Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, and I appreciate the leadership that has been shown by the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the principal lead sponsor the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) who has been working on this for a number of years. I am afraid the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) fundamentally misses the point for why we have a flood insurance program. I find no small amount of irony that it was the late Hale Boggs who was one of the first three sponsors of the flood insurance program in 1968 precisely because the people in Louisiana needed a program like this. I have encouraged my friends from Louisiana who were skeptical to maybe look at the facts. It is the people in Louisiana who are actually paying more money, and I wish the gentleman from Louisiana was still here so that we could engage in a little bit of a colloquy at some point, but they have paid more than $200 million in premiums above what they have gotten back. There are a few of the Cajuns who are part of the 10,000 people who are flooded repeatedly, in many cases being paid more than the price of the property value. This bill would help these people. We have in our files correspondence from people who are trapped because of the repetitive flood loss. They cannot sell their property. This bill, contrary to what my friend from Louisiana says, would not force anybody to sell their property. It would, for the first time, provide adequate mitigation on an ongoing basis so that they would have a choice. They could floodproof the property, raise it if it is cost- effective or they could relocate. Thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), there is extra provision to make sure that some of these low-income properties are dealt with. One of the problems is that under this program, other people in Louisiana would be paying much higher rates over time to pay for a few repetitive flood loss properties. Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is coming at exactly the right time. We are going to be able to take care of the 1 percent of the property that is costing thousands of policyholders in Louisiana more than they are putting in, and if we would take the approach of my friend from Louisiana, unfortunately, they would be paying even more in premium while other people are trapped in this repetitive flood loss cycle. This bill signals a higher profile and greater interest in a commonsense solution. One of the reasons the business community is so interested in it is because it will help make sure that the properties here can be financed. It will make sure that we cut down the long-term burden for 4.5 million policyholders across the country who are paying year after year more money. It is not just the people in Louisiana that are being disadvantaged, but millions of policyholders around the country who are paying higher premiums than are necessary. If we are able under this program to defer just one 10 percent premium increase, it will mean a savings for policyholders across the country of $165 million each and every year on into the future. And there are tax dollars involved here, because there are countless times where the Federal Government steps in with disaster relief. With this program and its mitigation, we will be spending fewer of these tax dollars. Mr. Speaker, this is sound environmentally, it is sound in terms of economic development, it is sound in terms of helping these people in harm's way, and it sends the right pricing signals. It does not force them out of their home but it says if you are going to stay there, you are going to start paying a little bit more so that the rest of the people in Louisiana and Mississippi and Missouri and Oregon, God forbid, do not have to pay a disproportionate amount unnecessarily. But part of the advantage of this bill cannot have a price put on it. It is going to save lives. Looking in today's paper, there were three people killed yesterday in Maryland. I do not know what the loss is in Louisiana or Mississippi or Oregon. We have seen them time and time again. This is a proposal that is going to help get these people out of being trapped and I think not just save money but it is going to stop the disruption of business and it is going to save lives. It is right for the environment, it is right for the economy, it is right for the Federal taxpayers and it is right even for my colleague's Cajun friends who are going to end up being out of this flooding cycle and more people in Louisiana are going to save in premium dollars.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment briefly because it is hard to get through things very quickly, but one of the things that was in my notes that I wanted to acknowledge was that this bill is a very different bill because of the contribution the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) made. I personally learned a lot about the flood insurance program in a broader context in terms of some of the history, in terms of some of the dynamics and some of the perceptions that we need to build. My good friend from Nebraska mentioned the name change. It is not just symbolic. I think it is something that really reflects a better approach, and it would not have happened without the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), and I appreciate it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I support the reauthorization of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the important role it plays in assisting emerging markets in developing countries and promoting U.S. exports, which creates jobs here at home. OPIC's operations and activities have supported over 250,000 U.S. jobs and produced $64 billion of U.S. exports. With this important role comes a responsibility to ensure that projects promoted by OPIC uphold adequate environmental, labor, and human rights standards, I am pleased that OPIC is taking steps to ensure this responsibility is upheld. The Report accompanying this legislation outlines the International Relations Committee's expectation that OPIC continue its work towards implementing an ``accountability mechanism'' and ``transparency initiative.'' The accountability mechanism should be in the form of an independent position within OPIC that evaluates and reports on environmental, social, labor and human rights impacts. The transparency initiative should make certain that interested stakeholders have appropriate access to information concerning OPIC's projects. This level of transparency will strengthen OPIC's