Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts permitting me to speak on this important bill. I could not agree with him more. I did spend a month working in Oregon to deal with people who are concerned about the economy. I had a meeting just last Friday with over 200 people, including executives, presidents of two of our local electric utilities. I have met with electrical contractors. I have met with utility contractors and with unemployed union workers. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you not only is the initiative under the Recovery Act putting people to work in North Carolina and in Massachusetts; it's putting people to work in Oregon. But what is important here is building on that model to be able to extend it to more home builders, more contractors and other utilities. There is a potential here to employ 168,000 people over the course of the next 2 years. Now, I come from a region that has invested heavily in energy efficiency. We have been able to save hundreds of millions of dollars of investment because we are getting more out of the energy we have now. The good news is the products that are energy efficient are largely made in America. And they are very labor intensive. These are installing new windows, installing weatherization, installing more efficient appliances, heating and cooling. This is saving money for years to come for families while it's putting families to work now. An important part of this legislation is that it will empower electric cooperatives which provide energy to many in my State and across the country to help customers reduce energy use and cost. This bill was amended to include the Home Star Energy Efficiency program, so it helps people in the 88 percent of the country that are not served by electrical co-ops. All Americans should have access to these low-cost home improvement loans to save energy and save money. And it has a terrific mechanism of working with the utilities, public and private utilities, and allowing people to pay it back on a monthly basis through their energy bills, which are going to be reduced. For many people, it is not going to actually cost them anything over the course of the next 5 years and it will save them money for years and years to come, every month with that utility bill, while it puts people to work here in America now. It is why homebuilders, contractors, and energy companies all combined to support this legislation. I am baffled that my friends on the other side of the aisle didn't hear from people at home like I heard from who want this opportunity to work in America, to save energy, and to put people back to work.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee's agreeing for me to speak on this. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of H. Res. 1595 to recognize the 50th anniversary of real estate investment trusts. For the last 50 years, we have seen how these publicly traded REITs have provided American investors with an affordable way to invest in real estate. I do a lot of work with livable communities. I want to congratulate the REIT industry for their efforts to pursue practices that will reduce the carbon footprints of their properties. We are dealing with serious problems of energy efficiency and carbon pollution. Buildings account for almost 40 percent of our country's total energy consumption and 72 percent of our electricity consumption. This is one area where the industry has had a footprint that extends from coast to coast. I commend the REIT industry for joining with Energy Star to find ways to improve the energy efficiency of the industry. I am pleased to see honorees of this program include the Simon Property Group, AMB Property Corporation, and ProLogis--which owns property in my congressional district. I have enjoyed working with the REIT industry to introduce H.R. 4599, the Renewable Energy Expansion Act, which extends and improves the Recovery Act's grant program for renewable energy production and involves the real estate investment trusts in this arena. I have worked with my colleague, Linda Sanchez, to resolve a technical barrier which will dramatically enhance the ability of REITs to access these grants. It is just one example of where, working with the industry, we have been able to deal with long-term benefits to our communities, stabilizing investments, strengthening neighborhoods, working on ways to make sure we are productive, and that families are safer, healthier and more economically secure. I congratulate them on 50 years of progress and look forward in the future to having them as valuable allies in this effort.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in today's wars, military contractors play a larger role than ever before. As we have seen over the past decade, our laws have been inadequate to curb what became a free-for- all for contractors overseas. That is why I support efforts like this one, to define and reign in unacceptable and damaging contractor abuses. In my own state of Oregon, 26 Oregon National Guardsmen have filed suit against war contractor KBR, formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton, alleging that KBR personnel knew a highly toxic chemical was present at Iraqi facilities in 2003, but that they waited months before bringing it to the attention of the U.S. military. By that time, unsuspecting members of the Oregon, Indiana, and West Virginia National Guard had already been exposed. Even more troubling, if KBR is found to be at fault the company may never have to pay for its actions. A still-classified clause in KBR's contract may result in the U.S. Army--and U.S. taxpayers--paying for the harm done by contractors. This is just one instance of past contractor actions having continued repercussions today. I will continue to work for swift congressional action that will hold contractors accountable, strengthen oversight and protect both our troops and the taxpayers. I strongly support Mr. Welch's efforts here today, and those who help tackle this problem on behalf of our brave men and women in uniform.