Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.J. Res. 50 and express my strong support for Normal Trade Relations for China. Unfortunately, due to family commitments in my hometown of Portland, Oregon, I will be unable to vote on the motion today. Last year Congress overwhelmingly made a difficult decision that we were following path of engagement with the Chinese by voting to approve China's admission to the WTO and extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations. In so doing, the majority of Congress and the leaders of both political parties aligned themselves with the forces of change and reform in China. Because Chinese ascension to WTO has taken longer than we anticipated, we are back again with the need to do the last annual extension. We continue our roller-coaster relationship with China, although nothing has fundamentally changed. China continues to be ruled at the top by party and military leaders who are threatened by China's engagement with the United States and the broader world. Chinese leaders fear further penetration of the Chinese market by foreign economic powers, especially the United States. Tearing down economic barriers that would permit us to trade effectively would have a destabilizing effect on the repressive regime. Indeed, the distance that China has already traveled from the butchery and starvation of the Great Leap Forward and chaos of the Cultural Revolution today is almost unimaginable. Engagement will play to the positive forces of change, which are strengthening the new generation of entrepreneurial spirit, provincial and municipal leadership, and new business partnerships. A classic example happened earlier this year when an explosion occurred at a school based fireworks factory where children were being forced to assemble firecrackers as young as 3rd and 4th graders in this school. The official Chinese line was that a suicide bomber had entered a school and detonated an explosion. Within days, due to the magic of Chinese e-mail, the Chinese Premier was forced to acknowledge that it was an accident in the school-based factory. Through modern communications the reality was out instantly all across China and the truth triumphed. This is just one example of how reform is happening daily in hundreds of examples on a smaller scale that illustrate the point. It's not going to be quick or easy. But we can use the leverage of WTO membership to accelerate the progress and hasten the day when the Chinese people will enjoy the liberties that we to often take for granted. Failure to renew now would be a serious mistake. We have already embarked on a policy of engagement and established a policy on it. To reverse course now would have an extraordinarily destabilizing effect on our relationship, at a time when we are attempting to reduce tensions between the two countries. Economics would be the least of our worries. This would be a gratuitous and unfortunately escalation of pressures on our side, which would frustrate, if not infuriate the Chinese, confound our allies, and delight our business competitors. History suggests isolation will not have the impact desired by opponents of normal relations with China. It's particularly ironic that some are calling for disengagement with China at a time when we are now inching towards acknowledging our policy of attempting to isolate a much smaller country, Cuba, has been a failure. It's only harmed the Cuban people and prolonged the life of the Cuban dictatorship. Had we opened our borders, engaged in commerce and interaction, Castro would certainly be less powerful, and probably a thing of the past. China's behavior continues to be troubling and its record on human rights is atrocious; the potential is great that our frustrations with China may even escalate in the near term. Trading with China is not going to solve all our problems. We are still going to have to be aggressive in our negotiations, vigilant for human rights, the environment, and trade compliance. With China in the WTO we will have more tools and more allies in this struggle. Given the overwhelming positive effects of trade and engagement with China, I urge my colleagues to support continued NTR with China and vote no on the disapproval resolution.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 7, the Charitable Choice Act of 2001. I support the work that many religious charities do on behalf of those in the need in my community and across the nations. Currently, any church or religious organization can establish a charity and apply for federal funds. This legislation provides no additional money for those organizations. It simply would allow religious organizations that wish to discriminate to apply or federal funds. It would allow the rollback of many of the basic civil rights protections for all Americans currently enjoy. Allowing religious organization to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion, sexual preference, and race is wrong. Short-circuiting the current system also opens the door to federal interference in religious activities, which has prompted the opposition of many religious organizations and leaders. The litany of groups opposing this bill is long and contains the names of some of the most distinguished charitable and religious groups in the country. Another unfortunate aspect is the failure to meaningfully assist the charitable contributions of low income Americans unable to itemize on income tax returns. As a result of other tax relief for people who need help the least, we are unable to assist those who are unduly penalized. Given the flaws in this legislation, I oppose it, and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I come to the House Floor tonight in strong support for more action by developed countries and more leadership from the United States in fighting the AIDS epidemic, especially