Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would make a distinction between an entrepreneurial, quasi-public business-oriented activity that is involved with long-term investments and what we do here, everything ranging from paper clips to annual salaries to infrastructure investment. I would support a multiyear capital budget for the United States Congress, and I would consider a 2-year fiscal reauthorization, for instance, but I certainly would not shorten this.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment. I have listened carefully. I do not think by any stretch of the imagination we should confuse long-term program stability with something that is operating on remote control. I think one can look at the analogy to the family operating around the kitchen table, and it is true that sometimes there are some expenses that that family is going to look at over the course of the next year or maybe the next week or month if we are talking about grocery bills or entertainment. But that family rarely in a functional sense every week discusses whether or not they are going to move in front of the children, whether or not they are going to divorce, whether they are going to undermine the whole fabric of what that family is about. And I would respectfully suggest that that is what we are talking about here, moving from a longer term, 4-year operation to a shorter period of 1 year. We are not talking about the kitchen table issues; we are not talking about next week's grocery bill. We are talking, as the gentleman from Illinois mentioned in great detail very eloquently, we are talking about fundamental business decisions involving investments of ten, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars in areas that are potentially risky and difficult. People need stability in order to be able to make business-oriented long-term decisions. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) pointed out, we routinely on the floor of this assembly vote for authorization for a program that is 3, 4, 5 years. The Surface Transportation Act is a 6- year authorization routinely because we are looking at long-term infrastructure investments, and communities need that stability in order to make those decisions. If anything, a decision of this magnitude might require more, rather than less, time because it combines the entrepreneurial activities along with the organizational governmental restraints. The way that this has been able to be successful not using taxpayer dollars, has not lost a dime in terms of taxpayer dollars since 1971, and has surplused money in fact, is because it has been able to plan for the long term, been able to operate like a business, been able to even these things out. I would strongly suggest that we would be better off with a longer time frame than a shorter to keep that entrepreneurial long-term approach.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. He mentioned $160 million that went to one company that was a difference between whether they made a profit or a loss?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Is the gentleman assuming that this is money?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman clarifying that this was a loan and it would not have made the difference between whether or not they made a profit or not.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to inject a small note of what I think is reality in the discussion in terms of what difference it will make for hundreds and thousands of small businesses around the country. The gentleman offers an amendment, and people think it is well intended. I do not know that it is necessarily well intended because I think we have already had a perfecting amendment that has been offered that clearly states how existing policy can be reaffirmed. We already know that OPIC is constrained by its statutory framework and by its own internal operations from the result that the gentleman is talking about. He dismissed the example, a real-life example, of a struggling timber company in eastern Oregon as that is just 1 percent or half a percent, while arguing that, well, why do not we just go ahead and give money to the Burmese Junta to cut down teak forests? Well, what is lacking in this discussion is any concrete example of where there is, in fact, a specific area of abuse, where the existing law and the protections thereof are not being followed, where there is a massive loss, where we are giving money for the leveling of teak forests by the brutal dictatorship in Burma. It is thrown off. I am not aware of any example. Nothing specific has been brought forward. But he dismisses something that results in American jobs, American products in an area that is hard hit in my community. And I just think that that is what is fundamentally wrong with the debate that we have before us today, Mr. Chairman, that we do not have specifics in areas of real abuse; and we take the hundreds and thousands of a tenth of a percent here or 1 percent there that are real successes for American companies and for countries overseas like in Latvia, where they are struggling to recover from the yoke of Soviet oppression, where they are trying to modernize and refine their economies, where they are trying to enter the world stage, and we have a classic win-win. And that is just dismissed out of hand as that is just 1 percent or 2 percent. I could stand here and give example after example in my State where not billions but tens of millions of dollars have generated Oregon products that have created hundreds of jobs in our State and where the subcontractors of little tiny companies that nobody has heard of outside the boundaries of our communities that has made a difference. I think it is time for us to not use hyperbole and hypotheticals that are not proven, that, in fact, are contrary to practice and statute of OPIC and dismiss the good that is done by allowing American companies to be able to work in difficult situations, help emerging democracies, strengthen these economies. I think this is precisely what we should be doing.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the notion that somehow because there are people that are lumberjacks that are unemployed because there is not access to timber supply means that mill workers should not be allowed to process timber and use materials to build that mill from Oregon escapes me. It seems to me that we are better off having those people using Oregon products, Oregon companies thriving, and that it does not do anything to affect the timber supply or lack thereof in the Northwest. Maybe I am missing something.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, there is a small lumber company in my State, Ochoco Lumber, that has used OPIC to set up a mill in the former Soviet Union; Lithuania, I believe, is the country. As a result of this manufacturing process, they have been able to get product that they cannot get in Oregon because of some of the environmental and supply problems.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman envision circumstances where there would be valid information available to the CIA or the State Department that could help in accurately settling the claim, that we would not want published in the Federal record for everybody to see? Can the gentleman envision any circumstances where that would happen?

