Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is probably no issue of more critical interest to the majority of the people that I represent than retirement security. We are facing a growing crisis in this country because of the way pension plans have been mismanaged and the stresses that are coming from demographic changes, in particular the pending retirement of the baby-boomers. We've already seen many of these programs disrupted to the serious disadvantage of hardworking men and women who through no fault of their own are facing a much more difficult time in retirement. I am sad in this instance that this bill does not make the simple adjustment that all employees' pensions are treated the same whether they are an executive or metalworker or longshoreman. That would have been a simple reform providing equity and would have forced more attention and energy on the part of top executives to protect the integrity of their pension programs. However this is not the case. I am frustrated that this comes at the last minute with little chance for review and without the full participation from conferees on both sides of the aisle. Frankly, my staff and I and the people in my district have had very little time to be able to fully analyze the consequences of this legislation. This is not the best we can do, but it looks to me like it's the best we can expect for now. I am quite confident this is not the last word and I will vote in favor while continuing to work to do a better job for American industry and its workers.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. I heard my friend from Puget Sound in Washington talk about how this was a good deal. You have heard speaker after speaker after speaker talk about how this is a sham, that it is not a direct vote to be able to deal with the minimum wage; but it is worse than that, because those people in Puget Sound who are tipped employees, who work for the minimum wage are going to see a $2.48 an hour cut under the Republican bill intent. In the State of Oregon, where we have indexed the minimum wage, our people are going to see a $1.75 an hour reduction. The Republican bill cuts the wages of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of workers in the States of Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington by preempting the State minimum-wage laws where a State has disallowed the employer tip tax credit.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. With all due respect to my good friend from the State of Washington, what I said was because your bill intends to take away the tip credit provisions, you are going to cut the minimum wage for thousands and thousands and thousands of Washington employees who are minimum wage who, because of the tip credit provision, you are going to cut it $1.75 an hour immediately upon effect. And that is wrong.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as the Portland region and our global economy demands a highly trained and skilled workforce the reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act will become even more important. Congress, in this instance, understands the important role technical and skilled education plays in preparing our workforce for the future. The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act is a good federal investment, which will increase the role of math, science and technology in career and technical education programs and encourages the expanded use of technology by teachers and faculty. It strengthens the relationship between academic and technical instruction and ensures access for students in secondary and postsecondary programs across the country. Thousands of Oregonians have lost their jobs over the past several years and many are holding down jobs that pay less and provide fewer benefits. I have heard from businesses and job seekers about the challenges facing the region. High-tech manufacturing represents about 30 percent of the jobs in the Portland region, however, we do not have enough skilled labor. We desperately need to be preparing and training our students for these types of skilled jobs. It is expected by 2020, the U.S. will experience a shortage of up to 12 million college- educated workers. This bill is a step in the right direction to help prepare Oregon for a 21st century workforce.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, next month marks the 100th anniversary of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, a pivotal event in Persian and Middle Eastern history. In the face of a corrupt and authoritarian monarchy, and in order to defend Persian interests against British and Russian imperialism, the Persian people rose up and forced the creation of a parliament and the adoption of a constitution containing basic democratic rights for the first time in Iranian history. To mark these events, I will be introducing a resolution recognizing and honoring the 100th anniversary of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, which I have drafted with the support of leading members of the Iranian-American community and the input of preeminent scholars of modern Iranian history. At a time when the United States faces very serious and difficult issues with regards to Iran, this historic event demonstrates that the Iranian people have a long-standing desire for democratic self- government, free from authoritarian rule or foreign interference. I believe that understanding these values common to the Iranian and American peoples, as well as Iran's political history, will help us develop a constructive policy towards Iran. It is also an important sign of support for the Iranian people and our Iranian-American constituents.