Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished Ways and Means member from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who has represented an area that is facing this problem and has been so generous in sharing with us the consequences.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Ways and Means Committee member, Mr. Pascrell from New Jersey, a former mayor who has firsthand experience about the significance of this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to clarify that there's no luxury tax on second or third homes. It preserves the tax exemption for the $500,000 capital gain on a residence, and it permits people to claim an additional benefit to the extent to which it is their primary residence in the future. I would at this point, Mr. Speaker, recognize a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mrs. Tubbs Jones from Ohio, whose experience helped shape this legislation, for 2 minutes. (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Select Revenue Measures Committee and a champion of tax fairness, Mr. Neal from Massachusetts. (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for 2\1/2\ minutes. It is not often I find myself disagreeing with my esteemed friend, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, but I would like to briefly address his concerns. As our esteemed chairman, Mr. Rangel, pointed out, this is a serious program that all agree needs a serious solution to avoid having people who lose their homes end up having their loss become a taxable event. Our legislation solves this. Where I take modest exception to the ranking member and, in fact, had a rather spirited debate before the Rules Committee with Ranking Member Dreier that this is somehow a temporary problem and just requires a temporary solution, we are in a situation now where the majority would argue that there is never a good time to have people who lose their homes have that loss be a taxable event. Second, unlike the Bush administration thinks this is going to be solved in the next year or two, the fact is, in 2006, 20 percent of the first-lien mortgages were in the subprime market. We are going to see exploding adjustable rate mortgages for years. Those people shouldn't have uncertainty if there are people who assume control who think that their loss should be a taxable event. As it speaks to the pay-for, the Democrats have made a commitment that we are going to pay for our actions. We are not going to add to the deficit. This is an entirely appropriate pay-for. There was never an intent with the $500,000 per couple exclusion from capital gains on the sale of their homes to string these together. I came to Congress committed to enacting that relief to protect them. But under the provisions that, as it has worked out, some extraordinarily wealthy people can string these together and have a $500,000 tax-free gain three times in 6 years. Our amendment, our pay-for, gives everybody the protection for their principal home and allows them to get the capital gains exclusion to the extent that a second home is their principal home. It's reasonable, it's balanced, it's paid for. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Trade Subcommittee, and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to commend my colleague for the work that he has done on this measure, Mr. McCrery, and our leadership because at core there is bipartisan understanding and support for the elimination of what has been referred to as a phantom and unfair tax on the poor souls who lose their homes and who receive no net increase to them. Where we have modest disagreement is in two specific areas: one, the bill that is before us recognizes that there is never a good time to tax American homeowners on this phantom benefit of having their loan forgiven on a foreclosed property. There no circumstances under which we could conceive that we wanted to penalize them for something that they didn't receive, so we made it permanent. Unlike the minority, unlike the Bush administration, we don't think there is ever a good reason to tax them on something that they don't receive. Second, we're paying for the cost that is associated with it because, sadly, even a tax provision that makes no sense carries value, and under our rules, we need to pay for it. And what we did was not to implement any additional tax, but to clarify the benefit that is given to owners of principal residences that they have a $500,000 tax-free gain if they occupy that as their principal residence for 2 out of 5 years. That's something that we broadly agree upon. Now, we've always agreed that that ought to occur to the homeowner. Now we're hearing that somehow our friends on the other side of the aisle think that an additional tax benefit, so that people could string this together over the course of 6 years and get $500,000 three times as a tax benefit, is somehow, some way a tax increase. It is not. The purpose of that tax provision was never to reward people who could game the system and string together tax increases two or three times over a relatively short period of time. So we have clarified it: as long as it is their principal home, their principal residence, they can claim the exclusion. And to the extent that a second home, after they've gotten $500,000 tax free, the extent to which they occupy a second home for an additional period of time, they can claim the proportion that it is actually their principal residence. I would dare say that was the intent for the majority people of why that provision was implemented in the first place. It's reasonable, it's sound, and I would strongly suggest that that's why people in this industry, Realtors, mortgage bankers, homebuilders, support the bill that we brought forward. I suggest that this bill is something that all of us ought to support. I strongly urge its passage.