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am a little troubled by the turn that the conversation has taken. I will be the first to admit that I think we put the cloak of secrecy too broadly over issues in this country. I think it is outrageous that the American public does not yet know what we did in Central America 20 or 25 years after the fact, destabilizing democratically elected governments. I think it is outrageous some of the things that happened in Chile, in Central America, in Asia. I think that we far too broadly keep information from the American public, things that are not designed to keep information from our enemies, or past enemies. They already know what was in those files. It is to prevent, I am afraid, sometimes, embarrassment for some people here. I think, as a general rule, we ought to open up more, and I so voted. But what this talks about is not sort of a sunshine. I just reject this concept that somehow we are turning the interests of America on its head by having the full range of information available to make these determinations. I think representing the full range of American interests in the decisions that OPIC makes is not turning American interests on their head. They should not necessarily be disconnected from the best sources of information that we have. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is suggesting that, if something is offered up for the purpose of merely impeding settlement, that that should be prohibited or should be made more difficult. But this amendment that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) has offered does not distinguish between things that are somehow impeded, and operation of the information that comes from Treasury, that comes from State, not just the CIA, that from whatever source we have this information available, there would, because there are seven independent agency heads who function as trustees or directors of OPIC, it would very much confuse the deliberations. If the information that they provided had the effect perhaps of delaying the processing of the claim as rapidly as maybe somebody would request, it may raise the obligation to put information in the record that, frankly, we do not want to have put in the Federal Registry. It would not be in America's best interest. But why, if that be the case, would the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) penalize either the taxpayer or the balance of OPIC in terms of the bottom line, in terms of having to pay more money. That seems to me to make no sense. I think we are confusing here politics, to use the word from the gentleman from Nebraska, with having national interests and the best information available to treat the policy holder and the American taxpayer in the best interests. I fear that if this amendment were adopted, not the Menendez perfecting amendment, but the amendment of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), operation at OPIC would go on. The people in the bureaucracy would continue to function. But it would raise questions for the board. It would make them harder to get the good information. They will not be able to do their job as well. That is only going to hurt the taxpayer, if it ends up costing taxpayer money in the long run, where OPIC does not surplus as much money. But because they operate in an entrepreneurial fashion, what it is going to mean is that it is going to mean that there is going to be less money available to loan. It is going to make it more cumbersome. It is going to make the processing of claims based on less accurate information. Ultimately, it may well mean that fewer people are insured. I do not think that that is necessarily in our best interest. We do not need this to solve a problem that somebody in Nebraska has. I understand that we are moving forward with that claim, and something is happening. But we do not need to put a cumbersome process, freeze it into statute that is going to give less effective information and make the job of the director and OPIC harder. I strongly urge the rejection of the Terry amendment and the adoption of what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has offered by way of a substitute.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, so far today we have not had any evidence on the floor of this Chamber that the people associated with OPIC are operating in bad faith. I have not heard that. My experience and the record before me, at least to this point, indicates that people are trying to do their best under difficult circumstances. What our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, pointed out is that when we are operating in an area that is chaotic, in an area where we have multiple interests that we are trying to advance as a government, where the parties involved have entered into a contractual obligation under which they get the risk insurance, that we have a framework that is established. This is a decision that is going to guide what the agency does in this case and in others that may be in fact similar. They are relied upon in areas of international law and in terms of people entering into other agreements with us to promote the objectives of this program. The people who manage OPIC have every reason to do so in an expeditious and thoughtful manner. They are in the business of promoting the interests of American business in risky environments. That is why they are there. They have done a stellar job since 1971 of doing that. They are caught in a situation in many cases where they are trying to find out what the true facts are and then lay the groundwork; not just to put the money back into the hands of maybe the person who has the risk insurance or the corporation, but then they also have to lay the foundation to get the money back. The recovery rate, as the gentleman from New Jersey pointed out, is in excess of 90 percent. Ninety-three percent I believe is the number he recited. That is because a thoughtful and careful job is done. Many times it is an interactive process. Where we have some of the smaller businesses that are involved, maybe they do not have as much activity overseas, they do not have as much presence, it takes time for them to assemble their material, and this goes back and forth between OPIC and