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, having visited India following the Southeast Asia tsunami, I am more convinced than ever of the benefits of a stronger U.S.-India partnership. There is no relationship more important than that between the world's largest democracy, India, and the world's oldest democracy, the United States. I believe that, as the world's largest democracy and a responsible regional power, India deserves a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Support for such an arrangement would have been a sensible centerpiece to a new strategic partnership. However, I am skeptical about elements of the proposed nuclear cooperation agreement between the U.S. and India. I am particularly concerned that this attempt to create an exception to international nonproliferation norms for India may make our efforts in Iran more difficult, or even encourage other countries to make their own exceptions to the rules for assistance to the supposedly civilian nuclear programs of less responsible countries. I am pleased that the legislation crafted by the leadership of our House International Relations Committee minimizes the risks associated with this agreement and provides for close congressional oversight, though I support additional amendments to strengthen it. I do not wish to stand in the way of this legislation's progress and intend to follow developments closely for the up-or-down vote that this bill authorizes. I believe that the more pressing issue is developing an effective strategy for cooperation to address India's growing energy needs. Increased reliance on nuclear energy will only have a marginal impact on India's consumption of fossil fuels and levels of global warming pollution emitted. To make an immediate impact, we should be helping India with conservation, renewable energy technologies, and strategies to reduce pollution such as coal gasification.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the 50th year we have observed Bike Month, and it has been somewhat delayed coming to the floor this year, but I think it is all the more significant. We just witnessed this last week, American Floyd Landis in his heroic victory in the Tour-de-France, just in time for him to proceed with surgery to replace his hip. We have watched this summer as gasoline prices have exceeded $3 a gallon across the country, and record high oil prices. To say nothing of the continued congestion, pollution and parking nightmares suffered by so many Americans. It is appropriate for us to reflect on the contributions of the bicycle today and its potential for the future. The bicycle is the most efficient form of urban transportation yet designed by man. It is fun, healthy, inexpensive. It is often identified with kids; and that is appropriate. We are working hard to make it safe and attractive for children. The recent reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act authorized almost two-thirds of $1 billion for our historic Safe Routes to School program. We are watching safety education for young cyclists around the country. But it is important to note, as my colleague from Wisconsin pointed out, that this is not just for children. We do have over 57 million Americans who take part in cycling as part of their regular routine. It is the seventh most popular recreational activity in America. It is also serious transportation. Those 5 million American bicycle commuters that my colleague referenced in his comments a moment ago burn 90,000 calories a year for a 5-mile commute on average instead of seven barrels of oil, a savings of 35 million barrels of oil at a time when we are concerned about our energy dependence on oil from imported sources. It is serious in terms of our economy. That commuter who was cycling was saving money. I did a little back-of-the-envelope calculation. Since I came to Congress 10 years ago and made a decision that I was going to bring a bicycle to our Nation's capital instead of an automobile, I have been able to save, conservatively, $40,000. The economic impact goes beyond individuals who use bikes. It is a significant part of our Nation's economy, somewhere between $5.5 billion and $6 billion a year in economic activity just in terms of the direct bicycle industry. Worldwide there are three times as many bicycles manufactured as cars, and even in the United States we sell more bikes than automobiles. There are some 5,000 independent specialized bicycle shops around the country, 2,000 companies that are involved with the marketing of bicycles, and manufacture of accessories. In my community, we have recently completed an economic impact statement for cycling in Portland, Oregon. We have been able to identify well over 800 jobs and over $63 million in direct economic impact in our little community. It has dramatic ripple effects across the country. We are also seeing an explosion in the number of bicycle events, in my community, every day across the country, hundreds of them. Bicycle tourism has assumed a very significant role, starting with the historic Ragbride, the ride across Iowa. State after State are now involved with similar activities. Oregon has the Cycle Oregon, a week-long adventure that often is sold out the day that the route is announced. But there are others in terms of mountain bike adventures, cycling events on behalf of charity. This is an important mixing of charitable, economic, and recreational activity. Our celebration of cycling also should include reflecting on the effects of integrating bicycling into the