in developing countries. It is important that in addition to increased U.S. investment, we encourage creativity and investment from NGOs and the private sector to combat the AIDS crisis. While I support the positive intent of this amendment, the language included is much too broad. I fear this amendment could have unintended consequences and will vote against it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and I agree with what he is saying in terms of the danger were this approach to be taken to penalize other areas throughout the Pacific Northwest that are dealing with problems with salmon recovery. But I fundamentally disagree with my friend from California's primary premise. If there were no Endangered Species Act, the people in the Klamath Basin would be in desperate straits. It is because the Federal Government has overcommitted over the course of the last century the water in the Klamath Basin. What we should be doing, rather than penalize people who are trying to deal with species recovery, is to go back and help the people in need. We should not have a series of temporary payments that they have to go through legal hoops to obtain. It is very unlikely that it would occur. It is far better that we step up and provide money for a permanent solution which is to reduce the conflicting water demands in the Klamath Basin. We can do that by making generous payments to willing sellers who will sell their land. We can buy back at fair value conservation easements and water rights. If we do this, we will make these people whole, we will not penalize Native Americans and other people up and down the West Coast, and we will not be back here time after time after time. The gentleman from California is right, the Federal Government has made a mess, but it is not the Endangered Species Act, it is the fact that there are more demands on water in the Klamath Basin, for waterfowl, for agriculture, for endangered species. We need a comprehensive solution. I strongly urge rejecting this amendment and approaching it in a way that we can put in place a permanent solution which is to give them compensation and reduce the demands on water that the Federal Government has messed up.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) have 2 additional minutes to finish his thoughts, even if he is not speaking on the point of order.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of our constitution should be to establish the structure of government and to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. We have amended the constitution only 17 times since the establishment of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The proposed amendment is not a fundamental right or an alteration of the structure of government. Abandoning that principle leads us to a slippery slope, which potentially cheapens the process of amendments and could weaken the constitutional framework. I also oppose this amendment because of the same reasons some of my friends support it: because I respect the flag of the United States of America. I find it abhorrent, distasteful, and sad when it is desecrated. Since I've been in Congress, to my knowledge, there has not been a single flag burning in my community, and probably in my whole state. Certainly no one has brought it to my attention. I will guarantee you the second we raise the act of expression of political protest by burning the flag to status of a crime, we will have explosion of instances where in fact the flag is burned. Perversely, the reaction to this amendment would lead to what supporters want to avoid, the desecration of the American flag. Because its not needed, because it's contrary to the principles of the Constitutional action, and because, sadly, it would encourage desecration of our flag, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing a brief comment. America is the largest polluter dealing with greenhouse gases and it is appropriate for us to exercise some leadership. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has, I think, identified why in fact it is a problem, the single greatest environmental threat that we face. Unfortunately, this administration has been slow to acknowledge the problem, and sadly slower to embrace American leadership, which is needed in a global sense. I am pleased with the gentleman's willingness to accept the amendment. I hope that it portends greater things in the course of this session where Congress can provide some leadership on this critical environmental level; that we can be promoting a bipartisan commonsense approach to reduce the greenhouse gases, and to encourage American industry and individuals to all play their role. I think this is an important first step, and I appreciate the leadership that the committee has been exerting.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today the House of Representatives is faced with an amendment, offered by Representative Sanders of Vermont, which attempts to address the problem of high drug prices in the United States. Seniors in the United States pay the highest prices in the industrialized world for prescription medicines and are often the victims of discriminatory pricing. This amendment, however, seriously undermines the current system that protects U.S. consumers from reimporting potentially tainted drugs from abroad and this is why I play to vote against this measure. We will likely consider additional amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations bill today that attempt to accomplish similar goals, but unless they address the need for strong consumer protections, I also plan to vote against these amendments. Prescription drugs are an increasingly vital part of health care and are the fastest growing component of health care expenditures. Spending on prescription drugs is expected to continue to rise. Seniors, who