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends need some time to reflect on the children's health program; not over the course of the 2 weeks just for pressure, but to get their facts straight, to stop getting their information from the White House talking points and get information from the American people, their Governor, about how the program actually works. President Bush is worried that it won't go to poor children because some families earning up to $83,000 a year will be eligible. First of all, this is not a program for poor children, most of whom are already eligible for Medicaid. It is for children of working families, 90 percent of whom earn less than $40,000 a year. No one gets $83,000, because the Bush administration turned down one State's request. A few do have higher incomes because the States requested it and the Bush administration approved it. The Bush administration, if they don't like families getting it, can stop approving those waivers.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, his leadership, that of the subcommittee Chair, and, of course, my friend and the lead sponsor of this legislation, the author, Mr. Price. I think there is no more conscientious and thoughtful legislator, and he has approached this in a very nonpartisan, methodical way. Madam Chairman, I am concerned as I am listening here. I want to say, first of all, that I hope this is the first of a number of provisions that we have that deal with the netherworld of contracting and outsourcing this war. I think there are lots of opportunities to tighten down, to focus, to add accountability. But this is an important essential step. It is simple, and it should not be nearly as controversial as my friend from Virginia appears to make it. First of all, I have heard him about 10 times talk about how somehow this is narrowing the scope of MEJA. Look at page 2 of the bill. It doesn't take anything away. It adds provisions. It adds provisions. The notion somehow that we are not dealing with the problem in Germany I think misstates and betrays a lack of understanding about the difference between operations in a stable, established country and one that is in the theater of military operations. If somebody commits a crime in Germany, there will be an opportunity for that government to be able to deal meaningfully with it. That is not the case with a rogue contractor in Iraq, in a field of battle who shoots somebody and there is no established mechanism. It is absolutely apples and oranges. I find curious an argument from our friends on the minority side that this cost a few million dollars to the FBI and there is no funding attached. This is the same party that for the last 11 years out of this committee, when they were in charge, had a litany of proposals that added costs to the judiciary and the FBI and the corrections system and never blinked an eye over burdening them. This is a modest adjustment. It is within the scope of their duty. I strongly urge its approval.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, there is absolutely nothing cynical about the delay. My Republican friends need some time to get their facts straight. I really get tired about hearing these phony arguments. We're going to be covering some adults. Why are we covering some adults? Because the Republican administration granted State waivers for some States to be able to deal with some experiments to add to them, and this legislation stops the ability to grant those waivers that the Bush administration enacted. We're talking about it should be just poor children, and somehow I heard somebody talk about $200,000 levels. Hogwash. There was one State that requested a waiver, New York, that would have taken it up to $83,000. That was denied. There are a number of States, with the approval of the Bush administration, that have raised the levels. New Jersey at $63,000 still doesn't hit their median income. Only one out of 10 of these children are in family incomes of over $40,000. You need 2 weeks to get your facts straight.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me time. I do think the admonition is important to focus on the substance of this legislation. The Rules Committee, as she points out, wasn't given an alternative and there is nobody in this Chamber, I think, that has a better, more well-deserved reputation for being a thoughtful, bipartisan Member to try and solve problems than our colleague, the primary sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). I am privileged to be a cosponsor of the legislation with him. Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for this Chamber to focus on an important area of accountability. We have in the newspapers, not just this week, we have had accounts going on not just for months, but from the outset of this war about the trend to outsource fundamental functions that heretofore have been the province of United States soldiers. It has had significant consequences. We are now finding, as a result of some of the hearings, that there have been repeated instances of violence. We are finding that there is no good remedy currently under the law. There is basically no clear line of authority to get back to be able to exercise the oversight and accountability of the security function that has been outsourced. What Mr. Price has offered up is a small part of moving in the direction that we should have done from the outset. I would hope that we can get past the discussion on the rule. I plan on supporting it and look forward to a vigorous debate on the floor to open up this question of accountability for a war that is outsourced, for costs that are five times what an American soldier would do to provide exactly the same function. With the American soldier at one fifth the cost of a mercenary there is a clear line of authority. If something goes sideways, we know what is going to happen. Mr. Price has offered up legislation that gets us started in that direction. It is a thoughtful, bipartisan, narrowly crafted effort. It is not the whole answer, but it moves us in the right direction. I would strongly urge that my colleagues support the rule, support the underlying bill, and get us moving into an important area of debate, accountability and responsibility. Our failure in this area is going to have serious consequences for years to come. We are already seeing this with the Iraqi Government. We are seeing it in terms of problems on the ground. We are seeing questions that are being asked, answers demanded by Americans and Iraqis alike. Working together on this bill is a first step towards remedying that situation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Tanner, for bringing this forward. It's important not just for what you're doing, but for what this represents, to be able to get the debate going here on the floor and to expand it. This resolution represents the lowest common denominator, I think, but it's important for us to expand it, to deal with budget accountability. I personally don't want to have one more dime for waging war but, rather, move it forward in terms of securing the peace. I want to stop the open-ended commitment, hopefully revisiting the terms of the authority, move legislation to deal with the poor souls who are trapped in Iraq, refugees who relied on the United States and we've turned our back on them. Let's have some added accountability for the outsourcing of the war through private contractors, and certainly stop the drumbeat of war for Iran. I hope this will be the first of many debates on specifics every week, hopefully every day. I appreciate, Mr. Skelton, what you have done. There is no one who cares more deeply about our troops. There is nobody who has tried to sound the alarm about these disastrous policies. I hope we can work with you to expand this debate, to increase the accountability so that ultimately we achieve peace in Iraq.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this resolution and for the leadership of his Foreign Affairs Committee in bringing this forward. Madam Speaker, one of the most inspiring events of my life was being able to spend an afternoon with Aung San Suu Kyi in her compound in Burma with my son and daughter. Having a chance to meet this gentle woman, a clarion voice for democracy, for human rights, a strong and steadfast beacon for the 50 million people. Burma, a country that a generation ago was poised to be one of the bedrocks of that area in southeast Asia, a country that is rich in natural resources, with a gentle and sophisticated people have been taken over, as my colleagues have mentioned, by a gang of thugs. The Burmese have suffered untold privation, brutality by the regime as symbolized by their treatment of this gentle woman who was appropriately awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It is time for us not only to speak resolutely but for us to work behind the scenes and overtly with countries like China, India and Thailand that can, in fact, have a significant influence on the behavior of the government in Burma. We must work for the Asean countries and speak with one voice about the intolerable behavior that is being evidenced by this regime. There are many areas that the United States is involved with internationally where there isn't a consensus, where Members on this floor will debate with themselves and disagree about the best path forward. Yet as it relates to Burma, I think there is no debate. There is no confusion. There is no division. We need to speak as one. We need to work to fashion that international consensus. We need to make sure that we use every resource possible to put the spotlight on the problem, and help save the Burmese people.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is fierce debate and dissension on this floor and in Congress and around the country about the war in Iraq. This disagreement runs deep. It is profound. I believe it to be sincere. But there is one thing that everybody will agree on regardless of whether they think this war is merited or not, regardless of whether they think it has been prosecuted in a reasonable and efficient manner or not. They can acknowledge the debt and obligation that the United States has to over 4 million Iraqis who have been forced to flee their homes. This is a humanitarian crisis that rivals Darfur. It is the worst ongoing humanitarian crisis in the world at this point. Over 2 million Iraqis have fled their country. And while there is debate over the precise numbers these days, whether it is an additional 25,000 a month or 50,000 a month, whether it is going up or going down, no one disputes that they are still fleeing their homes by the thousands. I first became involved with the problem of the Iraqis who are at risk because they help the United States, guides and translators, when I started working with a group of high school students in Portland, Oregon, at Lincoln High School, who were working in turn with