fabric of our community. There is nothing that is a better expression of a livable community. Indeed, some would suggest that a family that is able to cycle safely down the street is an indicator species of a livable community. Making bicycles available on transit vehicles, having bike parking, all of these make a difference in terms not just of the adventure but the utility of cycling in everyday life. Mr. Speaker, since we formed the Bicycle Caucus here in Congress, and my colleague referenced his membership, we have 164 bike-partisan members of the Congressional Bicycle Caucus that are active in terms of not just promoting some recreational activity on the Hill for Members, their families and staff but also advocating on behalf of cycling in our Nation's capital and around the country. We have been able, through a collective effort, to invest in the most recent reauthorization, not just the two-thirds of $1 billion I mentioned for Safe Routes to School but some $4.5 billion of bicycle path trail amenities, several thousand projects that are priority projects of Members. It seems that every Member that I talked to has a bicycle story, something that makes a difference to them individually or to their community. We are celebrating Bicycle Month and its importance to the country not a moment too soon. Cycling is important for the health of our citizens. It is playing a larger role for the health of our economy and our environment and literally the health of our communities and our planet. We are recognizing not just a Bicycle Month but the role in cycling in making a livable community, making all our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the National Psoriasis Foundation and of August as Psoriasis Awareness Month, I would like to bring attention to this often overlooked and serious disease that affects as many as 7.5 million Americans. Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory, painful, disfiguring and disabling disease for which there are limited treatments and no cure. Ten to 30 percent of people with psoriasis also develop psoriatic arthritis, which causes pain, stiffness and swelling in and around the joints. Psoriasis is widely misunderstood and undertreated. In addition to the pain, itching and bleeding caused by psoriasis, many affected individuals also experience social discrimination and stigma. Many people mistakenly believe psoriasis to be contagious. Psoriasis typically strikes between the ages of 15 and 25 and lasts a lifetime. As such, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis impose significant burden on individuals and society; together they cost the nation 56 million hours of lost work and between $2 billion and $3 billion in treatments each year. I am pleased that the 89,000 affected Oregonians have access to the knowledgeable support offered by the Oregon affiliate of the National Psoriasis Foundation. Support group interaction and discussion provides individuals affected by this debilitating disease with much-needed comfort, assistance and resources. The work of the support groups in Oregon is invaluable, and I commend the efforts of those involved. I thank the National Psoriasis Foundation for all of its efforts and leadership over the last 38 years. This year, the National Psoriasis Foundation had nearly one hundred participants join in its Capitol Hill Day to elevate awareness and understanding of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and have policymakers take action to address access to care and boost the nation's research efforts.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the bill. I, too, would like to thank Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, Subcommittee Ranking Member Udall, and the staff of the committee that they worked with, and colleagues Peter DeFazio and Darlene Hooley for helping bring this legislation to the floor today. The Mount Hood Stewardship Legacy Act represents a tremendous amount of hard work by 1,000 Oregonians who found common ground on the critical issues facing our State's icon, Mount Hood. Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank my colleague and subcommittee chair, Mr. Walden, for working with me for more than 3 years on this legislation, and for his idea that we actually hike around the mountain. It was a fitting capstone to a really extraordinary opportunity to work together, to strengthen a friendship, and be able to focus on something that is so important to our State. Together, we enlisted extensive involvement of citizen groups, environmental organizations, recreational advocates, public agencies, tribal representatives, and local governments to create a bill that establishes a long-term sustainable vision for the mountain and addresses the immediate challenges of wilderness protection, recreation, transportation, forest health, water quality, development, and Native American rights. It seems so simple today, as we come forward, not just with the Mount Hood wilderness bill, but with a comprehensive vision for the future of Mount Hood. The plan makes sense. The pieces fit together in logical ways. But it seems so simple only because 1,000 people, public servants, academics, expert stakeholders, volunteers and people who just plain care about the mountain were willing to roll up their sleeves and invest 3 years to work with my partner, Greg Walden, and me, to make this happen. I must also acknowledge three other critical people, who were invested in this, in this body and soul, Colby Marshall, on Congressman Walden's staff, Janine Benner and Hillary Barbour on mine. They were a team in