Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I just want to clarify in my own mind. I heard Mr. Kolbe say that the effect of our amendment, there were about 900 million, if I heard him correctly, that was unallocated at this point. There is some report language in there that talks about where it might go. According to the information I have, there is only $7 million that has been identified in report language for Armenia and Azerbaijan, and there is over a quarter billion dollars that is completely undirected. So I am wondering where the $70 million figure came from that you are citing here that our amendment would impact.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today, along with Mr. Leach from Iowa, the chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on Asia, will increase the development assistance account by $250 million in order to fund clean water and other anti-poverty programs. This increase will be offset by an equal amount of unearmarked funds in the military foreign financing account; and as such will not, and I want to emphasize this, will not impact the military aid to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, or Colombia. Over the last few years, it has become increasingly clear to people of every political stripe that we live in an interconnected world. How people in other countries live affects how we are secured at home, whether we are impacted by diseases like avian flu that thrive in poverty, whether our economy grows and creates more and better jobs. By investing in poor people around the world, we invest in global economic growth, the kind of thing that will have a clear effect on our own economic future. It is also helping responsible governments get stronger, offering their own people a better future, and a smart investment in our own security from terrorism to bird flu. The capacity of responsible governments to partner with the United States in tackling these shared challenges is critical to our security at home. Across the world, people living in extreme poverty are working, are struggling to improve their lives; but a billion of them live on $1 a day or less. It is critical that we expand our programs to help them in this work. There is no doubt that the record of previous development efforts, including foreign aid, has been uneven; but the fact is we are getting better at it. We know what works. There is a global partnership that has emerged that does have a measurable, positive impact on growth in poor countries. Thankfully, we now have the very best ideas of what kinds of steps are effective in providing the best returns in fighting poverty. The best tools, luckily, are simple: targeted programs to provide clean water, health care, improve agricultural productivity, and support good governance. This is not rocket science, as they say; but these are things that work. Time and time again we have made commitments to fight against poverty, and we must now put those commitments into action. In 2000, we joined with over 190 countries in committing to a series of ambitious targets called the Millennium Development Goals, including cutting in half the people living in extreme poverty by 2015. There are a series of other initiatives that have taken place to try and make sure that the rich countries of this world invest 0.7 percent of their gross national product in anti-poverty programs. Currently, there is only one country in the world of the rich, developed countries that does less than we do in this regard. We spend less than 0.2 percent. It is time for us to live up to the commitments we have made. This amendment is a simple way to do it. In fact, this is supported by people across this country. The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that two-thirds of the American public supports significant increases for our foreign assistance. It shows majorities of both Republicans and Democrats supporting increasing our investments. Now, there are consequences for our lack of leadership. Mr. Chairman, every 15 seconds a child dies needlessly from waterborne disease. Half the people who are sick today around the world are sick needlessly because of a lack of fresh pure water and sanitation. This is within our capacity to make a difference, and there is no great philosophical fault line. Indeed, Girl Scout troops, churches, synagogues, your local Rotary Club may well have been involved with these efforts; and they support these approaches and can do something about it. This amendment would allow the House to decide if $250 million is better served by investing in people through good governments, health and economic development, or selling more weapons around the world, often to countries with questionable human rights records. The most recent year that I surveyed showed that half the money that we gave for military assistance went to countries that the State Department ruled were not democratic. I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment to be able to realize this bipartisan objective.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak and for her kind words and for the work that she and Mr. Kolbe have done in this important bill, fashioning, I think, something that is very, very good, given the minimum amount of money they have been given. Across the world, this bill will enable the United States to cooperate with other donors, to partner with people in extreme poverty to improve their lives and well-being; but, Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that we can do a little modification to make this difficult bill a little better. During consideration here, I will be offering an amendment with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to increase the Development Assistance Account by $250 million in order to support these smart investments to reduce poverty of the 1 billion people around the world who live on less than $1 a day, the children who will die every 15 seconds because they do not have access to clean water and sanitation. The proposed increase would be offset by a reduction in equal amount from unearmarked funds in the Foreign Military Financing Account. This will not affect the almost $4 billion that is set aside for Israel, for Egypt, Jordan, or Colombia. Mr. Chairman, the American people overwhelmingly support these investments to fight against global poverty. Recently, the Program on International Assistance Policy Attitudes found that 65 percent of the American public would support significant increases in U.S. assistance to fight poverty and disease. This amendment will represent an all-too-rare occasion in this Chamber for bipartisan cooperation to shift money away from what are largely repressive regimes for unnecessary military assistance and put it where it will make a difference, saving the lives of poor families and especially their children around the world.