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. Mr. Chairman, this is about keeping faith with the American public. It's not the end, but it's an important beginning. Large oil companies pay some of the lowest fees to American taxpayers compared to what oil companies pay anywhere in the world while enjoying unnecessarily expensive, outmoded tax breaks. And some, by bookkeeping errors, pay no royalties at all while they extract oil. Under this legislation, they will have to choose between continuing this rip-off or getting future leases. It will make the Land and Water Conservation Fund properly funded, making an impact on communities all across the country, and it leverages new resources. It does all this, as the chairman says, with a net benefit of deficit reduction of $5.3 billion over the next 5 years. Protect the taxpayer, protect the environment, and improve our communities by approving this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the current article of the New Yorker magazine has a thoughtful article from Atul Gawande, ``What medicine should do when it can't save your life.'' It focuses on those critical areas of end of life. It deals with fascinating studies that show people who deal, who are in hospice care, rather than the most aggressive medical interventions, actually, in many cases, live as long or in some cases even longer. But, more important, Madam Speaker, is the notion of control for these patients. The people who have substantive discussions with their doctor about end-of-life preferences were more likely to die at peace and in control of their situation and to spare their families anguish. This is exactly why I have introduced Personalize Your Care Act, H.R. 5795, to make sure that patients' wishes are observed, that the government helps promote that conversation, and that we allow people to live their lives the way they want to.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. This is the home stretch. We have had examples, for the last 14 years that I've been in Congress, where communities are struggling to figure out how to put the pieces together. I commend the committee for its work to try and give the tools the communities need to stretch Federal dollars, to be able to encourage private sector investments, to build on models of proven success, the cutting edge of architecture, of construction, of energy conservation, water. These are areas that America desperately needs. I think it would be shortsighted to cut back on this fine work. I will guarantee you over the course of the next decade that Congresses and future administrations are going to build on the foundation that you've established. I hope that this Congress does its part by moving this forward and supporting the subcommittee's important work.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I commend the subcommittee on its work to refine the administration's proposal, reduce it a billion dollars, but nonetheless deal with the challenges that face the American people. And Mr. Olver is right, as is my friend from New York, in talking about how we're losing an infrastructure challenge globally, which is apparent to anybody who travels overseas. This is an important piece of legislation that struggles to help make the Federal Government a better partner in rebuilding and renewing America. I have great respect for my good friend from Iowa, but I must respectfully disagree. The programs dealing with livability are, in fact, refined and tested. That's why there was such an outpouring of support for things like the TIGER grants. They are popular, and they are already making a difference, as we see, around the country. As for high-speed rail . . . give me a break. Yes, the administration did move forward with $8 billion for high-speed rail, which takes a little time to work through the process, but China is going to spend more in the next couple of months than we will in the next 3 years, illustrating how we are losing that effort. Livable communities were actually developed by this subcommittee in the last Congress. The administration took the work that you Mr. Chairman developed, they refined it, they expanded it, and I think it's to your credit for what you have done. I am saddened by an ill-advised amendment by my friend and colleague, Mr. DeFazio from Oregon, targeting transportation livability programs that, in fact, if they were allowed to move forward, would give us a head start on what I think the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee wants to happen with their reauthorization. They know that's important. This would allow a head start on communities large and small, rural and urban, to be able to get ahead of the curve and make those programs work better. Even more ill-advised, I think, is an amendment from Peters, Alder, and Himes to cut some of the guts this effort from TIGER grants, high- speed rail, Brownfields, HOPE VI, housing for veterans. These are programs that, in community after community, people have acknowledged are important. These have economic vitality. They give communities tools. They leverage far more than the Federal investment. I would suggest that rather than targeting products of a thoughtful rebalancing that came out of this committee, our goal instead should be to support the committee in its efforts refining the administration's proposal, help rebuild and renew America with infrastructure that is failing and out of date and losing competitiveness. We should reauthorize the Surface Transportation Act.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. This is where we heard feedback, the chairman in the committee responded to make it easier for businesses to accommodate the change in the future, while still making the basic objectives. I strongly urge our colleagues to listen to the local communities, to local government, to businesses that are involved with rebuilding and renewing America, and approve this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy for these 2 valuable minutes, and I want to use them to focus on three basic points. First and foremost, it is true that the administration advanced an economic recovery package that we had hoped would be able to hold the unemployment rate lower than it ultimately went. The Administration was guilty of, frankly, accommodating Republican wishes by pushing more in tax reductions that all the economists say do not create as many jobs as the infrastructure investment. And of course my Republican colleague conveniently ignored the fact that 95 percent of the American public got tax cuts last year, and they will get tax cuts again this year. Ignored. Look at the