Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of Democratic leadership to fund vital programs like the Veterans Administration and health care for our serving military, I cannot support the FY08 Defense Appropriations bill. This final draft provides too much money for the wrong priorities and enables the administration to continue its tragically misguided Iraq policy. I made a pledge to vote against any further funding for the Iraq war unless it is used for immediate troop redeployment. I will honor this pledge, and I will continue to fight against funding for major weapons systems that have little to do with current security threats. Programs like the Future Combat System's fighting vehicles and the National Missile Defense system would be justifiable if the major threat to our security was a modern version of the Soviet Union. It is not. I applaud the Democratic cuts to the funding levels requested by the President, though we must do better. Continuing to pour billions of dollars into these programs is a waste of money and a threat to our readiness. We must invest in personnel and systems that confront the real and looming threats of terrorists and rogue states. This bill contains glimmers of hope that we are moving in the right direction on defense spending. But I will not vote for a bill that funds a Cold War-era military and approves any additional funding for the war in Iraq.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, illegal logging is a scourge of poor countries and rich countries alike. It damages the environment, often very fragile ecosystems, it disrupts the lives of poor, indigenous people. It corrodes their governments through bribery and often violence. Illegal logging also hurts rich countries as our timber and lumber manufacturing industries lose to those who cheat and bribe, over a billion dollars a year in lost sales in the United States. We can do something about it. Yesterday, the Natural Resources Committee passed out my illegal logging bill to give the tools for the first time, to our government, to do something about it. Later this morning, we can pass the Peru Free Trade Agreement, with not just the strongest environmental protections ever in a trade agreement, but with specific provisions to halt the illegal mahogany harvest in Peru's forests. This can be the most significant Congress ever in the global fight to end illegal logging by passing these bipartisan measures.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I voted against H.R. 2255, which would create a Federally-backed national catastrophe risk consortium and provide below-market catastrophic loans to State reinsurance and insurance plans. I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues from Florida to raise awareness about the increasing costs of natural disasters on their constituents and the insurance industry. This is made worse because the number of people who live in harm's way is expanding dramatically; some estimates say that 75 percent of Americans are at risk for some type of disaster. Climate change will only compound the problem with predictions of increased frequency of extreme weather events and rising sea levels. However, at its core, this legislation continues the trend of disguising the risks associated with living in hazardous areas. The Federal Government is already facing a huge financial liability associated with the impacts of Hurricane Katrina on the National Flood Insurance Program. Yet we have refused to take steps to address the root causes of the problem: more development and more expensive development in harm's way. I am concerned that this bill will increase our liability, without requiring communities to take meaningful steps to reduce their own vulnerability to natural hazards. This bill could potentially dramatically expand Federal liability before we come to grips with the problems of the National Flood Insurance Program and our natural disaster policies. We can't afford to take this leap. The Federal Government has a special opportunity and responsibility to help communities prepare for and prevent damages from natural disasters. Instead of making it easier to develop in these areas, we should be taking steps to reduce property damage and loss of life, save taxpayer dollars, and protect the environment. Mitigation works: recent studies have shown that 1 dollar spent by FEMA on hazard mitigation saves 4 dollars in future disaster spending. Until we deal meaningfully with prevention and mitigation, I must oppose this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I have dedicated over 30 years to environmental efforts. As a Member of this Congress, I successfully fought to enhance environmental provisions in the Singapore Free Trade Agreement. I have carried these arguments and opportunities in China, Indonesia and Vietnam. I didn't support CAFTA because President Bush and the partisan Republican leadership abandoned efforts to work in a bipartisan fashion and rebuffed our efforts at environmental protection. I can't express my appreciation to our chairman, Mr. Rangel, and to the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Levin, for empowering members to work with the environmental community to make sure that their voices were heard. And we have been able to enshrine in this agreement enforceable, multilateral environmental agreements in the FTA for the first time in history. Absolutely unprecedented. We have already been able to use the force of these agreements to clarify the protections of threatened Peruvian forest wilderness using the leverage we have already got even before it was enacted. This is not remotely NAFTA. We have all learned from that