Washington, D.C., they were a team in Oregon, and they were a key part, literally, in joining us around the mountain. We would not be here today without their efforts. We began drafting with a document that contained core principles and concepts. The ideas were developed through the elaborate public process that my colleague, Congressman Walden, just outlined, and that great 41-mile hike around the mountain. It was through these meetings with interested parties, thousands of public comments, that we further refined the principles and then translated them into the legislation, which was introduced this spring. Following the Forest Subcommittee hearing in April, we continued working with stakeholders, the Forest Service, our colleagues from both parties, staff people, to refine the language and clarify the intent. Mr. Speaker, it has been a long hard effort, but it has been worth it, because the stakes for Mount Hood and the Pacific northwest have never been higher. It is not just an icon for both our home towns of Hood River and Portland, it is the single most important recreational resource in Oregon. A million people depend upon the integrity of the mountain for their drinking water. And it is a place of retreat for tens of thousands of people every year. There are hundreds of people who call the mountain their home, and we have historic treaty and moral obligations to Native Americans for whom the mountain has special spiritual and practical significance. By solemn treaty rights, they are owed their due for gathering first foods, hunting, fishing and for spiritual observances. This bill deals with the important elements that will profoundly affect Oregonians for generations to come. First and foremost, over 77,000 acres of pristine wilderness will be protected, a 40 percent increase in wilderness inventory. Over 25 miles of river will be protected as ``wild and scenic.'' This bill will protect the pristine quality of these areas that people hold so dear. It is not by any stretch of the imagination the last word on wilderness, but it does break down the log jam that has prevented wilderness from moving forward for over 20 years. We have dealt with the very complicated and challenging issue of recreation. Our legislation will ensure that people who love to snowshoe, ski, mountain bike, snowmobile and hike will have access, but we are also making sure that we will all not collectively be loving the mountain to death. We have laid the groundwork to address the mountain's transportation challenges in a way that will both ensure the safety of the mountain's visitors and residents, while at the same time moving more people but in fewer cars to and from key recreation destinations. Even the 3,449 miles of forest roads that are currently in uneven states of repair and without adequate resource provide the basis for a potential unparalleled system of bicycle facilities. We will help the Forest Service work with local communities to address forest health and water shed issues. We will enhance the ability of Native Americans to gather first foods and exercise their treaty rights. We address long simmering disputes about where development on the mountain should take place. For example, the Cooper Spur land exchange settles a 30-year dispute on the north side of the mountain, and is widely supported by conservation groups, citizens, and the ski industry and county government. Its implementation keeps development on the south side of the mountain where infrastructure already exists, while protecting the pristine north side in perpetuity. With this legislation, we honor the historic mediated settlement between the parties and we now appear to be within reach of a long-term solution that is in everyone's best interest. Today, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most important days in the modern history of Mount Hood. We have proven that the many people who care can put the pieces together in a finely-balanced fashion that produces a blueprint for the next century, while enhancing current uses and being true to the mountain legacy we all hold so dear. This is the most progress we have seen in either the House or the Senate in over 20 years. I am hopeful that our friends in the other body will seize the day. If they choose to act this week, the President can sign this bill into law before Labor Day, assuring the single most important step in crafting and implementing the legacy of Mount Hood for the next century.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, honest and fair trade will help the U.S. and other countries grow more prosperous and stable. Trade barriers, quotas, and restrictions hurt all but a select few by raising prices for consumers, limiting economic growth, and restricting the ability of developing countries to improve their economies. However, I do not support free trade at any cost. There must be strong protections to ensure that workers benefit from trade, that the environment is protected, and that we provide the necessary help to those who lose out from increased trade. Before the 2002 vote on ``fast-track'' trade promotion authority, I told President Bush in a meeting that he could gain broad bi-partisan support for a trade policy that expanded markets for U.S. products and helped developing countries grow themselves out of poverty if he made simple, small changes to the trade agreement model to take into account concerns over labor, the environment, and farmers in developing countries. However, the Oman Free Trade Agreement continues President Bush's tradition of pushing forward harsh and divisive agreements, designed to pass by the