comprise only 13% of the total population, account for more than a third of the annual expenditure on prescription drugs. The average senior uses 18 prescriptions a year and these vital prescriptions are absolutely essential to their quality of life. The rising costs of pharmaceuticals, combined with the increasing reliance on drugs for medical treatments, have created a serious threat to the financial security of a particularly vulnerable population, seniors who are on fixed incomes. We must provide relief to seniors in the United States. My concern though is that this amendment would eliminate our ability to ensure the integrity of drug products and could put American consumers, especially our seniors, in serious jeopardy. Counterfeit medicines have already infiltrated the U.S. market and we must make sure that any reimportation proposal addresses consumer safety and the need for thorough drug inspections. It does seniors no good to allow the importation of less costly prescription drugs if we cannot also ensure their safety and efficacy.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would hope that we on this floor of both parties, people of disparate philosophical orientations, could agree on one thing: the American public deserves to know the big picture, how much it costs, who is paying, and the impacts of these programs so that we can make the appropriate decisions for agriculture, for the environment, and sound economic policy. I understand there may be some question as to the acceptability of this amendment, that it may be subject to a point of order and I respect that, and I will be willing to withdraw my amendment. But I hope that we can work with the members of this subcommittee to be able to work to make sure that we have the information available to protect the environment, to provide sound agricultural policy, and be able to deal with our trade responsibilities in the international arena. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to offer an amendment that would direct the Department of Agriculture to submit a report to Congress that details the full amount of Federal funds being used to provide price support and describe the full effects of quotas and tariffs imposed on our Government protecting commodities. Mr. Chairman, we have a strange patchwork of policies that date back two-thirds of a century to the Depression Era, back to a time when there were 6 million family farmers, when 25 percent of our population lived on the farms. Today, we have a crazy patchwork of programs that have serious environmental impacts, which is why this amendment has been endorsed by Friends of the Earth and the Environmental Working Group, but it also has distorting impacts as far as the economy is concerned. It is estimated that worldwide, there are over $150 billion in extra costs that are added; and for the United States consumer, it is the equivalent of a 3 percent food sales tax, and the most regressive because of the impacts this has on the poor who spend more, $18 billion a year. We deserve, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to see the big picture before we move forward with other elements that deal with agriculture, that deal with international trade. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) to speak to a specific example of the impacts that we are concerned about.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do appreciate our taking the time this evening to explore in greater detail the other side of some of these questions because it is indeed complex. It is indeed important. As the gentleman pointed out, there are a wide range of interests that are coalescing. They may not agree on a lot. Conservatives, liberals, people from the East and the West, even some of our friends from California step back, and they are looking at what has been advanced by the administration with skepticism and in some cases wonder. I personally just returned from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It is an area that I have not visited before in previous trips to Alaska, and I have heard people on the floor make some assertions. I wanted to take the time to see for myself, to put in context the reports that we are given, the information that comes forward. I must say that I do not pretend to be an expert based on less than a week of hiking, camping, exploring the wilderness, flying over some of the vast stretches, talking to Alaskans of a variety of different perspectives, including spending time in the Prudhoe Bay area with representatives of the petroleum industry. Mr. Speaker, I must say having visited some of the BP operations, having Fourth of July in the snow, roasting hot dogs as part of their Fourth of July celebration on a man-made island on the Arctic Ocean, I came away impressed with the professionalism and dedication of the men and women working in the industry. But I also came away struck with the rather wide range of the area that is already available for oil exploration, the billions of cubic feet of natural gas that are being pumped down back into the ground that are available for energy purposes, and, if the circumstances and costs are right, that would be available to us. I was struck by the magnitude of the Alaska pipeline, which is now 25 years old. I have a certain personal relationship to this. My father worked on the pipeline until the day he died. I had some input from him about the challenges based on his experiences there. But it is aging. Just yesterday we saw in the Wall Street Journal a front-page article that the State of Alaska, covering the inspections of people in this area for this vast infrastructure which pumps more oil in 3 days than is pumped from the entire State of Indiana in a year, and it has approximately one-half the inspectors, only five people inspecting this vast infrastructure which is aging and