experience. It is not CAFTA, which I didn't support. We have given the critics what they said they wanted within labor protection and within the environment. I urge in the strongest possible terms that we vote a new beginning in trade. Adopting these stringent labor and environmental protections in the agreement will serve as a foundation for United States trade policy from this point forward, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, today I vote in favor of H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) because all Americans deserve to be protected from discrimination in the workplace. As a new legislator, one of the first hearings I attended in Congress was on this very bill and while I am pleased to finally vote on it, I'm sad it took twelve years for this day to come. I see today's vote as part of our nation's struggle to achieve civil rights--an effort to make our country more equitable, more just, and more fair, so that every child has the opportunity to pursue their dreams in a safe and accepting environment. As I look back on how we have achieved civil rights legislation, I am struck that each accomplishment was both monumental and yet disappointingly incomplete. I am saddened that the gender identity provision did not pass this time around, but remain committed to resolving this inequity in the future. I appreciate the advocates in my district, and across the country, who have worked tirelessly to bring about today's successful passage of ENDA. I am confident we will continue these efforts to keep these issues at the forefront of our agenda. Together, we can put an end to the ugliness of intolerance and bigotry.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from Missouri in saluting the 40th anniversary of Public Broadcasting. On the floor of the House we're surrounded by controversy on so many issues, but the unique achievement that is our system of public broadcasting really does bring us together. In those 40 years we've evolved a powerful system with NPR and PBS, through the hundreds of stations around the country, 100 million viewers of public television a week. Many cities around the country especially my own Hometown, Portland, the number one radio station is its public radio station. We have evolved a national voice that deals with issues of education, of music and public affairs. We've been able to prove empirically that the people who get their news from NPR actually have an identifiable, measurable, more accurate view of what's happening in the world. Since public broadcasting was established in 1967, the Federal Government has spent trillions of dollars, but there is no investment during those last 40 years that has paid greater dividends for the American people.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in recognizing me and in working with us. For over 60 years, Oregonians have provided a benefit to our returning veterans of home loans that were below market rate to be able to help them reestablish themselves in the community and as a small gesture of our appreciation for their sacrifice. Unfortunately, with the recent flood of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, we found that that program has been stretched to the limit and we were faced with denying them access. Working with Mr. Neal, Chairman Rangel, the committee and subcommittee, we were able to make an important adjustment, a 400 percent increase in the loan cap, so that we will be able to fully meet the needs of returning Oregon veterans, and along the way it will help people in Alaska, Wisconsin, Texas, and California. In this time of uncertainty in the housing market, giving these important loans to our veterans is an important gesture. I appreciate the work that the committee has done to make this a reality.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. My good friend from Texas, if he would have bothered to talk to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, who was seated on the floor next to him, would have known that there is a trade bill coming to the floor, passed unanimously, 39-0, that is a reflection of what we were sent here to do, which was to redefine, redirect these policies so that they were win-wins, so that they benefited the economy, not at the expense of working men and women, not at the expense of the environment. And the legislation we have before us here today is an extension of that strategy. There is a clash of philosophies that you are going to hear in the next hour. We have included a greater scope, including services, as you have talked about. The notion is to expand and enhance, to deal with people who are disadvantaged, in some cases harmed, because of global impacts beyond their control. Our Republican friends would propose to redirect and reduce. We put more money for more employees with issues of health care. Their proposal, if you look at it carefully, is doing it on the cheap, perhaps with contract employees, capping training assistance at $8,000 over 2 years. Just because you call it a scholarship doesn't mean that it's not going to be a cut for over 25 percent of the workers on the current program in States like Pennsylvania. Even in Nebraska, 80 percent are going to see a 25 percent reduction because they already benefit from more expensive programs. I hope that as a result of the debate today where people look behind the premises of our friends on the other side of the aisle, the program here, there will be an opportunity to make a judgment about what is the approach. Ultimately I hope we unite behind the approach in the bill before us, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Our hearts go out to the almost