smallest of margins. For example, the Senate Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the trade agreement exclude items made with forced labor, slave labor, or trafficked persons. Despite this, the President refused to make these simple changes that Congress demanded. Questions of how the United States engages in an increasingly global economy are too critical to our future to use as partisan and political wedges. We must develop a forward-thinking and honest trade policy that can be broadly supported by Americans of all political stripes and that reflects the concerns that I hear from Oregonians. Because the Oman Free Trade Agreement doesn't meet that test, I must oppose it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak and for his hard work on this resolution. I attempt to carefully examine the terminology and the nuance in such efforts because I want to make sure the United States' policy is carefully reflected in terms of our long-term interests, the security of Israel, and those of peace. And I think this resolution meets that test. The attacks on Israel by Hezbollah are both unjustified and unprovoked, particularly given Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon 6 years ago. Since the initial raid across the Israeli-Lebanese border, in which Hezbollah killed eight Israeli soldiers, took two others hostage, they have continued indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians with increasingly sophisticated weaponry. It is in this context that Israel has exercised its right of self- defense, which I completely support. I am, of course, I hope we all are concerned about the impact on the actions that deal with innocent Lebanese civilians. But as I cringed a little bit when I saw one of my colleagues look at the minority, and talked about shortcomings in the resolution, because I know Mr. Lantos had offered up on behalf of the minority specific language of concern for innocents which, sadly, is not in the resolution. But I do think it is a good starting point. Even the Saudis and the Egyptians have recognized the responsibility for the current crisis lies with Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, as well as with Lebanon's inabilities to disarm Hezbollah as called for by Security Council Resolution 1559. We should not seek to impose a cease-fire that returns the region to the status quo without ensuring that Hezbollah is no longer a threat to Israel or Lebanon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, every American has a very personal stake in today's discussion on stem cell research. Everyone knows people who would benefit from breakthrough research using stem cells. Indeed, with a hundred million Americans at risk from a variety of diseases ranging from Lou Gehrig's disease, to Alzheimer's, to Parkinson's, to cancer, to juvenile diabetes, it's almost impossible to not know somebody who could potentially be helped by stem cell research. For me, the most important beneficiaries are our children and grandchildren who have not yet shown any symptoms, but who may fall victim to one of these devastating diseases. H.R. 810 is an opportunity for Congress to clarify the issues and exert leadership in a way that the federal government has in the past. Instead the President vetoed the bill after having passed through the House and Senate. This administration is out of touch with the 70% of the American public who supports stem cell research. We have inadequate access to stem cell lines for research purposes and we are putting forth neither money nor encouragement while we construct artificial boundaries. These misguided policies by the administration will not stop progress from stem cell research, but will delay the day we have these very important therapies to transform people's lives. Americans are losing ground on this vital research to other countries while relinquishing leadership to the states here in our country. Stem cell research is not about cloning a human being or creating embryos for research purposes. We can maintain prohibitions against cloning of humans while supplying stem cells in an ethical manner from 400,000 embryos already accessible that will otherwise be destroyed. Every American needs to watch this closely. The stakes in this debate are high both for the potential benefit to the physical condition of all humankind, as well as the establishment of the boundaries between public policy and personal theology. For me the choice is clear. American families deserve an opportunity for embryonic stem cell research to be conducted in a reasonable, controlled manner, to hasten the day of vital life-saving, life- enriching therapy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the ``Pledge Protection Act'' because of its potential ramification for the judicial process. This legislation seeks to prohibit all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing any case that challenges the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. This legislation is a response to recent challenges in the 9th Circuit Court involving the statement ``under God.'' While I do not agree with the court's decision, we are heading down a slippery slope when we authorize Congress to use its power over the courts to limit jurisdiction of constitutional challenges. This seemingly bipartisan legislation is another attack on our principles of civil liberties and equal protection, just as we saw on yesterday's vote on the ``Marriage Protection Act,'' to please the most extreme of the Republican base. It is not worth undermining our system of checks and balances. Yesterday, the state's domestic laws; today, the Pledge of Allegiance; tomorrow . . .?