programs and policies. I expect this Congress and the International Relations Committee to monitor OPIC's progress towards these initiatives through hearings and reports. I look forward to continued dialogue with OPIC on these issues to strengthen the link between economic development, and environmental and social progress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following votes on November 17, 2003, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote 620; I would have voted ``yea'' on S.J. Res. 22, recognizing the Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture for 50 years of service to the Nation. Rollcall vote 621; I would have voted ``yea'' on S.J. Res. 18, commending the Inspectors General for their efforts to prevent and detect waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, and to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the Federal Government during the past 25 years. Rollcall vote 622; I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 299, honoring Mr. Sargent Shriver for his dedication and service to the United States of America. Rollcall vote 623; I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to change the hour of meeting.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today on the suspension calendar H.R. 253, the Two Floods bill, is an opportunity to reauthorize and reform America's flood insurance program. It is a great opportunity to build on the legacy of the late Hale Boggs from Louisiana who helped create the program because he understood how important it was to a State like his. The bill passed out of the Committee on Financial Services with a unanimous vote, broad support from bankers, realtors, environmentalists. With the help of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), we assure that the special needs of flood-prone areas are met, that we help people move their homes out of harm's way, that there is more assistance for the States with the biggest problems, and it will reduce the premium pressure, saving money for 4\1/2\ million policyholders. Last, but by no means least, these reforms will ultimately mean significant savings in disaster relief costs for the Federal Government. One percent of the property should not require 25 percent of the loss costs for the entire country. This Bill is a win-win for the economy, for people moved out of harm's way, and for the environment. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider it as it comes forward later today.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time. Whether it has been 3 years or 6 years, the fact is the Committee has produced a comprehensive bill. You do not have a comprehensive energy policy. $138 billion in total costs may buy support, but it is not going to buy energy independence. It avoids meaningful energy conservation that would have permanent savings for every American every year. It avoids meaningful investment in renewables. Simply defining nuclear energy as a ``renewable energy source'' is not an adequate alternative. The $138 billion pales in comparison to the hidden cost to our environment, to our air, our water, and increased global warming. It will extend our dependence on fossil fuels for decades to come. Three years, 6 years, 12 years, and hidden Republican only conference meetings produced a huge, special interest driven bill. What you have lost is an opportunity to have a comprehensive energy policy that would make this country safer, cleaner and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I spoke against this bill when it was on the House Floor and, unbelievably, it's gotten worse in Conference. I am frustrated that on the week before Veterans Day, the conference report keeps moving further away from what the military, veterans, and Americans need. The most fundamental function of our national government is the defense of our nation. Today, this function is more important, and we are spending more on national defense than ever before. The conference report that we are debating this morning carries a $401.3 billion price tag, which means that the United States will be spending over a billion dollars a day, and more on our military than do the next 25 nations combined. This bill certainly spends enough to do the job, however it is full of provisions that not only waste tax dollars, but even threaten Americans' health and safety. I am pleased that the Defense Authorization bill starts to reduce the tax on disabled Veterans, which is long overdue. However, I am disappointed that the bill would only partially end the tax--leaving out two-thirds of military retirees affected by the tax and forcing those covered to wait 10 years for full benefits. I am also extremely disappointed that the conferees chose to eliminate the 1993 ban on low-yield nuclear weapons. The House bill allowed research but maintained the ban on development activities that could lead to the production of a destabilizing and unnecessary new low-yield nuclear weapon. However, conferees accepted the Senate language that also allowed research but eliminated the ban. Fortunately, Congressional approval is required before these dangerous weapons can be produced, and I hope that this never occurs. Producing a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons increases the likelihood they will be used in conflict, breaking a taboo that has been in place since World War II. Developing new types of nuclear weapons sends the wrong message to other nations. America must lead by example if the threat of nuclear weapons is going to be eliminated. This bill is missed opportunity to focus on real priorities. The anti-environmental provisions in this bill are especially frustrating. Instead of addressing real threats to readiness, the administration and the Republicans in Congress are taking on an easier target, dolphins. Using defense as cover, they are proposing changes to environmental laws that have nothing to do with defense readiness. As the largest owner of infrastructure in the world and also the biggest polluter, the Department of Defense should be setting the best example, not getting permission from Congress to cut corners on the protection of the environment and the health of our communities. The Conference Report includes modified House language that would prohibit designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act if the Secretary of the Interior determines that the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan prepared by the Secretary of Defense will provide ``a benefit'' for endangered and threatened species on