they have worked with the local community to make the post office an integral part of a downtown or main street.

It is time, however, to make this relationship something that every community can count on.

It is time to make this relationship part of the Postal Service's regular activities. It should not be an exception, it should not require luck or extraordinary political action, and there should be no variation in the commitment to providing the finest examples of being a part of each and every community.

There has been a recent report from the President's Commission on the United States Postal Service that is going to prompt more discussion and analysis of postal operations. Now is the time to act on this key element that is the most important single item that this Congress can do to guarantee the Postal Service is a better partner. Congress has the opportunity to set the tone for the Postal Service and federal government to become a full partner in the livability of our communities, leading by example so our families are safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to help the Federal Government be a better partner with local communities, to make them liveable, to make our families safe, healthy and economically secure. The simplest way to achieve that objective does not require new laws, regulations, fees or massive outlays of Federal dollars driving us even deeper into debt.

The simplest way is simply for the Federal Government to merely obey the rules that it sets for others. One of the best illustrations of this principle has been realized in massive grass roots support across America for the postal service to obey the rules in locating its facilities.

We have had support from the National Association of Home Builders, the Sierra Club, the Trust for Historic Preservation, realtors, landscape architects, the American Planning Association. Good government organizations across the country have joined with local officials, mayors and Governors, to understand that the over 37,000 postal facilities are not just remote outposts of Federal activities. They can, often are and always should be the centers of community activity.

As a local official, I had my own experiences where the postal service was sadly indifferent to the impacts of its operations on local communities. When putting in a new facility they refused, for example, to pave the sidewalks, to integrate the facility into the local fabric and make them accessible to citizens. I had experiences where the postal service would not work with us to promote orderly traffic flow.

In Florida there was a post office where they were going to put in a parking lot by paving a flood plain. If a private developer had tried to do that, people would have demanded that they be put in jail.

These experiences from around the country were the inspiration for the Post Office Community Partnership Act on which we have been working the last several Congresses. The bill outlines minimum community involvement that the United States Postal Service must pursue to significantly change any post office. More important, the bill requires the postal service to fully comply with local zoning, planning and other land use laws, to play by the same rules as everyone else.

In the past, we have had a majority of the House cosponsor this legislation. Once it even passed the Senate, but so far it has been the victim of politics of postal reform. In recent sessions, all of the major efforts of more comprehensive legislation have included some variation of this bill as an enticement for passage.

The pressure from our legislation has, in fact, encouraged the postal service to make significant progress, and I have been encouraged by meetings I have had with members of the Board of Governors, the Postal Rate Commissioners, and recent Postmaster Generals. They have made progress. Outstanding examples exist from coast to coast.

In Fairview, Oregon, in my district, working with the developers in the community, the post office was the first civic building in a new development, enacted as an anchor for what has developed into a retail street. By centrally locating the post office as the developers proposed, the residents can easily walk or drive to the post office from anywhere in this village.

In Castine, Maine, the postal service first proposed moving the oldest operating post office in the country, an historic landmark, from its downtown location out to the suburbs. After a public outcry, the postal service and the town worked together to find a way to expand the existing location and keep the post office in its historic downtown location.

It is time, however, to make this relationship something that every community can count on. It should not be the exception. It should not require luck or extraordinary political action. There should be no variation in the commitment of the post office to be part of each and every community.

The recent report from the President's Commission on Postal Service is going to prompt more discussion and analysis of operations. If the recommendations are implemented from the Commission to streamline the postal service, it will result in closure of rural and innercity of post offices. Additionally, opportunities for public response and hearings will be cut, and the role will shrink to giving written complaints to the regulatory board after the decisions are made.

Now is the time to act. I urge my colleagues to sponsor the Post Office Community Partnership Act to guarantee that the postal service is a better partner and to set the tone for the Federal Government to lead by example in the livability of our communities, so that our families are safer, healthier and more economically secure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this legislation. It is appropriate for us to designate the Federal Government building located down on Independence Avenue as the Orville Wright Federal Building. As the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) pointed out, we are approaching the centennial of the birth of flight. I only wish that we had available on the floor the repartee that we had in committee, Mr. Speaker, between our colleagues from Ohio and North Carolina about what State is the true birth place of flight.

Orville and Wilbur were from Ohio. That is where their bicycle shop was located; that is where they did the engineering and the research. There were some, I would not say unkind, but pointed comments from some of our colleagues that they had to go to North Carolina to get the hot air for the lift for the initial flight, although our friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), I think had an interesting rejoinder.