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, after 9/11 there were calls to connect the dots. And as we approach the first anniversary of Katrina, with wildfires raging across the West, it is time to connect the dots dealing with natural disaster. Former National Parks Director, Roger Kennedy, wrote an outstanding op-ed in the New York Times yesterday entitled `` Houses to Burn,'' and recently published a book `` Wildfires in America.'' He documents that we in government are part of this problem. We construct roads and infrastructure into hazardous areas. We don't have appropriate building codes, and often we don't even enforce the building codes that we have. We even build, as the Federal Government did, Los Alamos Research Laboratories in the midst of an area that has burned repeatedly decade after decade for centuries. And it is only going to get worse by sprawl and global warming. It is time for government at all levels to connect the dots, to reduce and ultimately protect Americans from wildfires and other natural disasters, to make our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this issue. I have heard my friends on the other side talk about marriage being under attack. Well, I think it probably is in many sectors. Marriages are under strain today in terms of economics. There are social cross- currents. We see failed marriages. But it is not under attack by our gay and lesbian citizens. The gay and lesbian citizens I know in my community are dealing with the everyday stresses of their lives, which are actually more difficult than most Americans. They are struggling against discrimination in the workplace. They are struggling against discrimination and in some cases violence directed towards gay and lesbian citizens. And every day gay and lesbian couples in long-term committed relationships, sometimes involving children, have to struggle with the fact that they are not afforded the protections and the resources to be able to deal with the everyday challenges like health care emergencies. That is what they are dealing with. They are not assaulting my marriage or anybody else's. They are trying to deal with a difficult hand that has been dealt to them. The good news is that we are seeing the changes that are going to make a difference in the long run. The good news is that younger Americans wonder what bizarre episode we are involved with here. They are not peddling discrimination and hate. They have a much more positive and healthy attitude towards their neighbors, their friends, their relations, who happen to be gay and lesbian. The good news is that the States are trying to figure out ways to handle it. The bad news is that Congress is not part of the solution but is instead pandering politically in something that has already been killed in the other Chamber, that has no chance of passage; going through a ritual that is actually setting us back. I am confident that in the long run truth and justice is going to prevail. We are not going to be having any assaults on any heterosexual marriages, but we will be dealing with how we are going to provide the necessary protections for our gay and lesbian citizens. That day, sadly, is not today.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I support the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization in hopes that it will be a vehicle for true comprehensive election reform on a national level. More than 40 years ago the Voting Rights Act was enacted as a direct response to purposeful discrimination that denied many Americans, mostly African American, equal voting rights. Currently only 16 States are covered. I am disappointed that we have not broadened our scope and our vision. Currently Georgia is considering changes to its voter registration which will fall disproportional on its African American citizens who have long suffered discriminatory practices. This further proves that discrimination is alive and well in today's society. We must keep the faith with the civil rights struggle. There are a number of demographics, such as low income citizens, who are still targeted by those who shamelessly continue to manipulate the system. Reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years is questionable considering the changes that should be made to address the political manipulation seen in recent years in elections through redistricting and with voting machines. For instance, in Texas a politically driven redistricting between censuses altered the political dynamic of a geographic area and its voters. any professionals in the Justice Department were convinced that the Tom DeLay driven scheme had serious problems but were overridden by the political appointees who were their bosses. In Ohio, during the last Presidential election, inner-city voters had to deal with a purposeful lack of voting machines that led to lines that were hours long. The fact that these issues are not being addressed by this legislation shows its shortcomings and the need for further reform. We should take a principled stand to make our election process work better for the American public. We need elections that are fair, where every vote is counted, and people have equal access to the polls. Without addressing these concerns this vote is largely a symbolic effort that does little to change the overall distrust with the election process. I hope it improves during the next steps of the legislative process.