some Oregon National Guard members who had returned to Oregon but were trying desperately to save the life of a young woman who had served as their translator. Because she had helped the Americans, she was targeted. She and her family were targeted by extremists. It took months. Time doesn't permit going through all the hurdles that we encountered. Luckily, that young woman is safely in the United States now going to college and she is no longer at risk, although afraid to show her face or to be identified specifically for fear that her family would in turn be targeted. I made a commitment to those young people in the high school and in the Oregon National Guard that we would work to introduce comprehensive legislation to make it easier to meet the obligation to those who took America at its word, who helped our brave soldiers, and who in turn now have their lives imperiled. We have introduced comprehensive legislation that would increase the allowable number that could come, that would put somebody in charge of this responsibility, make it possible to actually be processed in country. It is ironic that we have the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad, and yet the Iraqis have to leave the country to seek refugee status. They can't go to the green zone and this vast embassy. They have to leave the country in order to apply for asylum. I frankly was encouraged that last week our colleagues in the Senate made important progress by passing an amendment to the Senate defense authorization bill that would start to address the crisis by including some of the elements in the comprehensive legislation that I have introduced. It is an important first step, but it is only a first step. It is time for the United States to do the right thing for these people whose lives are imperiled. When we started this process at the beginning of the fiscal year, the United States was going to allow 7,000 people in the country. A small number, actually, by comparison to what little Sweden, for example, was willing to do, a country a fraction of our size, and they aren't the country who engineered this war nor are occupying Iraq. Well, in a few months that goal of 7,000 was reduced to 2,000. As the fiscal year ended this last weekend, we fell short even of that reduced goal: Only 1,600 of these Iraqi refugees were brought into this country. Our failure to step up is having serious operational consequences. Ambassador Crocker in a memo that has been I suppose leaked but widely published, widely disseminated here in Washington, DC, points out that the failure to help these people who are helping us actually undermines the ability to have other guides and interpreters and people working with us. We risk leaving a legacy of despair, undermining our credibility in the Middle East, to say nothing of the thousands of people whose lives are at risk. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing comprehensive legislation that will deal with this humanitarian crisis, at least for the people who are most at risk for having put their trust in the United States as they worked to help us.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to join with my colleague, Representative Phil English, to introduce the American Family Farm and Ranch Protection Act,'' which will help conserve and protect our nation's vital lands, farms, and ranches. The voluntary placement of a conservation easement on private land is a very effective and successful tool for protecting and conserving our Nation's open spaces and sensitive lands. In 1997, in order to encourage the conservation of sensitive lands and farms, Congress enacted an estate tax exclusion for land placed under a conservation easement. Unfortunately, the original bill capped the exclusion at $500,000. Our bill would update and increase this estate tax exclusion to $5 million. Given the significant rise in land values over the past decade, the increased exclusion provides a meaningful and in many cases necessary increase in the estate tax incentive as a way to encourage and allow individuals to place conservation easements on their land. Our Nation's family farmers, whose most significant asset is often their land, provide a glaring example of why this legislation is needed. When the owner of the farm dies, surviving family members are often forced to sell all or a significant portion of the farm just to pay the estate tax bill. This legislation would help ensure that families are not forced to sell the farm and that their land resources are available for agricultural use by future generations.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I understand the reticence that my good friend from Georgia would have giving the current administration of FEMA more tools. I'm sorry he's beating up on the administration, but I understand it. They haven't shown that they're very adept. But think of this as longer-term legislation. There will be a new administration; there will be professionals who are there. The point is that, whoever is there, they need to use the most up-to-date, modern information to think about what's going on in the future. The science is already available in parts of the Federal Government right now that could be used. The information is available that the private sector is already using. All this amendment says, notwithstanding that I share your concern about who's running it now, but that will change, I guarantee you, that when it changes, and even until it changes, we can give them a mandate to look at the bigger picture and factor climate change in. And I am open to working with the