million people forced to flee their homes from wildfires in Southern California. At the same time a drought has gripped North Carolina and Georgia which in the long run may be end up being as devastating. These disasters are almost unimaginable, except we've been there before, like in Southern California in 2003. And two-thirds of the new development in the last 10 years in Southern California has been in areas we know are subject to wildfire. What are we going to do about it? The administration's refusal to deal meaningfully with global warming is the most glaring example of behaviors that doom us to reruns for years to come. Georgia has no real plan to deal with its water and doesn't even know what supplies it can count upon. Here in Congress, we fail to prioritize the right infrastructure and give billions of dollars for relief after a disaster and won't spend millions to invest in programs to protect before it happens. I hope and pray that the message sinks in and that we use this disaster as a wake-up call to get our act together to help people before these things happen to save both lives and money in the future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week we observed the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, and it was an important observation here on the floor as we dealt with the impact that that new law had, the heightened awareness and the progress that resulted. Back in 1972 when the law was enacted, only one-third of our waterways met water quality standards. Two-thirds did not. In the course of that 35 years, we have reversed that: Now there are only one-third that don't meet the goal. But the fact is that there still is one-third that are not in compliance with our basic water quality standards. When we look under the ground, the situation is even worse. There are over 72,000 miles of sewer pipe and water main that are over 80 years old. It is one of the reason large sink holes open up and swallow trucks in American streets, why the American Society of Civil Engineers has given our water infrastructure a D-minus grade. All of this is compounded by the stress from global warming, as we see not just the ice caps shrink but the snow pack being reduced, we watch evaporation being accelerated as a result of the elevated temperatures, and we see that thirsty crops need more water because of the global warming. Agriculture of course is 90 percent of our water commitment. Now, there is going to be more friction, more problems over time with Water and Agriculture. We have some of our programs that have been enacted that are just plain silly. We continue to grow heavily subsidized cotton with subsidized water in the desert, something that long since should have been phased out. The New York Times Magazine this weekend featured the Southwest United States water problems, especially centered on the Colorado River and the demands that are rising there. But this tremendous problem is not limited to the southwest. On the front page of this morning's paper we see the Georgia delegation in Congress is suggesting that they deal with their severe drought and water supply problems by ignoring the environmental regulations of the Endangered Species Act, upsetting not just environmentalists but their friends downstream. It is a problem we are familiar with in the Pacific Northwest, where we have a severely water stressed Klamath River Basin, where the Federal Government as in most all instances has been part of the problem as we promise more water to more diverse users than nature can deliver. It is time for us to revisit, not just the celebration of the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, but revisit our commitment that is embodied in that Act and where we are going over the next 35 years. It is important that we deal with very real problems of environmental quality requirements to save fish and wildlife and protect eco systems and, indeed, human life. We are watching the problems of diminishing supplies as we mine fossilized water in ancient underground aquifers. Global warming of course is going to make all of these problems more complex, more severe, and harder to solve. Every Member of Congress needs to do more than just celebrate the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. I would hope that, in the months ahead, every one of us does an assessment at home to find out how bad the situation is with our local water supply, storm water, sewage, and drainage. Are we one of the over 1,000 communities with combined sewer overflow problems? How is it going to be paid for? What is the planning that needs to take place? Every one of us should be insisting that we shift to basinwide framework for analyzing and solving water problems, not just looking at isolated instances. It is time for us to be serious about a funding solution. In 1978, the Federal Government provided 78 percent of the funding for our water quality problems. Today, that is just 3 percent. Even that 3 percent is as uncertain, as it is inadequate. It is time to establish a water trust fund, like the Highway Trust Fund, to help be a partner with State and local communities in meeting water quality needs. Finally, we need to begin addressing the ultimate question of who is going to get the water and why, beyond just some historic accident and water rights policy no longer adequate for today's challenges. I strongly urge my friends in Congress to reflect on the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act by getting serious today with our constituents at home about what we are going to do for the next 35 years of clean water.