Bush administration job record over 8 years. The Obama administration, in less than 2 years, has already created more jobs than the Bush administration in its entire 8 years. We have before us today specific provisions that are going to make a difference in everybody's community. The reference has been made to lifting the volume caps for water infrastructure, a program in every State in the Union that will create jobs and have a multiplier effect on an ongoing basis. The adjustment in the new market tax credit that will allow it to be offset against the alternative minimum tax means that the leverage for the new market tax credit, a very valuable mechanism to help create jobs in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, is going to be magnified. Mr. Speaker, this is important business. There is nothing here in terms of the pay-fors that already hasn't passed the House. There was an important adjustment to give the business community more time to adjust so it is later in nature.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me to speak on this rule. Madam Speaker, embedded here in this legislation for Transportation- HUD is the Livable Communities Initiative, a visionary, popular, and important program of the administration. In fact, however, it began in the last Congress where the subcommittee of Transportation and HUD, under the leadership of Chairman Olver, promoted these initiatives. It was also part of a partnership with Mr. Oberstar, the chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who has long championed these efforts to have the Federal Government be a better partner working with communities on critical areas of transportation and housing. This bill has built on this approach. It has taken critical elements that strengthen community, revitalize the economy, and help protect the planet. I must, however, speak against a couple of ill-advised attacks on the livable communities program of the administration. In particular, there is an amendment by my friend and colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) that would strip out of transportation elements of livability. The irony is that the reauthorization that Mr. DeFazio is working on--which we all hope will happen sooner rather than later--actually will promote a number of these approaches. And the money that he would strip out would actually have gone to help get a head start on the important program that actually will be a part of the legislation that I am confident will be produced by his subcommittee and, ultimately, by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. These are not areas that are insignificant. There is great public support. For example, the TIGER grants received 40 times more requests than the administration had money for. And I must point out that this is not taking any money away from the transportation trust fund because, if it's not authorized, it comes from the general fund. Equally sad, and I think misguided, is an amendment offered by my colleagues Peters, Adler, Himes, and Welch that would strike or reduce funding for a number of critical programs where the committee has adjusted it even above what the administration requested. These are programs for high-speed rail, infrastructure investment grants, HOPE VI, Brownfield redevelopment, railroad safety technology, Veterans Affairs-supported housing. I mean, I could go on. Time doesn't permit.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. These are precisely the types of programs that we should be concentrating on because they stretch dollars, because they help promote the activities back on the ground in our districts, and, in fact, they are supported by the people who sent us here in the first place. I would strongly recommend that my colleagues look carefully at these provisions. What Chairman Olver and his subcommittee have done is to rebalance efforts that were offered by the administration. In some cases, they were reduced; in some cases, they were increased. But there is a package here that will make a difference for every community, rural and urban, from coast to coast, making the Federal Government a better partner, promoting the livability of our communities where every family is safer, healthier, and more economically secure. While I will support the rule, I strongly urge, if these two amendments are offered, that they be rejected.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 2480, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act. This legislation is an important step for consumers and animals. It is also basic common sense. It removes a loophole that has kept consumers from knowing what they're buying and enforces a law that Congress passed ten years ago. We all deserve to know what we're buying. However, the current fur labeling exemption is unclear and out of date, leaving consumers in the dark. Consumers often end up buying real fur that they are told is fake or domestic dog fur mislabeled as raccoon fur. If a product has less than $150 worth of fur on it, it doesn't even need to be labeled at all. That means that a $500 coat with $150 worth of fur on the collar and cuffs does not require a label. Based on approximate pelt prices after tanning and dressing, that coat could be made using the fur from 30 rabbits, three Arctic foxes, one otter or one timber wolf, without requiring any sort of label. That does not provide consumers with adequate protection and doesn't allow them to make informed decisions. The Truth in Fur Labeling Act will remedy the situation and give consumers the ability to make choices for themselves, rather than being kept in the dark or even deceived. I am proud to support this legislation today, and am pleased to see the widespread support it has received from outside organizations, including such diverse groups as the Humane Society of the United States, Macy's and Saks Fifth Avenue. I hope that my colleagues will join me in protecting consumer rights and animal welfare.