military lands. However, there is no definition of ``benefit.'' We have seen that critical habitat designation is not the problem on military lands. This conference report misses the real threat to military readiness: encroachment of development around bases. This is the same sprawl and unplanned growth that threatens our farms and forestlands, pollutes our air and water, and congests our roadways, and this is the real threat to our ability to train and maintain the world's mightiest fighting force. Across the country, from Ft. Stewart, Georgia, to Camp Pendleton, California, development is threatening the armed forces' ability to fly planes, maneuver and conduct other readiness activities. This has led the State of California to pass their Senate bill 1468 which recognizes the long-term operations of military installations must involve a partnership between the State, local agencies and the Federal Government. It provides the military, environmental organizations and local planning agencies the tools to work together to fight common enemies of military readiness like suburban sprawl. But this proposal is completely absent from the legislation coming before us. The Conference Report also retains controversial House language that would reduce protections for marine mammals. New language, added in conference, would also apply the weakened standards to any research activities by the Federal Government (or contractors), creating a double standard as current law would continue to apply to citizens and the private sector. In addition, key conservation terms of the Marine Mammal Protection Act are altered in order to overturn a recent Federal court of appeals decision regarding the impacts of Navy sonar technology. The bill allows the Department to exempt itself from what's left of the Marine Mammal Protection Act for anything necessary for national defense. It excludes any meaningful involvement of the wildlife agencies, the States, Congress and the public in review of these exemptions. This contradicts language passed unanimously this week by the Resources Committee--the House committee with exclusive jurisdiction over the MMPA--which does not contain any special standards or exemptions for DOD. This has raised the ire of both Democratic and Republican Resources Committee Members participating in the Conference. Not only are these provisions harmful, they are also unnecessary. Under current law the Department can already waive environmental laws when it's necessary for national security. There has never been a case where a waiver has not been granted for military necessity. The defense authorization bill is also wrong on a very fundamental level. It is missing an opportunity to use the Department of Defense to set the highest standards. Given adequate resources and the right orders, our Department of Defense can achieve any mission. We are missing that opportunity. As the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, we ought to be able to figure out how to better address this problem without compromising the environmental survival of what we are fighting to protect. It is arrogant and hypocritical to let the Federal Government off the hook for environmental regulations. We will impose them on small business or local governments but not on us ourselves. I oppose this conference report because we are spending too much on the wrong things and not enough on strategies that will make our Department of Defense more sustainable over time. The spending is too heavy on weapons research and too light on relieving the stress on our fighting forces. We can and must do a better job shaping our Nation's defense policy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on his important motion to instruct. My friends who are so concerned about the energy industry, I fear are giving us conflicting signals. On the one hand, we are told that we can open up areas to additional drilling and exploitation because it is so safe, because it can be done without environmental damage. They are willing to go into the pristine arctic wilderness area and subject it to drilling. Yet, we are told here that, no, we actually have to extend further protections, further exemptions from full compliance with our Nation's environmental laws. I find it a little ironic. It is sad that we are debating what may be in the energy bill because the irony is, of course, that the committee members who are on our side of the aisle have been excluded. They do not really know exactly what is in the conference committee report, let alone the public and the rest of America. But the fact is that we are very likely to be dealing with this exemption. I have heard references again that I find ironic to the committee of jurisdiction. The gentleman will remember that when the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) attempted in the Committee on Energy and Commerce to provide an amendment to deal with this specific subject, he was ruled out of order because the committee of jurisdiction happens to be our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but we have not been dealing with this. This is dropped in in this hidden conference process from which the Democrats have been excluded. When there was an effort to go to the Committee on Rules earlier to explicitly deal with this matter when the energy bill was coming forward, the Committee on Rules would not allow it. The gentleman from Texas refers dismissively to ``dirt'' as though it is not a pollutant. Well, I ask the gentleman to come to the Pacific Northwest and talk to sportspeople who will tell you that inappropriate regulation of dirt, of silt is a serious pollution problem. And that is why responsible contractors deal with it and, in fact, that is why we have had it under Federal statute and why it is being employed right here within sight of the Capitol. Dirt, silt is a serious problem. Now, this regulation has been under control since 1992. In fact, the EPA has been looking to extend it because this is serious business, not just the sites that are over five acres, but from one to five acres. Again we have been operating under this rule for 10 years. Now, I am sorry my colleague from Houston got away because I have the provisions here of Section 402, and it appears that it would not permit the administrator to do what he was saying, to clean up pollution after the fact. The point is we should not be cleaning up after the fact. There is no good reason to roll back this protection. There is no good reason for the Committee on Energy and Commerce to act outside their jurisdiction and