Suffice it to say, this has been an important designation for our country. Aviation has played a critical part in the development of our industry in terms of the United States military might. In terms of today, it is one of the leading employers in our country still. Despite the travail of the industry and the economy, there are still more than 600,000 employees and the United States is the leading aviation country in the world with over 600 million passenger flights, including a number of people in this Chamber whose lives would not be possible in two States were it not for aviation.

It is fitting that we honor the matchless contributions of the Wright brothers, not only to American history but to the world.

Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation and urge its passage, but do point out as Chair of the Bicycle Caucus that this is yet another American innovation in infrastructure that owes its founding to the genius behind the cycling community.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this resolution. As has been pointed out, concrete is ubiquitous in terms of our daily life. Life as we experience it in the United States, and, indeed, increasingly in any developed country would be impossible without the use of this product. It does, in fact, touch every community. It is a backbone in terms of economic development for organized labor, for skilled building trades. It touches a wide array of people who are actually making the built environment.

The work that has been done by the Concrete Institute is critical. We have seen across the world examples of what happens when we rely on concrete that is not properly made, where the standards are not observed. It is a serious matter in terms of destruction where in the case of an earthquake or other natural disaster we have seen lives lost and commerce disrupted.

Here in this country, as a result of the work of the institute and the thousands of companies and professionals who are associated with it, we have been able to extend the use of concrete in creative and innovative ways, protecting the environment, enhancing the built environment.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the American Concrete Institute as it celebrates its 100th anniversary, advancing the technology of concrete for educational and scientific purposes in order to increase the knowledge, understanding of the materials, and the safety of our communities.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of our resolution today recognizing the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a part of the infrastructure that so many people take for granted, but they should not. This is an area that is absolutely vital to the way that we conduct our industry today. It employs well over 100,000 men and women, and the amounts of material that are moved are staggering: 2\3/4\ billion metric tons of crushed stone, sand, and gravel.

And it is not just the dollar value that approaches $15 billion. It is the way that it fits throughout how we run our economy today. For a typical home, there are about 400 tons of crushed stone, sand, and gravel that are used in the overall construction process. For a mile of interstate highway, it is 78 million pounds of aggregate.

Without aggregate we would not have the transportation infrastructure that we depend upon, whether for sidewalks, roads, airport runways, or railroad beds. They are so essential to human activity that virtually every county in the United States of any size has at least one of these facilities. I count in my State over two dozen active quarries, and eight companies just in my congressional district.

At times this produces a little heartburn for neighbors and local officials. But having the materials from a local quarry or sand or gravel mine significantly reduces the cost to the community in terms of residential, commercial, and industrial construction. It also reduces the wear and tear on other infrastructure transporting it and it saves energy.

We are learning today how many of these aggregate operation sites, can be reclaimed and converted to further beneficial use for the community. In some cases it is residential or commercial; in other cases office parks, golf courses, parks, storm water management facilities, or even farm land.

In my community we are watching a major reclamation effort taking place with Ross Island Sand and Gravel that has had a facility for years adjacent to and, in fact, in the Willamette River. As a result of the work with our State and local authorities, the company, and its owner Dr. Robert Pamplin, Jr., we are accelerating the reclamation of 118 acres of forest, 22 acres of wetlands, 14 additional acres of shallow water habitat. There is a commitment to make it a model in our community. It is going to be a jewel that for years has provided important materials but is going to be giving back to our community for generations to come.

There are other environmental benefits from the aggregates in terms of natural filtration, aggregates used in sewage control, waste water control, the purification of drinking water, wildlife protection. In many areas there are buffers around aggregate operations that can be used for wildlife habitat.

In terms of flue gas desulfurization, aggregates like limestone are used in the reduction of sulphur dioxide from industrial smokestacks, the treatment of landfill leachate, and landfill construction to precipitate heavy metals from discharges and to line or cap landfills.

It is not easy having these facilities in and around our communities, but they are absolutely essential and can work in harmony with the environment.

There is also work that is being undertaken now how to recycle many of these materials. The benefit economically goes far beyond just the actual output, and the estimate is that it is a multiplier effect of more than 1\1/2\ times the output of the aggregate. For each million dollars expended on aggregate, we create almost 20 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today that the House is taking a moment to reflect on this often invisible top. It was valuable to remind the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the critical role these basic materials play and the progress that has been made to continue this essential supply on into the future in ways that not only advance the built environment, but protect the natural environment as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). I think much of this bill reflects positively on his leadership and hard work over the years on this committee. I appreciate that there are some things in here that deal with the notion of how we are going to protect the national Mall, issues of protecting the employees in the Department of the Interior, although I would have rather preferred the House-passed ban on contracting out their positions.