the insured. Think for a moment what is going to happen if in fact we are going to change the contracts and the operation, where all of a sudden we are going to have an arbitrary time limit that kicks in and interest is going to be paid. Two things are going to happen. One, I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey, the inclination, because they have to run as a business, they have to be accountable, the inclination is going to be to reject and deny more claims. That is common sense in terms of how the business operates. To the extent that that does not occur and we end up paying out a lot of money, that means there are going to be fewer loans that are going to be granted, or it is going to be that maybe for the first time it will actually require that we are invading some of these reserves and it is not going to be surplusing money. I would strongly suggest that the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) is undermining the notion of this being an entrepreneurial insurance-oriented approach that gives maximum flexibility to the agency to try and balance the interests to the taxpayer and to the client, according to the contracts that they enter into. I suggest that it is inappropriate for us to engage in micromanagement on this floor with arbitrary time limits that are going to get in the way of laying the foundation. Ultimately, we want to be successful. We want the Indonesian government to cough up money to cover this, and to be able to keep the taxpayer whole and get money back to an aggrieved party. I strongly urge that we adopt the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and reject the underlying amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Or the State Department or Treasury?

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report for Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000. This bill is replete with budget gimmicks that seek to mask the true cost of funding the Department of Defense, such as declaring billions of spending to be an arbitrary ``emergency'' and delaying payments to defense contractors. Unfortunately, those gimmicks cannot hide the fact that this bill exceeds the Pentagon's request by $8 billion, with much of that money spent on unnecessary and even unrequested projects such as $264.3 million for the C-130 airplane and $375 million to build the LHD-8 ship in Mississippi. This bill also does not meet our commitments to fund current peacekeeping operations or reconstruction in Kosovo. This sends a disturbing message to the rest of the world that we are not willing to keep our promises to our allies in times of crisis. For these reasons, among others, I am voting against this conference report.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased by the national attention to ways to make our communities more livable by this I mean our families safe, healthy, and economically secure; and ways to give our citizens a real voice in the decisions that impact their communities; and a special emphasis on simple, low-tech, low-cost but high impact solutions. The Federal Government can make a huge difference in the liveability of our communities without new rules, regulations, fees and taxes for Americans and business. We can do so by having the Federal Government simply lead by example; work that is being done by the General Services Administration, for instance, and how they manage over 300 million square feet of office space in our inventory. Another area with tremendous potential is the Post Office which touches over 40,000 different areas across the country and most Americans six times a week. Momentum is growing with over 100 House cosponsors for H.R. 670, the Post Office Community Partnership Act. Last week before the Senate Government Affairs Committee, there was a hearing, and I could not agree more with the testimony provided by the National Association of Home Builders. They stated, and I quote: As home builders, our members abide by local zoning, permit, and building code laws in order to develop responsibly and preserve the integrity of communities. The United States Postal Service, however, is currently not required to adhere to State or local codes when relocating, closing, consolidating, or constructing facilities. This noncompliance undermines the economic and social well-being of communities by permitting the Post Office to build new facilities or modify existing facilities without regard to local plans for growth or traffic management, environmental protection, and public safety. The National Association of Home Builders strongly believes that the Federal Government should follow the same rules as it expects the American public. That is why we support the Post Office Community Partnership Act. I could have quoted from similar testimony from the Sierra Club, sort of a strange partnership that we do not see too often between the home builders and the Sierra Club, or a coalition composed of the National Association of Counties, League of Cities, Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Conference of Mayors, Preservation Action, American Planning Association and the International Downtown Association, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions. They stated as recently as last year the Post Office attempted to evade local clean water standards in Tallahassee, Florida and ignore local laws put in place in Ball Ground, Georgia, which were an attempt to meet Federal clean air standards. These actions would be criminal if they were attempted by a private company but are merely shameful when pursued by the Postal Service. Comedian Lilly Tomlin's annoying and sadistic telephone operator, Ernestine, made popular the notion we do not care because we do not have to, we are the phone company. Well, the laughter that that provided was a bit bittersweet in part because of the grain of truth that was embedded. In today's competitive world with higher citizen expectations, it is time for the Post Office to care because they want to and because they have to start leading by example. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me and over 140 House cosponsors of H.R. 670, the Post Office Community Partnership Act.