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the vote to override President Bush's veto of SCHIP marks the culmination of the most disingenuous and deliberately misleading debate I have witnessed in my entire political career. The partisan talking points from the Bush White House have been disputed not only by the independent experts, but by dozens of sensible Republicans like Senator Grassley, Senator Roberts and Senator Hatch. The facts are simple: working families are having great difficulty providing their children with health insurance. This is not a program about poor kids, most of whom are already eligible for State Medicaid programs. SCHIP provides health care to children of working families who make too much to receive welfare, but can't afford private insurance. Everyone I talk to back home agrees that this is a problem government needs to address and that children of struggling working families shouldn't pay the price for Republican politics. The President and his Republican defenders say that SCHIP shouldn't go to families who earn $83,000 a year. Well, as Republican Senator Grassley points out, this is why the bill doesn't authorize coverage at that income level. The White House now opposes the bipartisan bill because it provides coverage for adults. Yet, over the last 6 years, the administration has cheerfully approved numerous waivers to allow States that have requested to extend coverage to some adults; for example, to pregnant women. This bill actually phases out adult coverage over 2 years, coverage the Bush White House used to think was a good idea, before they were against it. We have heard complaints about the process, how Republicans were shut out of consideration of SCHIP reauthorization. Yet Commerce Committee Republicans wasted hour after hour demanding the bill be read line-by- line, aloud, instead of debating areas of concern and proposing their own amendments. Just because House Republicans chose to squander time with procedural games and stalling tactics is no justification for denying health care to 10 million children. Nothing is more ludicrous than the argument that SCHIP is a step towards socialized medicine. We have heard them say it time after time. But SCHIP is a block grant program to the States where most SCHIP recipients receive their coverage by private, managed care plans, similar to the private Medicare Advantage plans the Republicans have been promoting for the last 5 years. The argument that SCHIP is too costly rings hollow. After all, remember, there are 98 Republican opponents of SCHIP who voted for a more expensive unfunded Medicare prescription drug program, which the President happily signed into law. Five years of SCHIP expansion would cost little more than a month of the Iraq war, and SCHIP is paid for, unlike the President's war that is all borrowed money. The President's opposition, if wrong headed, is at least consistent. His budget proposal for 2008 underfunded SCHIP. It would have cut coverage for 800,000 children currently in the program. He drug his feet on SCHIP as Governor of Texas, and his home State still has the highest percentage of uninsured children in the country. Of course, his tendency to ignore inconvenient facts or make up his own is well documented. What I find inexplicable is the decision of House Republicans to follow the President's leadership down this path of denial and deceit. This bill is about more than health care for 10 million children. It could mark a turning point in the future of politics and health care reform in America. If Bush and his GOP supporters are allowed to kill this bipartisan compromised legislation without severe consequences, meaningful health care reform and progress will be delayed for years. We must lay the foundation for accountability at the ballot box, because the message will be clear. Progress would be possible only with a new visionary president and a Congress that will listen. I still hold out hope that this Congress will listen to the support of 70 percent of the American public, the support of 16 Republican governors and the bipartisan support in the Senate, that will convince a sufficient number of House Republicans to overturn this cruel veto and provide 10 million children with needed health care.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I deeply appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, his kind words, and his leadership in expediting this legislation to come to the floor. I am honored that Chairman Oberstar and Congressman Duncan are cosponsors of this legislation. And I was privileged to work on the Water Resources Subcommittee for those 6 years that Congressman Duncan chaired it, and it was a valuable and productive time. It was an opportunity for me to learn about this critical area. And the reason we are introducing this resolution today is because of the history that was recounted by my good friend from Minnesota. There is nothing more critical to our survival than water. It is essential to our survival; it sustains human life. Its patterns have dictated the development of species and ecosystems, and more recently, of the bilky environment. I am pleased that we are celebrating this landmark legislation, and not just a celebration, but an opportunity to reflect upon what has worked and why, as my friend from Tennessee indicated, where we might go. We have an opportunity to understand where there are continuing challenges and what else needs to be done. We must move beyond commemoration. We must make a commitment not to celebrate another milestone with the Clean Water Act without more demonstrable progress here at home and abroad. And I hope this resolution inspires further action that is both quick and ambitious. Issues confronting