But I must come to the floor in deep disappointment, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the way that we have treated the conservation trust fund. I was one of the people that supported the landmark legislation that was advanced by the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) that had huge, bipartisan support to address a serious failure on the part of Congress to fund our conservation programs. There are vast, unmet needs across the country.

We came together, passed the legislation in the House. It was held up in the other body, but there was a reasonable alternative that was brokered in no small measure due to the hard efforts of my colleague, again, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). We went along with CARA Light as it was called, with the assurance that we had a trust fund in place. And I am sad to say that the commitment that was made to a bipartisan majority of this Chamber has been violated. This will would almost cut in half the program this year. The traditional acquisition programs are funded at $272 million, a little over half of what they received last year. I am deeply, deeply concerned.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and I thank him for his hard work. In part, it is true that this underfunding is the result of the allocations that were given to the subcommittee. And I do not envy the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) or his colleague in terms of trying to fight this through. But the fact is, that this problem is part of the consequence of the decision of people who are running the show here in the House to systematically shortchange fundamental needs of the American public by moving forward with massive tax cuts.

There are also issues that I have deep concerns about in terms of misallocation of funds while we deal with the important issue of rebuilding Iraq and dealing with Afghanistan.

The point is there was a fundamental commitment made on a bipartisan basis by the leadership in this Chamber and in the other body in order to forestall mandatory spending under the Land and Water Conservation Fund, with the enactment of CARA.

There are other things in this bill that give me great pause that have nothing to do with finances. There are egregious riders dealing with the Tongass and Montana forests that are a real set back for the environment. The bill does not include House-passed language that prevented the construction of new roads through our national parks, wildlife refuges, and national monuments under the guise of the obscure 1866 mining law known as RS 2477 that is a path to destruction through national treasures.

There is a lot here to be concerned about, and, unfortunately, the way that the rule is structured and brought before us, the House is not going to be able to address them.

So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would just say I appreciate the difficulty that the subcommittee had in some regards, and I appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to helping follow through on this agreement that was reached to be able to protect the environment. I hope we can do better. But I would think that we ought to start by rejecting the rule, rejecting the bill before us and make sure that we do right by the important agreements that we have for our environment and not approve destructive riders.

Mr. Speaker, as we have watched the terrible news coming from Southern California, our hearts go out to the thousands of families that have been displaced. Lives have been disrupted, and in some cases people have died. It is much too early to make judgments about what we could do to reduce that suffering and loss. We do not fully know really what happened there yet and why.

But it is important for us to reflect on other areas where we can act to help make our families safer. In our history the greatest loss from natural disaster has been from flooding, and here we can do something about it.

Floods are our most destructive natural hazard. Since the 1990's, flood losses have doubled to over $6 billion a year, and hundreds of lives have been lost. This House, before we adjourn for the year, has the opportunity to reauthorize the Flood Insurance Program to help make a difference.

This program was created in 1968 to help people who are in flood- prone areas, authored by some people who knew about floods for example, the late Hale Boggs from Louisiana. Prior to that time, insurance companies generally did not offer insurance to people in these high- risk areas because of the uncertainty that has been involved. Since we authorized the National Flood Insurance Program, it has, in fact, been quite successful. By the year 2000, there have been $10 billion paid out in claims to some almost 4\1/2\ million policy holders. Even more important, it has provided incentives to do something about the problem for people who are in harm's way. We have provided mapping, incentives, things that send the right signals to people to protect themselves in the first place.

I have seen it make a difference in my hometown of Portland, Oregon. We were encouraged, because of the Flood Insurance Program, to do some flood proofing of the community from the beginning; and, in fact, we were able, in the year 2001, to be classified at a class 6. We had the seventh highest classification rating in the country. It resulted in a 20 percent reduction in the flood insurance rate. But more important, it enabled our community to be more flood resistent, and we have survived of late some serious flooding, which in times past would have done much damage and perhaps loss of life, relatively unscathed.

Now with the reauthorization of the Flood Insurance Program, we have an opportunity to help another class of people, those who are involved with repetitive flood loss in areas where year after year after year people are flooded out. Repetitive flood loss properties are less than 1 percent of the cases nationally, but account for 25 percent of the losses each year. And this repetitive flood loss costs everybody because it increases the likelihood of natural disaster, more losses, and putting more people in harm's way while boosting the flood insurance rates for everybody else.