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. I rise in support of the open rule. I join my colleagues in praising the leadership of Mr. Kolbe, with whom I have had an opportunity to learn a great deal from his tutelage as Chair and his commitment to foreign affairs, and to watch Mrs. Lowey and Mr. Kolbe make the most out of the difficult budget hand they have been dealt. This is, in fact, a great investment of American tax dollars. It is not just the right thing to do morally, but it does make markets for U.S. goods, it helps developing partners around the world in commerce, and it is much cheaper than the military option. Think of what could have been accomplished with the trillion dollars we will have spent in Iraq. It is time for us, however, I think, for us to consider some adjustments in philosophy and direction. I know there is going to be some proposals later in amendments that would deal with issues regarding Egypt, where we have given some $25 billion since 1979, and, sadly, the repressive tactics against journalists, against people who would exercise their Democratic rights is a sad commentary. And I do not think that we need to be held hostage for putting vast amounts of military assistance into Egypt at a time when they are not responding in ways that are consistent with what we are trying to do. I think sending some modest signals that we are not going to be held hostage is important. Indeed, one-half of the top 25 recipients of United States' arms in the developing world are undemocratic, according to the United States State Department's own record. I think that is an unfortunate commentary. And I will be offering an amendment later in this debate, with my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), who chairs our Subcommittee on International Affairs on Asia, to divert $250 million from the military aid to put it in assistance that would make a difference for foreign countries around the world to deal with the fact that there are a billion people around the world who live on a dollar a day or less; that every 15 seconds, a child dies from waterborne disease. Indeed, one-half of the people who are sick today anywhere around the world are sick needlessly from waterborne disease. This Chamber, last year, supported bipartisan legislation, the Water for the Poor Act, named after our colleague, Senator Paul Simon, that has the potential of being transformational for these people. But what we need to do is to invest money to make that the case. So I am going to strongly urge that my colleague look at this proposal, much to be commended, but to look at one specific adjustment, putting money away from arms to undemocratic areas where, frankly, it is not the highest priority, and, instead, invest 250 million additional dollars for this critical economic and development aid. Remember, last year, in the total budget for the entire world dealing with this problem of waterborne disease, the entire budget was only $200 million, after we had worked and worked and worked. This budget currently only provides $50 million. We can do more, and I strongly urge consideration of the Leach-Blumenauer amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, according to the American Diabetes Association, there are 20.8 million children and adults in the United States, roughly equivalent to 7 percent of the population, who are living with diabetes. I would like to recognize three young athletes as they ride across America to raise awareness for Diabetes. Adam Driscoll, Jesse Stump, and Patrick Blair, riding exclusively fixed gear bicycles, left from Washington State on Sunday, May 14, 2006. They are hoping to arrive at their destination in Maryland sometime in early September. They are also riding to raise awareness for ``Kupenda for Children,'' an organization that provides support for children with disabilities in Africa. Driscoll, Stump, and Blair will be accompanied on portions of the ride, by African born Emmanuel Yeboah. Yeboah, the subject of the feature length documentary, ``Emmanuel's Gift,'' overcame disability-- he is missing one of his legs--to ride 600km across Ghana, Africa. During their ride the athletes plan to make public appearances in communities to get the word out about what they are doing. They welcome opportunities to schedule additional visits along the way. To read more about this exciting and unique endeavor in honor of people with disabilities everywhere, and to follow the adventures of the athletes, please visit their web site (http://www.adventuresforthecure.com).

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill, and I could not agree with what she said more. Our friend from Texas talked about a clash of priorities. It is not just about spending money. When you are giving a new tax break to those in this country who need it less, that is draining money from the Treasury. What Mr. Obey talked about was dealing with priorities for our Nation's security. You have made a judgment that it is more important for a few to have a massive tax decrease as opposed to dealing meaningfully with security needs, and I will venture that the American public, given those two, would have no difficulty in agreeing with Mr. Obey. One is sad that we are not at least having a chance to vote on it today. I will say that there are parts of this bill that I feel good about. One of the things that I have been working very hard on deals with efforts to contend with prevention measures to reduce the damage done by floods and other natural disasters. This bill deals with funding critical elements for the safety and security of the American public. We think often of things like terrorism and border security, but in fact more people's lives are lost, more damage is incurred by natural disaster. I would like to thank the committee for fully funding the mitigation program for repetitively flooded properties authorized by our Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. That wasn't the case in previous years, but this year people have recognized the National Flood Insurance Program is in a severe crisis. It is $20 billion in debt. This funding will help put it back on the right track. The repetitively flooded properties, which make up just 1 percent of the insured properties, account for 25 percent of the repetitive flood loss. Mitigating these properties will not only keep people out of