deny the opportunity for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to deal with it. Last, I find it ironic that this comes forward on a day when two more environmental rollbacks have been brought forward by this administration. There is a leak that they are going to cut back clean water jurisdiction over streams that do not have a ground water source, and today the administration announced that it would not be pursuing any of the pending new source review cases against utilities that went ahead with construction in violation of the new source review program. This despite their repeated assurances when they were coming forward with the NSR rule change that they would not affect pending cases. Mr. Speaker, this is a part of a pattern of environmental rollback that we have seen with this administration that will not correlate its campaign rhetoric with what it does in office and where this Congress is complacent in stepping back from our requirement to protect the environment. I strongly, strongly urge that we approve the motion to instruct from the gentleman from California.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, recently, the National Commission on U.S.-Indonesian Relations released a report that focuses on how to create a long-term, strong relationship between the two nations, and why that is important for the United States. The report, which was the work of a combined group of academics, former diplomats, and business people took a year to research and write. Indonesia is an important country for the United States due to its strategic location in Asia and because much of the world's sea borne commerce passes through or next to Indonesian territory. It is active in forums, such as Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, where other key nations such as China, Japan and Korea are active. Finally, it is the world's fourth most populous nation and the world's largest Muslim nation. Indonesia is also important for the United States because it is a democracy striving to strengthen itself in the face of growing Islamic fundamentalism. If the United States cannot help Indonesia move further down the path toward democracy, we stand little chance of helping other Muslim nations do the same, a goal that is so crucial in our global fight against terrorism. The key finding of the Commission is a simple one--the United States and Indonesia can best help each other by creating a new partnership, one that the Commission calls a ``Partnership for Human Resource Development.'' From the U.S. perspective, this means investing in Indonesian education, democracy building, economic growth and security. I also believe the United States can play a critical role in helping Indonesia handle its massive urbanization trend and the infrastructure, health, and environmental challenges that result. There are now 50 cities in Indonesia with a population of at least 100,000, with eight of these cities in excess of a million residents. Our relationship with Indonesia will continue to play a critical role in Southeast Asia and the world. The National Commission's report is worthy of our review and action. I commend the work of the Commission and I urge my colleagues to read the report. I ask that the Executive Summary of it be included with my remarks. Executive Summary Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous nation and third largest democracy, is the pivotal state in Southeast Asia. It has exercised major influence in the region and plays an active and constructive international role. It has vast natural resources and is strategically located astride major lines of communication between the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Half of the world's merchant fleet capacity passes through straits with Indonesian territory on one or both shores. Including its oil and mineral sectors, Indonesia is home to about $25 billion in U.S. investment, with more than 300 major U.S. firms represented there. Two additional factors are of particular importance today: Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population--more than all the Middle Eastern Arab states combined. The vast majority of Indonesia's Muslims have historically been noted for their moderation. Theirs is one of the few Muslim majority nations in which Islam is not the state religion. Given its size and importance, Indonesia is critical to stability in Southeast Asia. It has been the anchor of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and a key player in the ASEAN Regional Forum, the only organization in the Asia-Pacific region that brings the United States together with Japan, China, ASEAN and others to discuss security issues. Today Indonesia faces major problems: a difficult transition from authoritarian rule to democracy; slow economic growth combined with inadequate job creation; capital outflow; endemic corruption; ethnic and sectarian violence; a weak judiciary; and a serious threat from domestic and international terrorists. The October 12, 2002 bombings in Bali were the most grievous instance of terrorism since the September 2001 attacks on the United States. The carnage in Bali was a wake-up call for Indonesians and their government, and Indonesia joined the fight against terrorism. Local police arrested more than 90 suspected terrorists, but more are still at large as shown by the August 5, 2003 attack on the J. W. Marriott Hotel in the heart of the capital city Jakarta. Fourteen people (all but one were Indonesians) died as a result of that attack and 150 were injured. There are continuing problems, but the news from Indonesia has not by any means been all bad. Since 1999 the country has had a free and fair national election and two peaceful presidential successions. Its media are among the most free in Southeast Asia. Civil society is flourishing, and more than 5,000 non-governmental organizations are active across a broad range of sectors. Constitutional reform and decentralization have made the government less top-down. For the first time, beginning in 2004, the president and vice president will be directly elected. In this process of reform, the leaders of major Muslim organizations have played a constructive role in defining relations between religion and the state. The ceasefire agreement in Aceh has failed, but those between hostile ethno-religious groups in the eastern islands are holding. And the Indonesian economy, despite its vulnerabilities, has stabilized in important respects. The country is now at a critical juncture in its democratic transition and economic recovery. This is therefore an opportune time for the United States to rethink its approach to Indonesia. A failure of democracy there would hurt not only Indonesians. It would reinforce the stereotype that a Muslim-majority nation cannot manage a democratic system. Given the size and importance of Indonesia, we believe that success of that nation's democracy would not only provide a better life for its people but also reduce vulnerabilities to radicalism and have an impact beyond Indonesia's borders. For these multiple reasons, the National Commission on U.S.