subjected, despite the professionalism and dedication of the employees and, I think, the good intentions of the industry, I take it at face value, but there is not much that inspires my confidence when I think of the volume of it. Then when I consider what was there in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, this amazing vista, the tussock grass, where you could literally see for miles and hike for hours and be completely unaware of how far you had gone, seeing hundreds of caribou in a relatively small area, and in the course of 3 days had seen thousands of them, and had some sensitivity to how fragile that area is and how fragile it is in terms of the habits, in terms of the calving cycle of this vast caribou. I did see some caribou around Prudhoe Bay that we see in some of the pictures, but I had an appreciation for the vast fragility of the tundra; small willows that are 10, 20, 30 years old that are only inches high and thinking about what would happen if there were problems there. I came away with a profound sense that the American public is right. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is absolutely the last place we should be exploring for oil, not the first. The gentleman referenced the much-debated comment from our Vice President dismissing the notion that conservation may be a virtue, but it should not be the basis for a rational national energy policy. I think the American public, and I certainly agree, conclude that he has it 180 percent wrong. You cannot have a rational national energy policy without beginning with the notion of conservation and wiser use of our energy resources. And it does not have to drive the American public back to the Stone Age. Our friends in Japan have been able to manufacture a hybrid vehicle that will get 60, 70 miles per gallon. There is a 6-month waiting list for American consumers. Yet the American Government in the 5 years I have been in Congress, we have been prohibited from even studying extending the vehicle miles for the CAFE standards and having more fuel-efficient automobiles. It has been represented to me that the difference between SUVs that get the abysmal mileage that they get now and the potential for bringing it up to the overall fleet average would be the difference for the typical SUV, the gap here is the equivalent of leaving your refrigerator running with the door open for 6 years. This is not technology that is beyond us. We hear people making rash claims that we have to have the administration's proposal of building a power plant a week and the attendant economic cost, the attendant environmental cost, and they will throw out arguments like, Well, we haven't had a nuclear plant licensed in this country in 20 years. Well, they are right, we have not had a nuclear plant licensed in this country in 20 years, but what they do not tell you is that we have not had an application for licensing in more than 20 years. Industry has recognized that it is not a good investment. And for the administration to put forward half- representations, arguing for the notion that we are going to build a plant a week and ignore simple, commonsense steps to improve energy conservation, I think completely misses the target. Again, two last things and I will turn this time back to the gentleman. I know that there are others that wish to join the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and the last thing I want to do is disrupt his train of thought too much. As dean of the Oregon delegation, I have too much respect for his rhetorical and intellectual capacity to do that, but if he will permit me to make two other observations. Number one, it seems to me that we can take steps, and we may hear from some of our friends in California who have had some energy difficulties which they are working their way through, we may be hearing about that this evening, but the simple, expedient step of having roof colors, and you do not have to go all the way to having a green roof, but just having a reflective color, can cut the energy requirements for air conditioning one-third. Having concrete instead of asphalt can lower the temperatures of our cities 2 degrees, the heat island effect that we are seeing in major metropolitan areas. Not only will those roads last longer, but that will save energy. Last but not least, it seems to me that if in fact we have several trillion dollars that we do not need to invest in essential government services over the next 10 years, which as we note as each day goes by it looks as though we do not quite have the resources that were represented to us; a better use of this, rather than some of the tax reductions for people who need help the least, would be to provide tax credits and incentives for our citizens, particularly low- and moderate-income citizens, to be able to afford more fuel-efficient air conditioners, heating, other appliances which again would save huge amounts of money for not having to invest in energy production, would save the cost of energy for these individuals, and would be a shot in the arm for American industry. I think these are more appropriate approaches, rather than discounting energy conservation and simply building an energy plant a week. I appreciate the opportunity to join the gentleman this evening. I appreciate his leadership and look forward to further discussion.