us today and over the next 35 years are even more complex than when the Clean Water Act was enacted. There are still problems with pollution, water supply, infrastructure integrity, and the technical jurisdictional issues. The growth and development we've seen across the country compounds that. And global warming gives these issues a new sense of urgency. We just finished a meeting, and I know the Transportation and Infrastructure team met with officials from the Netherlands, who are dealing with immediate challenges with their water resources as a result of climate change, rising water levels and extreme water events. Changing climate will have an influence on many aspects of our lives, and it will take many of them in the form of water; floods, sea levels, drought. This will make water supply and quality issues much harder to deal with. In the Pacific Northwest, for instance, where we rely heavily on hydroelectric power, where the snowpack in the mountains every year determines the amount of our drinking water, we have a sense of urgency as we watch that snowpack diminish. Just this last month, there have been two additional reports highlighting the work in front of us. A report by the U.S. PIRG found that thousands of facilities across the United States continue to exceed the limits under their Clean Water Act permits; 57 percent violated those permit limits at least once during the year 2005, many for more than once, and many for more than one pollutant. A report by Food and Water Watch found that the majority of States are facing current and projected wastewater infrastructure needs that are far out of line with their available funding. At the same time, Federal support for State and community wastewater projects has declined. When my good friend first came to Congress in the early days of this program, 78 percent of the funding was supplied by the Federal Government in 1978. Now, maybe we don't want to return to those glorious days of yesteryear, but last year it was 3 percent of the funding. It undercuts the potential partnership that we have. And all of this at a time when our decaying water infrastructure was recently given a grade of D minus by the American Society of Civil Engineers. For these reasons, I believe we need a sustainable, reliable, dedicated revenue source that will help communities address these important needs. Clean water is critical to environmental and public health. But I think it also, as demonstrated by the action here on this floor, has the potential of bringing people together. Mr. Oberstar mentioned the history back in contentious times when there was an overwhelming vote to sustain a veto, not the easiest thing to do. As was shown by this bipartisan resolution, I found working with the Water Resources Subcommittee that this brings people together and there is common ground. This bipartisan resolution is evident of recent polling that shows that more than eight in 10 Americans are very concerned about America's water, that it will not be clean or safe enough for their children or grandchildren. Eighty-nine percent of Americans say that ``Federal investment to guaranteed clean and safe water is a critical component of our Nation's environmental well-being.'' I hope that, even as we move beyond commemoration and towards addressing some of these critical unresolved issues, that we can keep the same spirit of bipartisanship. I hope our colleagues will do more than just vote for this resolution. I hope we educate ourselves and our constituents about what it represents, what it represents in terms of the status of water quality and infrastructure in our own State and community, offer our own contributions to practical solutions, and, as I said, a dedicated trust fund and financial resources to do the job right. Mr. Oberstar gave us 50 years of history in a very short period of time. I hope this commemoration is a point of departure for the next 50 months under the leadership of the chairman, with the work of Mr. Duncan, with a new administration that's coming to town, that we will have, over these next 50 months, a landmark in water quality, and I look forward to working with you all in achieving it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. Make no mistake, we're talking about uncollected taxes that are uncollected because of a systematic effort by this Republican administration and a Republican Congress to undermine the ability of the IRS to do its job, cranking up the audits on the poorest of citizens while stopping the IRS from oversight of those who are more wealthy. As my good friend from North Dakota pointed out, we're talking about a 6 percent rate of return, when the independent officer, who has been set up within the IRS to give the independent judgment, has pointed out that this same $71 million would collect over 1.4 billion uncollected tax dollars. Independent observers know that investing in the IRS and its employees rather than unaccountable private contractors will get more money and will do so in a more humane fashion. It was shocking for the committee to listen to some of the phone calls, to the abuse that has been subjected to American taxpayers who are caught in the ``Alice in Wonderland'' of these private collectors. I would urge my colleagues, if they have any doubt, to try an experiment. I have done this at home. I have met with CPAs, tax attorneys and with financial advisers. All of them suggest investing more in the IRS infrastructure to improve customer service, and it will collect more money. I would strongly suggest that it is time to stop this dark chapter of emasculating the IRS, giving money to private contractors, and instead, do a better