-Indonesian Relations recommends that the United States and Indonesia enter into a ``Partnership for Human Resource Development'' in which the two nations pledge to work together on joint programs to promote in Indonesia an effective democracy, sustainable development, and the rule of law. The idea of a formal partnership is new to this important bilateral relationship. We believe this concept is essential to increase the prospects for success and to ensure that both nations buy into these programs and are committed to make them succeed. In other words, that both accept ownership. Events in the coming five years, including national elections in 2004 and their consequences, will determine the fate of Indonesia's democracy and the nature of the new leadership generation expected to emerge before the following elections in 2009. Accordingly, we recommend that the United States pledge $200 million annually in additional assistance funds to this partnership during this five-year period. The Commission believes that Indonesia would be a good candidate for funding under the Millennium Challenge Account. Whatever the source, it is important that these be add-on funds that do not disrupt important ongoing assistance programs. These additional funds would be used to strengthen existing programs and initiate new programs in four critical fields: 1. Education--work with Indonesian officials to strengthen the nation's educational system at all levels, including Islamic schools, and rebuild ties with U.S. educational institutions. Before the fall of Suharto, Indonesia's experience with democratic systems and practices was limited to a few years in the 1950s, so that most Indonesians living today have had no direct experience with democracy. As a result, Indonesia's democracy must be built from the ground up. A key prerequisite for success is an informed electorate. Education is the key to success and is also essential to give greater depth to the management level in virtually all sectors. We therefore attach special importance to education and urge prompt, large-scale U.S. support. 2. Democratization--improve governance, speed and deepen legal reform, strengthen parliament and the electoral system, and help ensure the effectiveness of decentralization. 3. Economic Growth--improve the investment climate, strengthen Indonesia's private sector, expand trade, facilitate the resumption of full debt servicing. 4. Security--strengthen the police and, when practicable, resume carefully crafted military education programs that will strengthen those elements willing to promote reform. In addition to these funding priorities, ongoing U.S. assistance for emergency relief and improved health should be continued. Bolstering the ethical rationale for such support is the contribution it can make to reducing hardship and thus limiting the grievances that can be used to incite cycles of violence and repression. Indonesia today offers a unique but temporary window of opportunity for the United States to help this nation of 230 million people build an effective democracy based on a civil society and a market economy under the rule of law. The time to rise to the occasion is now.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the following votes on October 30, 2003, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote 594; I would have voted ``yea'' on a motion to recommit H.R. 2691, the Interior Appropriations Conference Report. Rollcall vote 595; I would have voted ``nay'' on final passage of H.R. 2691, the Interior Appropriations Conference Report. While I appreciate the hard work of the Committee and the funding in this bill that went to important projects in Oregon, I am disappointed that the bill contained significant cuts in the Conservation Trust Fund. I am also opposed to the anti-environmental riders in the bill, especially limits of judicial review in the Tongass and Chugach National Forests in Alaska. Rollcall vote 596; I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 302, expressing the sense of Congress welcoming President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan to the United States on October 31, 2003. Rollcall vote 597; I would have voted ``nay'' on the martial law rule allowing for the same day consideration of the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill. House rules require a one day layover requirement so members have a minimum amount of time to review the final report before voting on it. It is a travesty that the Republican leadership put this Congress in a position to vote on a bill that spends $87 billion without adequate review. Rollcall vote 598; I would have voted ``yea'' on this motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 6, the Energy Bill. The motion to instruct would call on the conferees to abandon a provision allowing the EPA to extend smog standard deadlines for cities beyond the extension already provided for under the Clean Air Act. This provision is outside of the scope of the Conference Report and will result in dirtier air for communities around the country. Rollcall vote 599; I would have voted ``yea'' on this motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Bill, to reject premium support. Rollcall vote 600; I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to recommit H.R. 3289, the Conference Report for the Iraq and Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations Act. Rollcall vote 601; I would have voted ``nay'' on final passage of H.R. 3289, the Conference Report for the Iraq and Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations Act. I voted against this legislation when it first came before the House and this final conference report still does too little for our troops, too little for Afghanistan, and does not address the problems we are facing in Iraq.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER. 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.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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.