gentleman in terms of whether it's contracted, or it's Federal information, or it's from other international sources. The point is they currently do not do it; we haven't instructed them to do it. This is one thing we can't blame on the inept FEMA administration; it's something that Congress needs to change. And with your help, we can approve this amendment, we'll change their marching orders, we will have the big picture, and it's one of these things we can agree on, work on together, and we will all be better off. I urge approval of the amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Let me just take 30 seconds here. This is something that isn't unknown. GAO found that 11 out of 11 insurance companies that they surveyed already incorporate this into their risk models. FEMA can do this using the private sector, and it can use government data that the Bush administration has been suppressing now in other areas, open it up, let these climate scientists that work in other parts of the government advise FEMA, or contract with the private sector. It's not hard to find the information.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Excellent question. Around the world, scientists are a part of this consensus, and we are refining tools. One of the problems with this administration is they've been trying to stifle, as you know, scientists within the administration speaking out on this, and we have undercut investment in these resources. The fact is that there is better information now for climate change. I have no problem whatsoever of our being able to invest to increase it further, but there is a global scientific consensus, there is investment in NASA, there are already resources within the Federal Government. They are not currently used now by FEMA, the stuff that we've got now, let alone what we're going to have in the future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am, in fact, encouraged with some of the discussion that is here today. If we sort of cut through some of the areas where people are cranky, as I understand it, I think we are looking at some broad areas of agreement that, at the end of the day, we are going to have a stronger flood insurance program that will be able to answer some of these questions. I have an amendment that I think will further strengthen this because, as we learned during Katrina, there is more work to be done to make sure that the flood insurance program is able to fulfill its mission of providing flood insurance and helping communities reduce that flood risk. Now, I am pleased that the underlying legislation makes some very important reforms to the program that I have been involved with for the last 6 years. What I propose in this amendment is an adjustment to the legislation to help ensure that FEMA is better prepared for current and future risks and that people have the information that they need to reduce their own risk. The amendment simply requires FEMA to take into consideration the impacts of global warming, current and future, when updating and maintaining flood insurance program rate maps. The flood insurance maps are significantly outdated; over 75 percent of them are at least 10 years old. Not only are they outdated, but they estimate risk by extrapolating solely from historic loss, as my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) pointed out earlier. Unfortunately, it looks like the future will bring new weather patterns. A recent report from the Intergovernmental Commission on Climate Change, the leading group of climate scientists from around the world, indicated that, with climate change, future hurricanes will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and heavier precipitation. Changes in snow pack and sea level rise will also have a significant impact on flood risk. These impacts are not currently considered in the floodplain map modernization effort. My amendment will improve upon this mapping program by ensuring that FEMA is prepared to improve the mapping accuracy. It will require the Director to take into consideration the impacts of global warming on flood, storm and drought risk; and take into consideration the potential future impacts of local climate change, weather-related events; and use the best available climate science in assessing flood risks and updating FEMA maps. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am actually encouraged by some of the common expression that is here. I share some of my friend from Georgia's reservations about where we are getting into with wind coverage. The chairman is right when he noted the focus on restrictions for flood insurance to reduce the problems you are talking about is in the underlying bill. What my good friend from Florida is offering is if you are going to be in this area dealing with wind peril that there is a requirement to discourage elements in the land uses that will not make it worse. So you are both on the same side. You may want to go further with the wind peril. I am open to that. We are not done with this legislation yet. There are unanswered questions. I agree with you. But in the meantime, acknowledging what the committee has done to narrow the scope with flood insurance peril, which is, I think, extraordinarily positive, and the gentlewoman is speaking out for solid land use, having the natural barriers protected, that will save all of us money. I am optimistic. If we can talk this through, there are enough elements here that will be good for the environment, good for the taxpayer, and under the leadership of Chairman Frank, I am convinced we can get there before we're done.