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, this bill contains many worthy items, including a substantial investment in our Veterans Affairs programs. A strong safety net for our veterans is more important than ever, particularly in Oregon, where returning Guard and Reserve members face high unemployment and a difficult transition back to civilian life. I also want to highlight what my colleague Representative Chellie Pingree of Maine stated earlier in this debate: the cleanup of closed military bases is critical to health and growth of our communities. Across America, these closed bases contain discarded munitions, toxins, and shell fragments leftover from years of military training. Funding the return of these properties to safe and productive use is vital. Funds go directly to the development of detection and removal technology, the creation of skilled technician jobs, and generate economic growth as cleaned lands become commercial, residential, or recreational spaces. For the past decade I have worked with a bipartisan group of members to raise awareness of this issue. I am pleased that with the leadership of my friend Representative Sam Farr, the House has designated $100 million over the President's budget request for the legacy BRAC account. This $460 million is critically needed to address the large backlog of environmental hazards still present at bases closed during the earliest Base Realignment and Closure rounds. I hope in future years we can build on this commitment to our nation's safety and prosperity. MR. EDWARDS of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, as a nation, we face challenges ranging from education shortfalls and growing energy needs to a slowly recovering job market. We cannot afford to escalate the Afghan war with a credit card. The mounting loss of life and widespread corruption gives no indication that more money and more boots on the ground will achieve success in Afghanistan. We need success at home. The elements in the bill for veterans exposed to Agent Orange and for FEMA are a start. I cannot support a bill that spends $37 billion in Afghanistan while denying $10 billion for teacher jobs, $1 billion for summer youth employment, $5 billion for Pell grants, and $701 million for border security. My votes signal in the strongest possible terms that this war must be wound down and not escalated. Across Oregon, our priorities are helping small businesses, creating jobs, and supporting our schools. We need to start making the right choices. This means drawing down from a costly war that Americans and Afghans want to end, and investing in a better, more productive future for our country.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to support House Resolution 1366, Recognizing and Honoring the Freight Rail Industry. Freight rail is an important part of our transportation system because of the unique role that it plays as both an economical and environmentally-friendly freight mode. Freight rail moves goods from place to place efficiently, reliably, and without increasing congestion on our highways. It is an efficient mode of transport, averaging 457 freight ton miles per gallon of gasoline. If 10 percent of goods currently shipped by truck were instead shipped by freight rail, we would decrease our annual greenhouse gas emissions by more than 12 million tons. Furthermore, freight rail creates local, green jobs. Estimates suggest that each $1 billion invested in freight rail creates 20,000 jobs. Freight rail plays an important role in making our communities safer, healthier, and more economically secure. I appreciate the opportunity today to honor the men and women who make up our freight industry. I encourage my colleagues to consider freight rail as we look for ways to make our transportation system more efficient, more environmentally-friendly, and more effective. Many of my colleagues have cosponsored H.R. 5478, the Green Railcar Enhancement Act, legislation I introduced offering a tax credit for replacing or rebuilding old, inefficient railcars. I appreciate their support and I look forward to continuing to promote freight rail as a critical part of a 21st century transportation system.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues raising the issue of Congressional oversight in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the debate here today. I share their deep reservations about our engagement in the region, though I disagree with their invocation of the War Powers Act in this case. In fact, the targeted cooperation and training that U.S. Special Forces are said to be conducting in the mountainous border area of Pakistan will likely do more to help us in the long run than doubling down with a troop surge in Afghanistan. Though I cannot support this resolution, I support the spirit of oversight and accountability behind it. Because I believe our strategy in Afghanistan is fundamentally flawed and cannot succeed without a credible partner in the Afghan government, I hope we can have a serious and vigorous debate about this--the real issue--in the coming months.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last night I had an opportunity to preview a documentary entitled ``Homeless, the Motel Kids of Orange County.'' In the shadow of Disneyland, filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi captures the stark reality of children who are living in motels. For all the legitimate policy differences that divide people in Congress, sometimes it's jarring how starkly we view different worlds, that we can believe in different facts. But these children live in a world, the reality of which can be denied only by people who don't bother to see and listen. I hope my colleagues will watch the HBO documentary Monday, or better yet, get a copy of the DVD to review themselves and with their staff. We appear at times to be capable of arguing with a straight face about what the day's date is, but this is an area where we should agree to assign priority, spend precious dollars, and refine our policies. These children deserve our best.