job for the taxpayer. I for one support the notion of the 1-year suspension of the 3 percent contractor withholding. I think it makes sense to try and sort this out. I think it needs more examination. I think we can have a better proposal. This got slipped in in the Senate without any House consideration in the last Congress. I think a delay makes sense. I support it. I support the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate his leadership in guiding the committee to deal with issues of affordable housing, the crisis that plagues our country dealing with the mortgage crisis. If we are serious about providing affordable housing for families, then we need to be serious about building that housing in a sustainable fashion. Energy costs are increasing much faster than family incomes. Green homes are often 30 percent more energy efficient; that can cut utility costs by hundreds of dollars a year from the outset and an amount that is going to compound over time. We need to do well by our environment but we also need to save families' hard-earned money. There is also strong evidence that green homes are also healthier homes. More than 4 million American children have asthma, and it is estimated that had more than 40 percent of diagnosed asthma is due to residential exposure. Green homes use building practices and materials that minimize moisture, that provide proper ventilation, that prevent infestation and avoid toxic materials. I had the opportunity last night in Portland, OR, to be part of a celebration for our Oregon's architectural foundation, and these folks are zeroing in on practices that make a difference and add value. Many of the advantages of ``going green'' are based on people just having the fundamental information. There is a great deal of misinformation. This amendment would provide a ``green housing clearinghouse'' that will provide fundamental information for people who are involved with the industry. It requires grantees to self-certify how many of the total units they build with the grants were green. This will help keep the grantees accountable. It gives HUD important information on how many affordable housing units are, in fact, green. And I think it's going to be an important step, low cost, high impact, that is going to promote the housing in this arena to be of the highest quality and most sustainable practices. I strongly urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it was important to allow our Republican colleagues an extra 2 weeks for the veto override vote. It's important for them to get the facts right, important for them to listen to their constituents and actually read the bill, not just accept the President's talking points. It's ironic that one of his arguments is concern about adults who are covered by SCHIP. Yet the States have been encouraged to experiment to help uninsured working families, and the White House, George Bush, has approved those waivers that allowed them that coverage. The bill he vetoed was actually more restrictive than current law. It would end coverage for adults after a transition period. It would prohibit the Bush administration, or any administration, from approving more waivers for new States, and parents already enrolled with Bush approval would get reduced matching funds. It's time to stop making phony arguments; to listen to the Governors and the overwhelming majority of our constituents and override this cruel veto of health care for our children.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to join with Representatives Vern Ehlers, James Oberstar, Eddie Bernice Johnson, John Duncan, John Dingell, Wayne Gilchrest, John Hall, and others to introduce a resolution honoring the 35th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act. Nothing is more critical than water, which has always been essential to our survival. It sustains human life, and its patterns have dictated the development of species and ecosystems. Passed in 1972, the Clean Water Act has been one of our nation's most successful environmental laws. Even as the population of the United States has increased by close to 50 percent, our waterways have shown dramatic improvement in water quality. In 1972, only one-third of the country's waters met water quality goals--today two-thirds do. However, with one-third of the country's waters still not meeting water quality goals, we cannot simply rest on our laurels. The issues confronting us today and over the next 35 years are even more complex. Our demand for water, coupled with its destructive potential, magnifies our past challenges. There are 6.5 billion people already on the planet and the population is expected to reach 9 billion or more by mid- century, with all of the additional population concentrated in metropolitan areas. In addition, recent studies have documented a declining Federal investment in our Nation's water infrastructure systems, despite growing needs. Over 72,000 miles of pipes in this country were put in the ground over 80 years ago and are increasingly in need of repair. Our decaying water infrastructure was recently given a grade of D- by the American Society of Civil Engineers. I believe we need a sustainable, reliable, and dedicated revenue source that will help communities address these important needs. Clean water is critical to environmental and public health; but it can also play an important role in bringing people together. As shown by this resolution, clean water is not a partisan issue. Recent polling has shown that more than eight in ten Americans are very or somewhat concerned that America's water will not be clean or safe for their children or grandchildren. Eighty-nine percent of Americans say that ``federal investment to guarantee clean and safe water is a critical component of our nation's environmental well-being.'' This is why I am pleased, in recognizing the success of the last 35 years, that we have the opportunity to recommit ourselves to the goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act, dedicate ourselves to working toward a sustainable, long-term solution to the Nation's decaying water infrastructure, and encourage the public to do the same. I hope the House will move quickly on this important statement in support of clean and safe water.