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the cost of the war in Iraq climbs past $300 billion, and there are estimates that suggest the total financial cost will far exceed $1 trillion, there is another cost that is less measurable but no less significant: that is the stress on the military itself and the consequences for our fighting men and women, for innocent Iraqis, and the capacity of our Armed Forces far into the future. The Pentagon has announced that the Army has met its recruiting goals for the 13th consecutive month, but we are seeing an erosion in the quality of recruits in our Armed Forces as more and more young Americans who disagree with what we are doing in Iraq have chosen to stay away. In order to meet recruiting targets, the Army has relaxed restrictions against high school dropouts and have started letting in more applicants who score in the lowest third on the Armed Forces aptitude test, a group known as category 4 recruits. Since the mid 1980s, category 4 recruits were kept, as a matter of policy, to less than 2 percent of all recruits. But by the end of 2005, the percentage of recruits who fell under this lowest category has reached double digits. In my district, not only has the Army lowered its standards but recruiters have been pushed to violate the remaining standards in order to meet these recruiting targets. We have had two examples of where autistic young men have been recruited into the Army despite the regulations. As I have discussed on the floor of the House how outrageous this was, indeed, one of these young men did not even know that there was a war going on in Iraq. This all has terrible consequences for our efforts against the global war on terror. This weekend's papers were full of articles and editorials about the role that our lowered recruiting standards may have played in the recent spate of reports of servicemembers being accused of atrocities in Iraq. What does this tell us about our efforts to eliminate the insurgency and win the hearts and minds of people in the Middle East? We must also consider the long-term cost to our national security and to the military itself. These lower standards are impacting the Army's capacities and will continue to do so for at least a generation into the future. There was a RAND Corporation study last fall that showed replacing a gunner who had scored 3A on the aptitude test with one who scored that category 4 that I mentioned a moment ago, reduced the chances of hitting targets by 34 percent. In another study, 84 three-man teams from the Army's active duty signal battalions were given the task of making a communications system operational, what you need to do in a theater of battle. Teams consisting of the category 3A had a 67 percent chance of succeeding. Those with category 4 personnel had only a 29 percent chance. More than two-thirds to barely more than a quarter. There is also damage to the reputation of the good name of the United States military. We are intensely proud of the young men and women who have served under such difficult circumstances. It is not fair for their hard work and heroic efforts to be tainted by the action of others or for their job to be made more difficult or more dangerous due to substandard soldiers who are finding their way into the Armed Forces. When we lower recruitment standards or recruit those who have no business in the military at all, the consequences will be felt by our military in Iraq today and by the entire Nation for years to come. One of the reasons it is imperative to have a sensible plan to scale down and transition our activities in Iraq, handing them over to the Iraqis, themselves, is to stop this erosion of our military capacity that has occurred because of the sadly inept management of the occupation by this administration and the Secretary of Defense. There was never a doubt about our winning the war in Iraq. They just weren't prepared to win the peace. Our young men and women in the armed services deserve for us to get it right, because their lives are at stake. And we owe it to every American, because there are dangerous people around the world and the integrity of the military is critical to our fight to protect America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate the tone of my friend, the gentleman from Hawaii, but I think it is time for us, instead of having a collection of proposals that are basically an attractive grab bag politically engineered that has some attractive provisions, there is a provision in there that is very attractive to me that deals with rural education. I think it is important that, instead, we deal with this in a thoughtful, comprehensive fashion that doesn't entail the costs of hundreds of billions of dollars off the top, that doesn't have a lop- sided process in favor of drilling pristine areas and biased against protection, making it harder to protect. There are technical items in here about calculation of oil shale royalties. These are provisions nobody in the House of Representatives fully understands. That bears more scrutiny. The notion of allowing oil equipment to remain out there in the ocean and not being removed under current law is not necessarily of an environmentally benign era. Environmentalists are very concerned. I would reject this politically engineered energy grab bag and work together on a policy that is safe, economical and will happen sooner.