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the rule. I will support the rule, but I rise in reluctant opposition to the legislation. I sympathize with my good friend from Mississippi and admire his passion and commitment to this issue and his tireless effort to try and help his constituents who have been put in a horrible situation in the aftermath of Katrina. But I do think this bill is a classic example of how our empathy interacts with a system that doesn't work to cloud our judgment and leads us to consider action that would actually make things worse over the long haul. As Mr. Taylor has forcefully argued, Katrina exposed many problems with the National Flood Insurance Program. The confusion about wind and flood damage and the difficulty that his constituents had in getting insurance companies to cover their losses after Katrina is unacceptable. That was why I was pleased to support his amendment to the Flood Insurance Reform Act on the floor last week that would prohibit the write-your-own insurance companies from excluding wind damage under their own policy solely because flooding also caused damage to the property. I think that will go far in preventing insurance companies from taking advantage of consumers or the Federal taxpayers. But extending the flood insurance program to cover wind hazards is like slapping a Band-Aid on a broken bone and then putting the patient on a skateboard while the bones are still mending. I strongly support the goals of the flood insurance program and know that it has played an important role in insuring many American communities while encouraging mitigation and reducing risks. But with each additional disaster, it becomes clearer and clearer that the program is broken. Right now, as my good friend from Texas pointed out, it's $19 billion in debt. Adding for wind coverage, even if it's supposed to be actuarially sound, will only make this worse. Now, it is very likely to result in significant short-term losses for the flood insurance program. Even though CBO has given the bill a neutral score, that's based on a highly questionable assumption that FEMA will charge actuarial rates that fully cover wind losses despite a 40-year history of failing to do so for flood losses. FEMA doesn't have the ability to calculate what actuarial rates for wind coverage should be, much less enforce them. As Robert Hunter, who ran the program in the 1970s, has said, Poor management at FEMA--You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie--and lax enforcement of building requirements by local government has meant that the program hasn't worked the way it was supposed to. Some have even argued that it actually even encourages development in hazardous areas. Let me speak for a moment about the building code requirements under this legislation. The NFIB already subsidizes unwise construction in floodplains, and this would make it worse. While the bill requires the adoption of building codes to mitigate against wind losses, this is not strong enough. It doesn't address development in hazardous areas itself, and by increasing the availability of Federally backed insurance in hazardous areas, this bill will give people a false sense of security and provide incentives for development in those various areas. And there is a serious gap in the actual enforcement of those building codes. The current problems with the flood insurance programs must be addressed before we can even think of expanding it to cover yet more hazards. The experts on flood insurance agree. The administration sent up a statement of administration policy against the bill yesterday. The bill is opposed by FEMA, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the insurance and reinsurance industry, the environmental community, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Consumer Federation of America. They argue that it would expand a broken program, further encourage development in hazardous areas by giving people a false sense of security, have the Federal Government unfairly compete in the private insurance market, and put the American taxpayer further at risk.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Transportation and Housing Affordability Transparency Act, or ``THAT Act.'' This legislation will provide homebuyers, renters, and policy makers with the information they need to make informed decisions about their housing choices. The average family spends about half of its income on transportation and housing costs. Housing affordability has traditionally been measured as the extent to which a household's income can cover the purchase price of a home or the monthly rent. However, transportation costs can vary based on the location of a home. The cost of transportation has been growing as people move further from their jobs and community development patterns require families to drive for most of their outings. In certain auto-dependent areas, transportation costs can be very high, leaving families with less money for housing, food, healthcare, education, and other important expenses. Transportation costs and savings are not currently taken into account in government affordability measures and standards, and information is not generally available to consumers looking to purchase or rent homes. For example, low-income housing tax credits, down payment assistance grants, and rental assistance under Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 are all awarded and used without regard to this transportation cost burden. At a time of increasing gas prices and the pending expiration of many of the federal subsidies that keep housing near transit affordable, it's important for consumers and decision-makers to take transportation costs into account. This legislation requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to work with the Department of Transportation and other stakeholders to develop a transportation affordability index that measures the transportation costs associated with the location of a home. The bill requires HUD to take into consideration a number of factors that determine transportation costs, including the location and frequency of transit service, the average vehicle miles travelled in the area, and the availability of services such as grocery stores, bike lanes, community centers, and schools. HUD will be required to share this information with the general public, realtors, regional and local housing and planning agencies, states, and entities that engage in transportation demand management programs. The bill also requires HUD, where feasible, to incorporate transportation costs into its housing programs and work with other federal agencies, states, and local governments to incorporate transportation costs into their housing programs. The information made available by this legislation will ensure transparency in housing and transportation costs for consumers, housing providers, local and regional planning agencies, and other stakeholders. It will also enable HUD, where appropriate, to incorporate transportation costs into its affordability measures and standards. Finally, it will help communities recognize the importance of providing affordable transportation and housing choices for their residents, and give them the tools they need to do so. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this simple legislation to help make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I rise in support of this legislation today. I've worked on miscellaneous tariff bills in the past that are important to open up markets here at home. One of the areas that I've been involved with over the years has dealt with the bicycle industry, which benefits dramatically. It's a $133 billion part of the United States economy. It supports over a million jobs, generates almost $20 billion in taxes. We've got elements here that are not manufactured in the United States that are necessary for the bicycle industry to thrive. I'm pleased that they're in this legislation. But I am stunned at what I'm hearing from my friends on the other side of the aisle. It is, sadly, a symbol of their hollow rhetoric and shallow thinking. They want to do the right thing, but they can't. They can't take ``yes'' for an answer because it's partisan. It's partisan because they refuse to vote for things that they know are right, that they helped craft. And the notion that this is somehow an earmark--I'm sorry. I was pained when I heard my good friend from Texas on the floor. The top Republican on trade, Kevin Brady, has said that, while he supports the GOP earmark prohibition, he has never considered a tariff suspension an earmark, and added that he considers it important that the bill moves in this Congress. It's not an earmark unless you want to pretend that it's an earmark. But for heaven's sakes, this is something that even the Republicans agree they're not going to do next year. It's an election year ploy to try and get attention to a problem that they made worse when they were in charge. We've opened this process up. It's transparent. It's important. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will take ``yes'' for an answer and join me in voting for this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Personalize Your Care Act of 2010. Advances in healthcare have led to increasingly complex health care decisions and more treatment options than we have ever had the benefit, or the burden, of choosing between. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that individuals should be fully involved in decisions related to their health care, making informed decisions that reflect their values and their needs. We also agree that when people have expressed their wishes, those wishes should be known and respected. While there is widespread agreement in these principles, too often this is not the reality. Most adults have not completed an advance directive; if documents are completed, they are not regularly revisited and can be difficult to locate. Because these issues are difficult to discuss, surrogates can feel ill-prepared to interpret their loved ones' written wishes. These shortcomings often leave families and health care proxies faced with the burden of determining their loved ones' wishes in the midst of crisis, sometimes with little or no information about how best to direct care. This adds not only stress and anxiety to an already difficult situation, but studies show that lack of advance care planning actually prolongs the grieving process after losing a loved one. One of the greatest misconceptions about advance care planning is that it is a one-time event. Attempting to plan for all possibilities in a single document or within a single conversation is both overwhelming and impossible. Early advance care planning is important because a person's ability to make decisions may diminish over time and he or she may suddenly lose the capability to participate in his or her health care decisions. Ongoing conversations are also necessary. For advance care planning to be successful, it must become less about legal documentation and more about facilitating ongoing communication about future care wishes among individuals, their health care providers, and surrogates. This approach recognizes that advance care documents like advance directives are not the ``ends'', but the ``means''--the tools for documenting care preferences based on informed decisions that incorporate an individual's values, personal goals, and current circumstances. This process not only provides higher quality care, but personalized care. The Personalize Your Care Act aims to support advance care planning by providing Medicare and Medicaid coverage for voluntary consultations about advance care planning every 5 years or in the event of a change in health status. This periodic revisiting of advance care documents and goals of care recognizes that individual's preference may change over time. More so, should an individual develop a serious or chronic illness, additional curative and palliative treatment options may be available and the advance care plan should be updated to reflect the individual's current circumstances and preferences. Honoring the expressed wishes of individuals must also be a priority and for this to occur, advance care planning documents must be accessible where care is provided. To this end, the bill would ensure that an individual's electronic health record is able to display his or her current advance directive and/or physician orders for life sustaining treatment (POLST), so that his or her wishes would be more easily accessible and respected. Furthermore, advance directives would be more portable to help individuals ensure that advance directives completed in one state are honored in another state in which the individual needs care. And lastly, the bill provides grants to states to establish or expand physician orders for life sustaining treatment programs. These programs have a track record of promoting patient autonomy through documenting and coordinating a person's treatment preferences, clarifying treatment intentions and minimizing confusion, reducing repetitive activities in complying with the Patient Self Determination Act, and facilitating appropriate treatment by emergency personnel. These investments in advance care planning will reinforce patient- centered care--engaging individuals in planning and