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as part of our ongoing efforts to end the war in Iraq, H.R. 400 is an important step in standing up against those who defraud our troops or improperly profit at the expense of our troops. We must be vigilant in prosecuting war profiteers, using every tool available. The President should use his legal authority to cancel contracts with those that defraud the government and be aggressive in seeking to recover lost funds. If he is unwilling to do so, Congress will hold him accountable.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, because I was detained by an important event in my district, I was unable to vote on H. Res. 32, regarding human rights and gender-based persecutions, and H.R. 400, the ``War Profiteering Prevention Act.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both bills.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. First of all, as the gentleman mentions, using the term ``promptly'' means that it is kicked back to the committee to an uncertain future. This has been before the committee for some time. There is broad bipartisan support that we need to solve this problem. And I have listened to my friends, they haven't come forward with any reasonable suggestion about an alternative pay-for. They had an opportunity in the Rules Committee; they had an opportunity before the committee. If we follow their course, we're going to be in limbo, I don't know how long, but unnecessarily. The minority has been interested in the past in making it temporary. That was the Bush administration's position; that's what Republicans argued before the Rules Committee. We don't want to put it back to an uncertain future. The one proposal that has come forward today for a pay-for was itself a long-term revenue loser. Using a Roth-style approach to government employee accounts, I think they're 457s, is a long-term revenue drain which uses an accounting gimmick in the short term to have people pay a little tax so they save a whole lot of tax in the future. That will add to the deficit over time. Now, contrary to what my distinguished friend from Virginia says, it does not disadvantage people. The exclusion for residential property for a prime residence was just that, it was to give people a $500,000 exclusion from capital gain on the sale of the property. It doesn't foreclose other people from stringing it forward to get more than $500,000. It just means the extent to which it's not your primary residence, you don't get a percentage increase above that. If it's your primary residence for one-third of that time, you get one-third of the benefit, in addition to $500,000 that you get with your first bite of the apple. It means you don't get two it means you don't get three in 6 years; you get one full bite, and then you get a percentage on top of that. It's reasonable; it's fiscally responsible. I strongly urge the rejection of this proposal that puts this legislation in limbo. There is broad bipartisan support for the concept. The permanent support of a permanent nature of it is sound, the pay-for is reasonable. I urge rejection of the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that, before this housing slump is over, 2 million homeowners will lose their homes due to skyrocketing interest rates on their mortgages. Increased foreclosures have adverse effects on the values of neighboring properties. For example, research indicates that, for each foreclosed home in a given neighborhood, the prices of nearby homes could fall by 1 percent to 1.5 percent. Nationally, housing prices have stopped rising. In fact, some measures of home prices have already declined, by more than 3 percent since the beginning of 2007. Some economists predict that real housing prices are likely to decline by more than 15 percent over the next 2 years. We want to prevent thousands of Americans from getting hit by the double whammy of (1) losing their homes to foreclosure, and (2) getting slapped with a tax bill when the debt on their home is discharged by the lender. Even taxpayers that restructure their mortgages to avert foreclosure face this risk of triggering large tax bills. It doesn't seem right for individuals in this circumstance to face a tax bill when they really have no increase in their net worth. As I see it, their house went down in value, and the individuals couldn't meet their mortgage requirements, resulting in foreclosure. The amount of the income that they would recognize without regard to this bill would be equal to or less than the decline in value of their home. So, absent this legislation, homeowners in this situation would be slapped with a tax liability for no net increase in wealth. H.R. 3648 would correct that result so that if a person's principal residence lost value, that loss won't give rise to a tax liability.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney) for 1 minute.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has been acknowledged as one of the prime drivers in shaping this legislation. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)