Our bill that is coming forward would help everybody before rather than after the fact. It would, where cost-effective for the insurance program, provide funding to communities to make an offer of flood mitigation, to elevate the home, to flood-proof it. In cases where that is not feasible, to help people relocate, giving them money to move someplace else, at a very favorable match ratio, 75 percent of the money picked up by the Federal Government. In those States where there is even more flood loss, it would be an even more favorable ratio, 90 percent Federal money.

If people felt that they, for whatever reason, did not want to flood- proof their property or they did not want to relocate, they are under no obligation to do so. They would simply pay the full cost of their Flood Insurance Program.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple, solid, common sense approach. It is a refinement in the Flood Insurance Program to help make it financially sound and eliminate up to $700 million of cost shift or shortfall. If we can avoid just one 10 percent rate increase, it would save the average policy holder, all 4\1/2\ million of them, $40 a year, every year, a total of $160 million a year in perpetuity. Most important, it would be a change for people's lives, helping them move out of harm's way so we do not have these tragic reports in the news.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the flood insurance reform as it comes forward this next month.

Mr. Speaker, the evolution of the gay and lesbian civil rights issue has touched my notion of fairness in government policy in very profound ways. Since I chaired the Oregon Legislature's first hearing on nondiscrimination some 30 years ago, I have observed the ebb and flow of the debate on gay rights, attended hearings, and learned the stories of real people. I have also developed a wide circle of friends and have many colleagues who are gay and in committed relationships. I have come to understand the equality for gays and lesbians as an issue of justice for us all regardless of our sexual orientation or political philosophy.

Along the way, I have experienced a couple of painful episodes that helped define my thinking. As a county commissioner in the 1980's, we enacted one of the first and most comprehensive nondiscrimination ordinances in the country. The backlash, however, from some of the extreme right was brutal. And faced with an opposing referendum that would threaten to divide the community, leaders in the local gay and lesbian movement urged the commission to repeal the ordinance. But that did not make it any easier to explain to gay citizens sitting in the front rows, some of whom were crying with disbelief and anger.

Twelve years later in Congress, I confronted the Defense of Marriage Act to create a Federal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Until DOMA, marriage issues had not been a high priority for the gay and lesbian movement nor for Congress. But with the introduction of this legislation, all that changed when some people from the extreme right wing were pushing the hot button issue of same sex marriage in order to assure the political failure of the gay and lesbian civil rights agenda. The country was not simply ready to discuss same sex marriage in any rational way.

Hoping to deny the extreme right wing the opportunity to exploit this

issue further, I cast my vote in favor of DOMA. Looking back 8 years later, while my analysis may have been accurate, it remains one of the few votes in Congress that I would change. Sadly, people who choose to exploit fear and bigotry based on sexual orientation continue to do so regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

My vote on DOMA also caused political confusion and pain for people who knew of my commitment for equality for gays and lesbians. Most troubling for me was the implication that my vote somehow may have been interpreted as an attack on people's ability to make their own choices about their personal relationships and their dignity as human beings.

Recently, gay civil rights victories in the Supreme Court, the State of Vermont, and in Canada have created a resurgence of controversy surrounding this issue. These successes do not have to lead to more antigay proposals and rhetoric. Most Americans today have friends and relatives who are involved with same sex relationships based on the same deep emotional commitment and affection found in the heterosexual community.

It is now time for Congress to play a constructive role in affirming civil rights for gays and lesbians. The House should start by enacting nondiscrimination in employment, which should be one of the bedrocks of a society that claims to value self-reliance and the opportunity for individuals to reach their full potential. The Congress should also forcefully reject H.J. Res. 56, a constitutional amendment which would define marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman. It simply makes no sense to deny the benefits, legal rights, and opportunities afforded to married couples to others who want to commit to a long-term loving relationship, especially when the administration proposes to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to ``promote marriage.''

This attempt to preempt decisions at the State level is not just stunningly hypocritical; it will fuel fear and prejudice, create further divisions in our communities, and intolerance throughout our society. Instead of pitting citizen against citizen over questions of identity, sexuality, and private behavior, the Congress should model the behavior it expects of others: fairness, tolerance, and a basic respect for human dignity.