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act Reauthorization. This bill extends the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998, which passed in this body and was signed into law by President Clinton. Today's legislation allows the U.S. Agency for International Development to relieve some of the foreign debt owed to the United States. In return, participating nations agree to establish trust funds to protect local tropical rainforests and other environmentally sensitive areas. This bill authorizes $225 million to be spent over the next three fiscal years to pay for this important conservation program and for the cost of debt forgiveness. This innovative tool, the so-called ``debt for nature swap'', helps countries with undeveloped natural resources reduce their foreign debts by buying it back and agreeing to spend a portion of the proceeds on conservation projects. This is especially vital because tropical forests contain half of the world's known species of plants and animals. They contain a diversity of organic materials that could lead to the development of life-saving new medicines and tropical forests help slow global climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide. Increasingly, however, these fragile forests are succumbing to logging, roadbuilding and development. Since 1950, half of the world's tropical forests have disappeared and they are disappearing at a rate of 30 million acres each year. The countries that carry the heaviest debt contribute significantly to this loss because they extract valuable natural resources in order to generate needed revenue. A recent report in the Journal of Science highlights the problems affecting Brazil's tropical forests. The report states that the rapid growth of Brazil's population is leading to the equally rapid expansion of railroads, pipelines and highways into the delicate Amazon forest areas. The devastation of the Brazilian rainforest will take place in only 20 years because of a $40 billion project to encourage development. In tropical countries throughout the world, the deterioration of the rainforest will have dramatic and devastating effects on wildlife habitat, genetic diversity, the quality of watersheds and the global climate. The United States, because of our role as an economic leader, should promote creative solutions such as the one contained in this bill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want to make sure that I am going to have a chance as a sponsor of the amendment to have my opportunity to make a presentation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if people really are serious about preserving the beaches, that maybe this Chamber could be more serious about global climate change, the rising level of oceans, because what we are talking about with beach nourishment, if what the scientific experts tell us is accurate, we may be fighting an uphill battle. I would duly suggest that maybe suggesting allowing the Bush administration an opportunity to revisit these issues is not something that is a radical and extreme position. It is one of these areas where there is a convergence, I think, of fiscal conservatism and thoughtful environmentalism. It is true that sometimes there are rocks that occur on beaches. There is a natural ebb and flow. We have it in beaches in Oregon. What we have done, however, in our infinite wisdom, is we continue to fortify the beaches, to engineer them, to put up jetties, to put in sand, to disrupt the process, so actually it ends up making it worse over time. So the Federal taxpayer is on the hook. We mess up the natural process of restoring the beaches, and when we are further looking at changes that are a natural part of the environmental process, we just make it worse. In Oregon, we had a situation with the senior Senator from our State having beachfront property that is being eroded, and there was a great hullabaloo because there was an effort to try and restore and fortify and wall off that portion of the beach. We made it a difficult public policy decision that that would simply put the taxpayer on the hook and deflect the problem further. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that these are difficult, but I would think that we need to take our time, stepping up and being serious about this. Otherwise we are going to end up putting the taxpayer on the hook for a lot of money that is going to make the problem worse over time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman in yielding time to me. I am pleased to join him in cosponsoring this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman had it right when he mentioned that there is at least an argument when you look at the major environmental organizations around the country who suggest that this Congress ought to have a debate like this on this floor on the environmental and economic impacts of these massive beach replenishment programs. With all due respect to our other friend from Florida, it is true that the Federal Government at times has created these problems. It is because we are in a vicious cycle here. We engineer our beaches, we fortify them, we put up jetties, we accelerate the process of coastal erosion, and we make the problem worse. Then we come forward with these interesting projects. We have watched over the years as the Corps of Engineers and this Congress has expanded dramatically the sweep of the Federal involvement in beach nourishment and replenishment. I think we ought to take a deep breath, take a step back and support this amendment, and give this administration an opportunity to pursue an initiative that is both environmentally sensitive and is fiscally responsible. When we look at these massive projects, we have authorized one and two-thirds billion dollars in the last decade alone. In the State of New Jersey, where my good friend mentioned a moment ago it was of concern to his district, well, it is. If you look at beach nourishment costs in New Jersey, it is $60 million per mile. In WRDA, I dare say there were very few Members on this floor who understood the massive project that was slipped in without significant debate for a 14 mile stretch of beach in Dare County, North Carolina, for $1.8 billion, a commitment over the next 50 years. I would dare say that a massive project on this scale merits discussion on the floor of this