harm's way but it will save other flood insurance policyholders thousands of dollars in premiums over the years. If we can reduce just one 10 percent policy increase, that is a savings to the policyholders of $160 million a year, every year, on into the future. FEMA has already reported that their mitigation and building standards have resulted in saving $1 billion annually in reduced flood loss. If we can continue moving forward, each dollar that we invest in helping keep people out of harm's way, each dollar we invest saves $4 in damages later on, and that doesn't speak to the heart-wrenching loss that people face. Now, there are going to come before us some amendments that really border on being goofy. There is an amendment being offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan to prevent FEMA from raising the base flood elevation in the mapping project. Think about it for a moment. This would be an amendment that would prevent FEMA from providing an accurate map for people in harm's way. Think about the thousands of people in Katrina that suffered loss to their property, loss of life because they didn't know they were in the floodplain. What in the name of all that is holy do we advance by preventing FEMA from doing its job? I sincerely hope that this misguided effort, should it come to the floor, will be rejected. Finally, I hope that this is the last time, and that my friend, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who is here, and I come to the floor dealing with the Department of Homeland Security, dealing with FEMA, because FEMA doesn't belong in that agency. One of the reasons we saw the bumbling, the incompetence, the loss of life, the bureaucratic foul-up during Katrina is because FEMA got lost in the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security. We took an outstanding agency, stuffed it with cronies, shoved it into a massive bureaucracy and people's lives were lost as a result. I hope this body has the wisdom to deal with the legislation the chairman is bringing forward, I think unanimously, from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to put FEMA back where it belongs, give it competent people, in order to save lives and save money.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I am listening to my friend from Arizona. Two observations. One, everybody here is for all the good stuff. What matters is whether or not they are willing to actually invest in it. Where are their priorities? Where they are giving billions of dollars in unjustified breaks to oil companies who do not even need it, as opposed to starving investments in other programs. The reference here to having a footprint the size of Dulles airport, hogwash. That is like saying a 300-acre golf course is actually only computed by the 4\1/4\ inch in diameter golf holes. Do the math. That ends up to be about 240 square inches. But it ignores the golf paths. It ignores the tool shed, the clubhouse. It ignores the irrigation system, the tool sheds, the restrooms. The fact is that the 2,000 acres, multiplied by all the ancillary activities, extends to a wide, wide area, and the notion of using things like ice roads, of course the other side does not believe in global warming, but if you look at the shorter and shorter period of time each year that you can use ice roads, you find out that that is becoming less active. You have 20 years before you get peak production to have ultimately a penny a gallon saving. It is a foolish investment. This is the last place we should be drilling, not the next.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this. I thought it was appropriate for our friends from the Rules Committee to talk about Jed Clampett shooting his gun and drilling up oil that way because, truly, this is sort of a Beverly Hillbillies approach to energy policy. It is a comedy of errors, and my Republican friends are shooting themselves in the foot. Their approach to solve our problem, putting as central oil exploration in the United States, produces no hope of satisfying our long-term energy problem. They focus on giving billions of dollars to oil companies for breaks that industry does not need. They are missing in action on serious conservation, fuel efficiency and work on alternative energy. But one of the silliest arguments I have heard is that in an area the size of Delaware, we are ``only'' talking about 2,000 acres. We are ``only'' talking, as my friend from California mentioned, about the size of the Dulles Airport. That is like saying the Augusta National Golf Course which has 18 golf holes, 4\1/4\ inches in diameter, is only really have a golf footprint of less than 2 square feet. Well, it is not just the hole that you are drilling, just like it is not the hole at the golf course. You have got golf cart paths, clubhouses, thousands of people who use it, irrigation, tool sheds, tee boxes. My friend from Wisconsin could talk about all of the impacts of a golf course. If you are going to open this up to active oil exploration, you are going to have roads and ancillary activities that are going to produce a vast network, a wildly much greater footprint that is going to have serious economic and environmental consequences. Madam Speaker, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even if you think it should be drilled, is absolutely the last place we should be looking for oil, not the next place.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, amidst the debate nationally about the tracking of calls of millions of Americans, questions about bureaucratic leaks here on Capitol Hill, and evidence that we are awash in information, the FBI approached an employee in Portland City Hall last week to solicit her to spy on activities there. Mr. Speaker, the FBI has had a long and shameful history of spying on American citizens, information that Director J. Edgar Hoover used literally to blackmail people in government and treated Martin Luther king shamefully. It prompted some of my conservative friends to call for ripping his name off the FBI headquarters. It is time for the FBI to get its priorities straight. Remember, this is the institution that couldn't deal with information it had before 9/ 11 about potential airplane hijackers. If evidence of wrongdoing is in place, jump on it, but don't establish a spy network trolling for information. Let us keep the FBI on its important work. The American public deserves it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems here is this is not, with all due respect, some sort of major massive pruning. We are talking about a 6 percent reduction on how the American consumer and taxpayer is on the hook. That is not unilaterally disarming. That is not a massive overhaul. We need this modest step. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Ag Committee, although I hope he is not the chairman of the Ag Committee next session, but in whatever capacity I look forward to working with him to have that honest debate. The last time it went through the legislative process, the sugar provisions got worse, not better. It was more egregious. There were more things that were added to it to make it work against the consumer and the taxpayer. Only in Washington, D.C. would this be regarded as no-cost. That survey that has been talked about should have asked consumers: Do they like paying two to three times the world price of sugar? Do they like driving overseas thousands of confectionery jobs, making our trade imbalance worse? Do they like working against the ecological health of the everglades and then spending $7.5 billion of taxpayer money to start cleaning up some of the toxic residue of the sugar industry? And do they want to discriminate against poor countries like Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Mali that could benefit from freer trade in sugar? I urge support of the Blumenauer-Flake amendment.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Two very brief points. One is, because of the nature of this lavish subsidy, it has concentrated activity so that 1 percent of the sugar producers get 42 percent of the benefit. A massive amount goes to just two companies in Florida alone. Second, it is driving jobs overseas. We have three-quarters of 1 million workers who are in sugar-using industries that are at a competitive disadvantage and are moving out of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a distinguished senior member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 90 second. Mr. Chairman, the United States sugar program is one of the most archaic and misguided Federal policies that we have. It artificially raises the prices of sugar. It harms U.S. customers and consumers, and prevents developing nations from competing in the global market place. One of the deep concerns I have is that people are circulating here with a straight face the assertion that this is a no-cost program. Nothing could be further from the truth. It drives up the price for American consumers each year, upwards of $2 billion a year. It undercuts industries that use sugar as a means of production like the confectionery industry. And it is part of an enormous environmental damage, like the everglades, where we are spending $7.5 billion in clean-up. In the course of the debate this afternoon, we will have opportunities for people to focus on the need to eliminate this program. This amendment is a small step towards sanity, making a 6 percent reduction in the guaranteed price if it is adopted. I strongly urge that my colleagues look at the facts surrounding this, look at what is going to be good for the consumer, for the environment, for the taxpayer, and taking a step toward a rational agriculture policy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this rule. I am pleased that under the rule we will be able later in the deliberations to have a debate, a discussion, on a modest amendment to the sugar subsidy program. This is something that unfortunately flies under the radar screen here in Washington, DC. Any approach to look at independent analysts, to look at conservative groups like the Cato Institute, to look at environmental organizations, all document that the sugar subsidy program we have provides tremendous cost to the taxpayers, billions of dollars. It starts by forcing American consumers and the industries that use sugar to pay two to three times the world market price. It puts at risk over 500,000 jobs that are still in the United States in the confectionery industry. We used to have more people at work in Hershey, Pennsylvania, in the Northeast, in Chicago making candy; but these jobs are being driven to Canada, to Mexico and other places because our price of the raw material, sugar, is so much more expensive. We find that the sugar cane industry particularly is a cause of significant pollution in the everglades. This Congress has placed a $7.5 billion down payment cleaning up the everglades in part because of the significant expansion of cane sugar production because it is so heavily subsidized and produces a toxic run off of pollution. It even drives up cost to the Federal Government in other areas you do not think about; $90 million that the Federal Government pays for food, for example, for U.S. troops, with added cost because of these subsidies. This sugar subsidy continues at a time when we are cutting programs for other farmers for their environmental programs at a time when there is no help for many farmers, in my State that are short-changed row crops, the speciality crops, the nursery industry, and wine producers. We have an out-of-whack, hopelessly expensive, out-moded and anti- competitive trade subsidy program that will leave the taxpayer footing the bill for years to come. We will have an amendment offered later today that will provide for a modest adjustment, downward, so the taxpayer will not be on the hook for quite so much and we can reduce the pressure on American industry that uses sugar and American consumers who will be paying over a billion dollars a year.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is a Dear Colleague circulating on Capitol Hill that talks about our no-cost sugar subsidy program. I would suggest that each of our Congressional offices have a little contest, take the certified smart young interns that we have working for us and have a contest in your office. See how long it takes them to prove how bogus that claim is. How long will it take them to find out that there is a $1- to $2 billion cost to the taxpayer and the consumer, that there are environmental costs for cleaning up the Everglades, that this program threatens over 500,000 American jobs in the candy industry that are being driven to Mexico and Canada because our cost of sugar is two to three times the world price. Those interns will find that 40 percent of the benefits go to 1 percent of the growers, and just two huge companies in south Florida get $120 million a year. It is time to make modest adjustments and have a serious discussion about how to treat sugar in this assembly. I strongly urge approval of the amendment that Mr. Flake and I will be offering later today.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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