decision-making about their future care and ensuring that those preferences are documented, accessible, and can be honored in any state and care setting. I am proud to introduce the Personalize Your Care Act with the support of patient advocates, physicians, nurses, and the faith community who see everyday how advance care planning improves individuals' and families' peace of mind and the quality of their care. I would like to submit for the Record letters of support from the AARP, Supportive Care Coalition, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, and American Hospital Association. American Association of Retired Persons, July 19, 2010. Hon. Earl Blumenauer, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Blumenauer: AARP is pleased to endorse the Personalize Your Care Act of 2010. Your bill ensures that more Americans have the opportunity to better plan and prepare for their future health care needs. Early advance care planning informs physicians, other health care providers, and family members of an individual's treatment preferences should he or she become unable to direct their own care. This planning and informed decision-making between patients, families, and their health care providers aligns treatment with patients' wishes. To help encourage advance care planning, the Personalize Your Care Act would provide Medicare and Medicaid coverage of voluntary advance care planning consultations between individuals and their doctor, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant. Such consultations would occur no more often than every five years unless there is a significant change in the health, health-related condition or care setting of the individual. Honoring the expressed wishes of individuals must be a priority regardless of where the care is provided. To this end, the bill would ensure that an individual's electronic health record would include their current advance directive and/or physician orders for life sustaining treatment (POLST), so that their wishes would be more easily accessible and respected. Furthermore, advance directives would be more portable to help individuals ensure that advance directives executed in one state are honored in another state in which the individual needs care. Finally, the bill would also authorize grants to establish statewide programs for physician orders for life sustaining treatment or to expand or enhance existing POLST programs. POLST translates the wishes of patients with advanced chronic progressive illness into medical orders that health care systems understand. AARP supports your bill to help give Americans peace of mind knowing their wishes for care are understood and respected. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me or have your staff contact Rhonda Richards on our Government Relations staff at (202) 434-3770. Sincerely, David P. Sloane, Senior Vice President, Government Relations and Advocacy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, as I appreciate his hard work with the Judiciary Committee, and my friend Mr. Gallegly from California. This is an area, Mr. Speaker, that I personally think that we ought to be able to come together. I supported the original legislation. I found it horrific that we would have people profiting from the most obscene displays of cruelty to animals. I understand the arguments that were made before the Supreme Court, but I think they made it clear that there was an opportunity to craft it more narrowly, and I think the Judiciary Committee has done a good job in doing so. I am pleased that this is one of the areas where Congress has been able to come together, people on both sides of the aisle, to act quickly in an area that actually is important to avoid demeaning us all. Mr. Speaker, cruelty to animals is not something that is just sort of an esoteric issue that is one that is only nominally of interest. This is something that speaks to the fundamentals of whether or not our communities are going to be livable, whether or not we can relate positively to one another. There is study after study that documents that people who are abusive to animals are also people who are likely to be abusive to their fellow human beings. It is a broad, far-reaching problem we have in our communities still. Having worked with the committee in the past on issues that relate to animal fighting, there is a dark subculture here with people who get satisfaction, emotional, sexual, out of seeing animals suffer. It seems to me that it is important for us to respond quickly to be able to fill the gap. I don't think anybody benefits from this type of activity other than people who profit from it and people who have their own sadomasochistic satisfaction. I appreciate what the committee has done to meet the court's First Amendment concerns and still speak to making sure that there are not people who are engaged in these activities and profiting from it. At the time of the original legislation, there were thousands of animal crush videos, for example on the Internet. But after the enactment of the original ban, they essentially disappeared. Now, after the Supreme Court decision, we have seen a resurgence, one that is not in anybody's interests. I hope that we are able to move with dispatch passing this today, and moving onto the Senate, to be able to enact this and have one significant, discrete area of progress that we can all take pride in.