Chamber, but we do not have it. I was a member of the authorizing committee. It was news to me. I dare say it was news to other Members here. It is not a benign process akin to snow in the gentleman from Colorado's district, or, with all due respect, that it is just someplace that we have to put the beach spoils, the dredging spoils. This saves the Federal Government money. Take a look at the record. Mr. Chairman, there have been exposes; in fact, there have been journalistic exposes dealing with the State of Florida with the massive amount of ecological destruction. There is not just spoils with white sand that we would have to pay somebody to take over. Oftentimes we go out and we disturb sensitive ecosystems for dredging materials that we end up putting in these areas. If you look at the cost factors, noted Duke geologist Orrin Pilkey, a recognized expert in this area, points out that usually beach nourishment projects cost twice what the cost estimate is, and it ends up being about half as effective. We could look in Ocean City, Maryland, where the Army Corps of Engineers budgeted to use 15 million cubic yards of sand over the next 50 years of beach replenishment, but in the first 3 years of that project the Corps had used one-third of the total sand allocation. I am blanking right now on the project, and I can get it for you, where it has been on average one a year on the east coast. There are problems here of significant magnitude. It is not ecologically benign. It is extraordinarily expensive, and we are facing a situation where FEMA has commissioned studies that indicate over the next 60 years we are going to have 25 percent of the structures within 500 feet of the ocean coastline subjected to erosion and damage. That is without taking into account the impact of global climate change. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an opportunity for people who care deeply about the environment to join with people who sympathize with the members of this committee who do not have enough money to solve the problems and allow the Bush administration to see if they can come up with a better cost formula. The Democrats ought to be able to submit to this. It is something also that the Clinton administration wanted to do. I think this is an important issue.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, numerous natural events of the past few months, including the earthquake in the State of Washington and Tropical Storm Allison of just recent days in Texas and Louisiana, have underscored our need for disaster preparedness. What we have learned from these events is that we can in fact save lives and money by making investments up front to protect our communities. What we have learned is that what we do in the beginning by hardening the sites, preparing people's responses, moving out of harm's way, has an overwhelming payback, a payback not just in money but in lives saved and injury and human misery avoided. As was pointed out in yesterday's Washington Post, spending money in disaster mitigation pays off. It has often been cited that in the great flood of 1993, Charles County, Missouri, suffered $26 million in damages. However, the same area, after a significant buyout and a similar flood 2 years later, caused only $300,000 in damage. Our friends at the Federal Emergency Management Agency believe that in the past 8 years the buyout programs of the Federal government have received a 200 percent rate of return in investment in disaster mitigation. It is frustrating that, in the wake of these tragedies, the Bush administration and its Office of Management and Budget have proposed cutting funds for several of these Federal mitigation programs, including FEMA's Project Impact. Mr. Speaker, I have had significant opportunity to interact with the men and women working with Project Impact. This was one of the creations of former Director James Lee Witt that has in fact earned him international recognition. I have seen that, contrary to the administration's assertion that Project Impact has not proven effective, I have seen Project Impact leverage even a modest Federal investment in my own community to be a lynchpin for additional commercial investments, as well as careful planning and consideration by local government. I had an opportunity last fall to address the Conference of Project Impact Volunteers. One of the most important aspects of this program is the development of the human infrastructure to aid in disaster mitigation. It is hard to imagine a Federal investment doing more than to produce these dedicated volunteers making the difference in making these programs work. Project Impact is not a grant program. It provides seed money to build disaster-resistant communities. It is a commonsense approach to help communities protect themselves. It offers expertise and technical assistance. It puts the latest technology and mitigation practices into the hands of local communities, and most important, it brings people together to understand how they can solve their own problems. Started just 5 years ago with seven pilot projects across the country, there are now 2,500 Project Impact business partners, including Federal agencies like NASA, that are working in 250 Project Impact communities. Mr. Speaker, Joe Allbaugh, a longtime friend and Bush appointee, the new Director of FEMA, has pointed out that he is deeply impressed by the ``swift and tangible results,'' his words, of buy-out programs and other efforts to mitigate the cost of disasters before they strike. I know from the news accounts that he has taken his budget concerns to the bean-counters at OMB who need to understand the potential benefits of continuing this program. I must commend the Bush administration for understanding the potential of using reform in other contexts. I appreciate and applaud their putting money in the budget that signifies reform of the National Flood Insurance Program. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I for the last 2 years have been working to reform the flood insurance program so it is no longer subsidizing people to live in areas where it is repeatedly shown that it is dangerous and inappropriate. I hope the administration will build on this notion of reform that they are proposing in flood insurance and carry it over in Project Impact. We cannot afford to lose it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate people coming together to focus on the heroic efforts that have taken place in Houston in the aftermath of this terrible storm, but I hope we also focus on what we can do to prevent it in the future. We should as a Congress invest in Project Impact which helps prepare communities before disaster occurs, rather than to cut it, as has been suggested by the administration. We have need to reform the flood insurance program so it no longer subsidizes people to live in places where God repeatedly shows that He does not want them. It is important that we not ignore global climate change, because the scientists tell us if we are not careful, global climate change is going to make these horrible events that occurred in Houston far more frequent and far worse. Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for us in Congress not only to reflect on the heroism that took place and to mourn the loss, but for us to step forward to take our responsibility to make sure that we are doing everything possible so that it does not occur in the future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me to speak on this bill. I know it has been hard for the members of the Committee on Agriculture, but I am personally disappointed that there appears to be no funding for the conservation programs in the agricultural supplemental. This is especially troubling in light of the fact that it appears that the Committee on Appropriations plans to sharply reduce funding for our major conservation program in the next fiscal year, including the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and Farmland Protection Program. Only 5 percent of the USDA funding rewards voluntary efforts for protecting our drinking water supplies, to provide habitat for wildlife, protect open spaces. There are many programs where farmers voluntarily want to come forward, but as a result of declining funding levels for conservation programs, three out of four farmers, ranchers and foresters are rejected when they seek cost-sharing to improve the quality of our drinking water supplies; 9 out of 10 are rejected when they offer to sell development rights to help combat sprawl and protect farmland; half of our farmers and ranchers and foresters are rejected when they seek basic technical assistance. Sadly, we are not stepping forward to help the incredibly productive farmland that surrounds our metropolitan area, the urban-influenced farmland. Mr. Speaker, as we struggle with declining amounts of money because of some decisions that we have made, that, frankly, I think some of us are hoping that people recognize were inappropriate, we need to make sure that we are dealing with efforts to equip and ensure that we maintain the agricultural base. This is an opportunity for a win-win to protect the environment, to enhance the vast majority of small farmers that are at risk, and to make sure that we are preserving water quality supplies. I am hopeful that we can do better in the future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in allowing me to speak in support of her amendment. I wish to just add one point to the discussion here today. The funding trend that we have had ultimately moving upward is one that needs to be continued, and it needs to be continued because of the massive ripple effect that this has throughout the country. In Oregon, communities like mine have had difficulty of late, but the Federal resources have enabled them to bootstrap. Portland arts groups have obtained a 68 percent rate of return at the box office, far ahead of the national average. It has encouraged private sector business to step forward doubling their investment in the first 5 years of the last decade alone. If we were to rely solely on public support, we would be cutting off access to people in our communities who need and deserve these opportunities. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will join together and support the gentlewoman's amendment. It is going to be very critical to promoting communities that are livable where our families are safe, healthy and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me to speak in support of his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with my colleague from Idaho who talked about sneaking this in the last hours in the dead of night. I am speaking just to one monument in the State of Oregon, the Cascade- Siskiyous, where approximately a year ago 52,000 acres were protected. I would suggest that there is significant support in our State, and the notion that this would be an area where we should open up to mineral exploration, energy exploration, is something that would be opposed by the people in our community. Mr. Chairman, we may disagree over issues that deal with energy. I am sure we will have spirited debate, but I would hope that this is one area where we could step back and recognize that these are areas that deserve protection. If the Congress wants to overturn the Presidential designation, if there is one that is inappropriate, by all means come forward and we will have the debate, have Members vote them up or down. But unless and until my colleagues are willing to step forward and show where they think it is not worthy of protection, I think we ought to support the gentleman's amendment, and I know that the people in Oregon appreciate it.