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 of the remaining 2 minutes. The fact that Michigan has paid in more than they have received, or that 10 States have paid in more than they have received during the last 20 years is irrelevant. The point is that it is a flood insurance program. And some years you are going to get more; some years you are going to get less. And you don't look at it over a 10-year or a 20-year program. We make it as fair as we can, and we look at the probabilities. We need to update all of the floodplain maps so that we minimize any fluctuation. If everybody who was upset that they got back less than they paid in was monkeying around with updating the maps, then the system would be more and more out of whack and there would be more and more inequity. What we should do is allow FEMA, the Corps of Engineers, to do their job, to update all of the maps and make it fair. Make no mistake, make no mistake; if a tremendous flood comes, people are going to want their help now, and they will understand why they paid a little more at another time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I reserve the right to close.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Part of what I find a little ironic is the notion that these flood levels will never increase for the lakes. I have heard already in the last 24 hours here in Washington, D.C. as people say, ``my basement has never flooded before''. Welcome to the world of flood management. The Gentlewoman referenced global warming. We don't know where we are going in terms of melting the ice caps. But the point is, we don't have to get that far into the future and invoke former Vice President Al Gore. We are not treating anybody unfairly under the mapping program. The National Flood Insurance Program is a voluntary program. If a community really feels that the building insurance requirements are too burdensome, they don't have to participate. Participation in the NFIP and its requirements is not a malicious financial burden on communities. It is a privilege that provides the community with the resources it needs to protect itself from floods. This amendment would have the effect of delaying the implementation of flood maps meant to protect communities and having Congress intervene. And I, with all due respect, think our record in approving projects, we just heard from Mr. Rohrabacher, that actually increased flooding, is not a very strong record. For us to sit in judgment and second guess the experts, I think is wrong. It would be a terrible precedent. Congress should not be involved with determining flood maps. FEMA determines base flood elevations using widely accepted statistical engineering analysis. Artificially preventing flood elevations from going up would be the same as underestimating flood risks and leading people to build homes that are not safe and putting Congress's stamp of approval. There is no such thing as zero risk. A property in the 100-year floodplain has a 96 percent chance of being flooded in the next hundred years without global warming. The fact that several years go by without a flood does not change that probability. For example, water levels in the Great Lakes fluctuated. In 1986 the Great Lakes hit their highest levels in recorded history. This could happen again. Raising the base flood elevations will not impact homes that were built before a revised map was issued. Nothing in the regulations requires a pre-existing home to be upgraded simply because a new map with a higher base flood elevation is produced. Only new buildings and substantially improved buildings that are started after the new maps become effective will be impacted. We have heard after Katrina hit people were shocked. They didn't think they would be affected. We found out that we haven't done enough to include wide enough areas. This amendment would be a tragic and unnecessary step backwards.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. This is not a unique circumstance. What is happening is that, when you have a situation where development that might be federally financed, it might be a freeway project, it might be something in a military base, it might be something in a flood control, that changes the circumstance that results in people being in a flood plain. Mr. Frank's point is that, regardless of the program, are you going to have the Federal Government somehow pay, are you going to stick four million flood insurance premium payers to pay the cost of the military or of the Corps of Engineers or of the road project? His point is, you shouldn't stick four million innocent flood insurance premium payers. If you want to set a standard that the Federal Government will pay for these, then go ahead and do that. Finance it separately, but don't stick innocent people who have flood insurance..

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. I have spent the last 6 years trying to inject some fiscal responsibility into the program. I have supported the work that the committee has done. But along the way, I have been sensitized to some of the impacts that we don't want to have that are unintended in terms of discouraging participation. So as you are working with the committee in terms of refining this, I would hope that there would be some sensitivity, if this amendment passes, to the impact on low income. For instance, one of the unintended consequences may be driving people who are in this circumstance to be seeking financing from sub prime lenders there by avoiding flood insurance, by very expensive financing mechanisms. It ought to go hand in hand with what we do in terms of having more mandatory coverage so there aren't people that are sort of drifting along, and that it doesn't have unintended consequences for having people and communities opt out, or for low- income people, being unduly disadvantaged. I sympathize with what you are saying, and I would be happy to work with you as well.