Mr. Chairman, Congress will provide the necessary support for our troops and we will make a significant investment in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq. The question before Congress is how best to provide that troop support and how to make the appropriate investment in both Iraq and Afghanistan--two troubled nations that the United States now ``owns'' as a result of the Bush administration's policies. This $87 billion supplemental appropriation is not the best answer.

We have already provided huge sums that have not been well spent. The costs of Iraq policy are approaching $200 billion dollars of borrowed money with no end in sight. Our troops continue to have unmet needs that were entirely foreseen, like the flat jacket liners and armoring of vehicles. Tales abound of questionable expenditures and contracts, yet proposals were included in this request that simply don't meet the laugh test; millions of dollars for garbage trucks, zip codes, and a witness protection program (at $1,000,000 a person). It was wrong to give this administration a blank check to wage unilateral war and it is wrong to give them a blank check for reconstruction.

During debate, I offered an amendment that would save American taxpayers a quarter of a billion dollars and would have transferred money from Iraq reconstruction efforts to provide $247 million in additional funding for Afghanistan--a country with the same population as Iraq, an even larger land area, and that is still harboring terrorists.

Decades of conflict of Afghanistan, including the war against the Soviet Union, have left about 2 million dead and created 700,000 widows and orphans. Afghanistan remains a hot bed and safe haven for Al Qaeda--responsible for the launching of murderous attacks against the U.S. The UN estimates that 5-7 million unexploded landmines are scattered throughout the country. An estimated 400,000 Afghans have been killed or wounded by mines, leading to the highest per capita number of amputees in the world.

Estimates for reconstruction in Afghanistan range as high as $30 billion over the next decade. There is no shortage of need and the bottom line is we can do much more. Even after the $500 million this amendment removes from Iraq reconstruction, that country is still receiving the most generous aid package in history. Afghanistan was a real threat. We need to do more to make sure Afghanistan does not again spin out of control.

While my amendment did not pass, I was encouraged by the reaction of my colleagues

from both sides of the aisle who recognize the importance of additional funding in Afghanistan. I will continue to fight to ensure that the administration's discredited program for Iraq does not leave other Middle East priorities under-funded and ineffective.

Even though the administration was wrong to claim that this Iraq reconstruction could be financed by Iraq's own oil revenues, and even though it will be ill advised to hopelessly burden the future Iraqi government, the American public should not bare the burden of vast sums of borrowed money because the administration had neither the foresight nor the patience to develop realistic plans and partnerships. We should be working with creditors like the Russians and the French as well as international organizations like The World Bank to soften the impact on American tax payers.

While this proposal has been improved by the Appropriations Committee, it still falls short. There is still too much spent on the wrong things and administered by the wrong people. Congress does no favors to our troops, our citizens, or the Iraqi people, to continue to fund the administration's ill-advised plans.

Mr. Speaker, it was wrong to give this administration a blank check to wage unilateral war, and it is wrong to give them a blank check to rebuild Iraq. Total spending in Iraq is now approaching $200 billion of borrowed money, with no end in sight. We need to spend less, spend smarter and put someone in charge who knows what they are doing.

None of this controversy should prevent our providing our troops with the support they deserve. They will ultimately get flak jacket liners, protective vehicles, and for their basic needs like safe drinking water. It is just sad that it is taking so long. It is not the time to approve this reconstruction package, 10 times the size of the Marshall Plan even after being adjusted for inflation (on a per capita basis).

It is not being administered by the right people. I will offer an amendment to shift it to the State Department and USAID. Our troops, the Iraqi people, and the American public deserve this to be done right.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago the United States went back to Afghanistan, a troubled nation we had largely abandoned after the collapse of the former Soviet Union. The conflict in Afghanistan including the war with the Soviet Union has left about 2 million people dead, created 700,000 widows and orphans. While we must help both Iraq and Afghanistan, Afghanistan, in fact, is larger, it has more people, it is poorer, and has been more devastated under decades of unrest and war.

For example, the United Nations estimates that 5 to 7 million unexploded land mines are scattered throughout the country. An estimated 400,000 Afghans have been killed or wounded by land mines producing the highest per capita number of amputees in the world.

One in 12 Afghan women die during childbirth, the highest maternal mortality rate in the world. Over a quarter of these children die before reaching age five. And Afghanistan has the lowest per person caloric intake in the world. I could go on and on.

The fact is that we have a serious problem that remains in Afghanistan. The NATO troops have little control outside the areas of Kabul. Suicide bombings and assassination attempts by the Taliban and al Qaeda remnants have persisted. Even President Karzai's life is in danger every day. The drug and crime rate are on the rise. After the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan, once again, has become the world's top opium producer.