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my opposition to H.R. 2436. Since the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, Congress has slowly passed legislation that has eroded women's reproductive choices. This is a personal and private decision that should be made by a woman, her family, her physician, and her beliefs, not subjected to increasing levels of government interference. Rather than being merely a good faith effort to protect pregnant mothers from violence, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act'' is actually a back door attempt to interject government into individuals' private lives. Harsh penalties already exist in thirty-eight states for crimes against pregnant women that result in the injury or death of her fetus. The overwhelming majority of crimes against pregnant women that cause injury to her fetus occur in cases of domestic abuse or drunk driving accidents, instances that are prosecutable under currently existing state laws. H.R. 2436 would do nothing to add to the existing protections against these serious and prevalent crimes. Nearly one in every three adult women experience at least one physical assault by their partner during adulthood and drunk driving accidents continue to result in substantial loss of life in every city across the nation. Instead of focusing on purely political measures aimed at the erosion of a women's reproductive freedom, we should be enacting more appropriate penalties, passing measures to promote protection from violence, and increasing assistance to women in life threatening domestic situations. If the sponsors of this bill truly cared about addressing violence against women, particularly pregnant women, they would have voted in support of the Lofgren Amendment that enacts strict punishments for crimes that result in the injury or death of the fetus without the inclusion of constitutionally questionable language. Or we would be considering the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that has proven to help victims of domestic violence. Clearly H.R. 2436 is more about politics and less about the protection of a woman or her fetus.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, since I was elected to Congress, I have been focusing on the issue of livable communities and how we can create better partnerships between the Federal Government, State and local governments and our citizens. As amended this bill will increase input from local communities while preserving important national landmarks. The 1906 Antiquities Act has served our nation well for almost a century. It has led to the preservation of the Grand Canyon, Death Valley, and Grand Teton National Parks. These sites have great environmental importance, they add to our nation's heritage, and through tourism they are an important part of local economies. This legislation would ensure that the President continues to have the authority to designate monuments, while giving communities a larger voice in the process. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1487, the Public Participation in the Declaration of National Monuments Act.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for those who are concerned about making our communities more livable, New Year's Eve is approaching; not the one that ushers in the new millenium, but one which for a number of us may be even more problematic. I am talking about the Federal fiscal new year that ends in just 2 days. As the end draws near and as we begin the final stages of this year's budget process, there are still many decisions to be made and much work to be done. Currently our friends on the Committee on Appropriations are trying desperately to avert the disaster of last year's omnibus spending bill. We all recall the millions upon millions of dollars given away in the dead of night to special interests and pet projects as we in Congress were given a 2,714-page bill at 4 o'clock in the afternoon to vote on at 7 that evening. This pathetic process made Congress look foolish while sadly skewing our funding priorities. It was a lose-lose proposition. The truth is that apparently we did not learn from last year's mistakes, and as this year's budget end game approaches, we are finding that we are in a similar situation. The budget gimmicks, the phony emergency spending, the effort to redefine the Federal fiscal year, adding an extra month, delaying this funding, advanced funding, the list is long as the Committee on Appropriations struggles to keep faith with the unrealistic spending caps that we all know were broken last year and which are being broken as we speak. It is not the fault of the Committee on Appropriations, who, if left to their own devices, could craft a much better product. But as we travel down this familiar and unfortunate route, we are finding that what is broken is also the public trust in how the Federal Government uses their money. But it does not have to be the case. We can change by shifting our priorities from partisan jockeying to funding initiatives that will truly make a difference in the daily lives of our constituents. We need to call upon our friends in the leadership, the Committee on Appropriations, and the administration to secure funding for things that will make our communities more livable. A good place to start is in the administration's own budget, in a list of livable communities initiatives. They are not big ticket items, but they would offer dramatic impacts. Some of those livability initiatives include the lands legacy package, to expand Federal efforts to save America's natural treasures, and provide significant new resources to States and communities to protect local green spaces. The Better America Bonds is a proposed new funding tool that would generate $9.5 billion in bond authority for investments by State, local, and tribal governments in green spaces, urban parks, water quality, and brownfield cleanup. Tax credits, totaling more than $700 million over 5 years, are proposed to finance the bonds. There is the Community Transportation Choices, the TCSP program, already authorized by Congress under the T-21 legislation, which earlier this year generated over 500 creative proposals to help communities deal with the transportation challenges that they face. Thirty-two grants totaling $13 million were given, but