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the rule, as I have appreciated her work in her community over the years dealing with the consequences of flooding and water damage. I rise in support of the rule and reluctantly am supporting the underlying bill. I have great sympathy for the work that was done by the Financial Services Committee. I understand what horrible timing it is to deal with the huge losses in housing value, other real estate markets, as well as unemployment and the economic slowdown. We are all reluctant to put any additional pressure on people who are located in harm's way. But I will tell you, having worked on flood insurance reform now for over a decade, there is never a good time to fix this program. The tragedy of Katrina 5 years ago dramatically illustrated both the need for, and the flaws in, our flood insurance program and environmental protections. For generations, local and State governments and, sadly, in some cases, the Federal Government itself has encouraged people to live in harm's way. Over time, this has become a much more expensive proposition while we have accelerated the potential for disastrous floods as we've engineered our rivers, while we've encouraged filling in wetlands that used to be nature's sponges, and we have more people in the areas that are subjected to even worse flooding. Now we have the situation where global warming is creating weather instability, extreme weather events, brutal rains and winds that make what was once a one in 100 years or one in 500 year event, sadly routine. We have seen on the floor of this House people come to the floor dealing with 500-year floods that have happened in relatively short time frames, and it is going to continue accelerating in the future. We need to make sure that FEMA has the resources to do this important mapping job properly, and we need to have the gumption to support FEMA after it has gone through the process and done the mapping right, to enforce that mapping. We need to make sure that people who are in harm's way are encouraged to protect their properties, and after repeated damage, that we don't just keep putting people back in harm's way but help them be located more safely.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is important that we no longer put the taxpayer on the hook for massive losses and have the rest of the people who pay flood insurance pay higher premiums while people who should start making some modification waiting 10 years before they pay their own way. This bill is a compromise, but I am hopeful that Congress can do more work to make a compromise that is more effective and long term because this is the tip of the iceberg. If we don't get it right, we're going to be back here time and time again on the hook for more and more money and more loss of life and property.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this legislation to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is essential for people who live in hazardous areas. The bill makes a number of important reforms that will help increase the fiscal soundness and stability of the Program. First, I am especially pleased that the bill extends the successful Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program, which was created in the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. This program provides resources to communities to mitigate properties that have flooded repeatedly. Repetitive loss properties cost the NFIP about $400 million annually. While they comprise approximately 2 percent of the program, they account for more than 25 percent of the claims paid. By extending the Pilot Program, this legislation will help reduce the cost burden of these properties on the Program and will release homeowners from the cycle of flood, rebuild, and flood again. I appreciate that Chairwoman Waters included a provision in the manager's amendment making a technical fix to ensure that FEMA is implementing the Pilot Program as Congress intended. I also support language in this bill that will phase in actuarial rates for non-residential properties and non-primary residences. Many houses in hazardous areas were built before the NFIP was put in place and those hazards was identified. For too long, these properties have enjoyed subsidized rates that drive up costs for everyone else in the program and send the wrong signals to property-owners about their risks. By setting rates based on risk, this legislation bolsters the stability of the NFIP and may result in lower costs for all policy- holders. I am disappointed, however, that the bill includes provisions that I believe will result in consumers not understanding the flood risks they face and will potentially harm both policyholders and taxpayers. Under direction from Congress, FEMA has undertaken a map modernization process around the country. The purpose is to identify areas at risk, as flooding patterns have changed over time. Section 6 of this bill essentially says that even if the new maps find that a property is at risk, property owner will not have to purchase flood insurance for 5 years. This undermines the mandatory purchase requirement of the Program. If there's a flood in the next five years, taxpayers will be on the hook to bail these property owners out. Section 7 of the bill takes this denial of risk even further, saying that after the five year delay, a property owner newly identified as living in a flood hazard area will enjoy subsidized rates for another 4 years. Finally, I'm concerned about Section 10, which automatically deems safe properties ``protected'' by a levee or other flood protection system, effectively removing the mandatory purchase requirement even if the flood protection system no longer works. As my friends from New Orleans know, levees can break. With this provision, we send a signal to homeowners that they do not need to mitigate their risks. While the bill includes some important reforms, it doesn't go far enough to address the structural problems that have cost taxpayers money, harmed the environment, and kept people in harm's way. The challenges for the program will only increase with time, as increased development and climate change put more people at risk. Already, over the past thirty years, the number of billion dollar US weather disasters has increased. From 1980-1989, there were 10 disasters that resulted in over $1 billion in damage. From 2000-2009 there were 44. If we don't take steps now to reform the system, this number will only continue to increase exponentially. For this reason, I would have preferred that this bill extend the program for less than five years. I understand that FEMA is undertaking a comprehensive review of the program, long overdue, and will come to Congress in two years to make administrative and legislative recommendations to strengthen the Program for the future. I hope that as this bill moves forward through the process we can better coordinate the extension with this review so that Congress can keep the focus on reform. In the interest of moving this legislation forward and ending the short-term extensions that the NFIP has been facing this year, I urge passage of H.R. 5114. But I look forward to working with my colleagues to make further forms to protect taxpayers, policyholders, and the environment.