The Committee on Appropriations, I commend them for recognizing these burdens. I commend my colleagues for adding an additional $400 million above the administration's request. But it is not enough to meet these huge unmet needs, which could total as high as $30 billion over the next decade and are wildly disproportionate to what we are putting in Iraq.

There is no shortage of need and the bottom line is that we can do more. Even after the $500 million that this amendment would remove from Iraqi reconstruction, that nation will still be receiving the most generous aid package in history. We can spend more money this next year. Our efforts in Afghanistan have been largely self-limited, not just by a lack of money in the budget, but we have had a determination to keep a small footprint on the ground for security reasons.

My amendment addresses this issue by doubling to over $34 million the funding available for security requirements that would directly support personnel who would be implementing the assistance. The amendment would increase administrative capacity by $20 million. Simple little things like giving these people a fixed-wing aircraft that could have six to 12 people flying around Afghanistan could dramatically increase their productivity. It is an outrage that we do not do it.

This amendment would address the land mine and unexploded ordnance issue by doubling to $70 million funding for demining operations.

Overall, this amendment increases aid to Afghanistan by $247 million, provides the security and operating expense needed for assistance to be granted more efficiently. This is a country still in agony and things can get worse. Our progress is simply too slow after 2 years, and we can do something about it tonight.

Afghanistan is this country where the al Qaeda threat was real and remains. We need to make sure that Afghanistan does not once again spiral out of control.

This amendment increases security, increases our capacity, accelerates process, and saves the taxpayer one-quarter of a billion dollars.

I urge my colleagues to vote to increase aid to perhaps the most damaged nation in the world and vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

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

I appreciate what my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), has said and the work that the subcommittee and the full committee have done. But the fact remains we are investing more than 15 times as much in Iraq as in Afghanistan. We cannot spend all that money in Iraq in the next year. We can put more money on the ground to help this troubled nation. And I look forward to working with the committee to see if we can advance a little more progress in that troubled country.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 39: Page 31, line 5, strike ``, the

Department of Defense''.

Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer

Amendment No. 40: Page 29, line 14, after the dollar amount

insert ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

Page 30, line 1, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced

by $500,000,000)''.

Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $192,000,000)''.

Page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $174,750,000)''.

Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $17,250,000)''.

Page 36, line 22, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $35,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in yielding me time.

Congress will provide the necessary support for our troops, and we will make a significant investment in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq. But the question before Congress is how best to provide that troop support and how to make the appropriate investment. We have already provided huge sums that were clearly not well spent. We will be approaching $200 billion of borrowed money with no end in sight, and our troops continue to have unmet needs that were entirely foreseen.

This request has serious problems because the administration has serious credibility problems, not just with this Congress. They have a credibility problem with the American public. The people know that the administration exaggerated threats; they dismissed people who gave accurate estimates of costs and consequences; they strained the evidence, to be charitable, and they ignored or misunderstood the realities.

It was wrong to give this administration a blank check to wage unilateral war, and it is wrong to give them a blank check with vast sums of money for reconstruction. While this proposal has been improved by the Committee on Appropriations, there is still too much spent on the wrong things administered by the wrong people.

There should be a better balance between what we spend in Afghanistan and what we spend in Iraq. The leadership of the Department of Defense who overruled the professionals, who have been unable to get it right, should not be administering reconstruction. It should be done by the Department of State, especially utilizing the USAID network.

I would hope that the administration would stop whistling in the dark that this is all going according to plan, and it is going well. They should not lash out at people who are pointing out the obvious problems and flaws. This is an opportunity to have the administration display some candor, maybe a little humility, to help get everybody on the same page. Congress does no one any favors, not our troops, not our citizens, not the Iraqi people, to continue to fund and support the administration's ill-advised and shortsighted plan.

Mr. Speaker, for far too long, Syria has been an exceedingly irresponsible partner in the troubled Middle East . By our actions over the last two years, the United States has already sent a strong message to Syria and has gotten some cooperation in anti- terrorist efforts.

The current downward spiral of violence is not working for the Palestinians and is not making Israel more secure. We should use our resources to get the parties to resume steps to reduce pressures, tensions and bloodshed.

Since I agree with the indictments of Syrian behavior contained in H.R. 1828 I would not be comfortable voting ``no.'' Yet, I agree with most independent commentators that passage at this time would not be helpful for our efforts to advance the peace. I choose to vote ``present.''