now the entire program has been earmarked. Instead of giving communities direct aid, rewarding those that submit the most creative and effective proposals, only five of the proposed earmarks even bothered to submit a proposal altogether. As we travel America, there are very few people who are concerned about the partisan squabbling over our budget. Most of America is concerned by the tragedy that was represented by the massive flooding and storm loss, the loss of life and property by Hurricane Floyd. They are focused on problems of everyday life: pollution, congestion, unplanned growth, and safety of their children. Congress needs to implement these livability proposals in the budget process now to address what Americans have spoken for. The local newspapers from coast-to-coast are filled with references to people trying to make their communities more livable. Funding these initiatives is necessary to minimize problems in the future, while improving the quality of life for generations to come. We owe it to our constituents to fund these initiatives, and I encourage the Committee on Appropriations to include them in our budget to help make our families safe, healthy, and economically secure in more livable communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the goal of livable communities is to make our families safe, healthy, and economically secure. Witnessing the devastation that has occurred this last week in the southeastern United States is painful to watch. Thirty-five known dead; others still unaccounted for. Imagine the suffering and disruption of lives and business. It has shown us once again how vulnerable millions of Americans are to natural disaster. The worst floods in years, unforgettable images of disaster, entire families wiped out. We need to help those who are suffering now, but we also need to take steps to prevent suffering like this in the future because it will happen again. Hurricane experts suggest we are emerging from a relatively calm weather period to a more active destructive one. Increasing development pressures are resulting in building homes in flood plains around rivers, lakes, and on our coasts. One does not have to believe in global warming to know we have a problem, and it is getting worse. We have to begin to deal with this in a sensible fashion. We need to look at where we build on coasts and developments in wetlands. We need to look at how we build. Even now there is a battle raging in North Carolina, ironically, about their building codes, arguing over, for instance, whether there should be protections for windows--like storm shutters. When we have already built, we need to look at how we can best protect property and lives from the devastating impact of natural disaster. Government, in fact, bears some responsibility for allowing and indeed facilitating homes in harm's way by subsidizing repeated flood losses through the National Flood Insurance Program. Along with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), I have proposed legislation to provide significant new assistance for those who are most at risk to provide $400 million additional from the years 2001 to 2004 to help flood-proof or relocate people who are facing the greatest risk from repetitive flood loss, the people most in harm's way. If an offer of mitigation or relocation would be refused under our proposal, then at least the residents who decide to stay in harm's way would be at least required to pay the full cost of their flood insurance, as those who already live in homes that were built or substantially improved starting in 1975 already do. The intent here is not to punish but is to take away the incentive that people are given by the Federal Government to continue to live in hazardous circumstances. The bill's name, Two Floods and You Are Out--of the Taxpayers' Pocket, might be a bit provocative but the issue goes far beyond money. The goal of the two floods bill is not to eliminate the flood insurance but, rather, the goal is to protect the lives of Americans who live in the path of frequent flooding, to protect the flood insurance program for the 4 million current policyholders, and to protect the American taxpayer. The flood insurance program cannot continue as it is now. There is a deficit right at this moment of almost three-quarters of a billion dollars and it is climbing. Two percent of the policyholders have claimed 40 percent of all flood insurance payments since 1978. Many of them have chosen to live, sadly, in these areas of greatest conflict. There is a home in Texas that has received over $806,000 of flood insurance in 16 different events in less than 20 years, and the home is worth only $114,000. The question then becomes, should the Federal Government be in the business of providing an incentive for a small number of people to stop and continuously risk not just their property but their lives and those of their families and their neighbors. Nicholas Sparks in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine suggests that, well, maybe the answer is yes. He plans to rebuild in a hurricane devastated sand dune on the Carolina coast. I think that the majority of Americans would disagree. If there is a compassionate way to provide an incentive for people to move out of harm's way, that is what we should consider. If there is a way to provide that incentive while also protecting the flood insurance program and the American taxpayer, then that approach should be implemented as soon as possible. There are ways to protect lives: The flood insurance program and the taxpayer. The Two Floods bill would provide assistance to those who are most in danger to help them move to higher ground or to flood-proof their home. The money spent to move them from harm's way protects the lives of families that live by them and protects the health of the flood insurance program by ending the danger of repeated damage claims. Putting people, their families, and their neighbors who try to save them at risk does them no favor. Encouraging people we know to suffer repeated loss and threat is a waste of more than taxpayers' money. The loss of property, business, and human life is a tragedy we can help prevent. I urge my colleagues to support reform of the national flood insurance program.