Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I think I have 1\1/2\ minutes left?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what my friend from Florida said, and I have no interest in robbing Peter to pay Paul. But let's take it down to a very specific example that you are familiar with in Jacksonville. You had a base closed, Cecil Naval Air Station, in a prior round. Under the current schedule, this facility is not scheduled to be cleaned up until 2026, another 19 years. Now, you are right, we have put a significant amount of money into the 2005 round of BRAC closures. We put $5 billion in the supplemental. And you have put in this bill which I appreciate, almost $8.2 billion. But where I take modest exception with the gentleman is that you can't spend it. The payout rate is about 10 percent. I am seeking to transfer 2 percent away from areas that you can't spend this year or next year or the year after that. But I will distribute a list of people who have been waiting in some cases since 1988. They have plans ready to go. They are ready to clean up. If you talk to the companies that are the ordnance contractors, they are ready to go. They will clean this up. But we have got to stop the fits and the starts, where we don't follow through on our commitments. With all due respect, if I had a facility in the 2005 BRAC cycle, I would like this Congress to start meeting its commitments from 1988 and 1990 and 1992 and 1995, because if we don't, subsequent Congresses are going to play the same game. Because you can't spend this $13 billion, it will be dragged on and dragged out, and it will ultimately be diverted. Then we will be here, or some of you will be here, 10 years from now, and people will be wondering why the 2005 round of BRAC is waiting, like Mather Air Force Base, for 60 years, or why people in El Toro are waiting for 30 years. With all due respect, I would hope that the subcommittee would build on its good work, but look at the payout rate for the $13 billion you have for 2005, which we estimate maybe will be spent, 10 percent. Join with me in shifting a modest 2 percent of that money, so that we can keep our commitments to people who have been waiting since 1988, since 1990, 1993 and 1995. I deeply appreciate the work that the subcommittee has done, and I appreciate Mr. Edwards, you have been encouraging and helping the work that I have done in the past on this with Mr. Farr. And it is important that you put $50 million in above the administrations request but I hope we can work to keep the commitment to the people.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. May I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, first, let me begin by expressing my deep appreciation to the subcommittee for their work in providing an increase over the President's request for funding base cleanup. And particularly what we're talking about here are the legacy locations, places that have been closed in previous BRAC cycles, 1995, 1993, 1991, 1988. However, as we consider this appropriations act, I am concerned that we continue to dramatically underfund our commitment to communities impacted by these past BRAC rounds. These communities are ones that have been penalized twice. They are penalized when the base is closed, and second, they are penalized because they are unable to make use of the land left behind because of hazardous contamination caused by unexploded ordnance. According to the most recent Defense Environmental Programs' annual report, there is an estimated $3.5 billion backlog for environmental cleanup of these bases. This represents over 140,000 acres of land that remain unusable by local communities for economic development across this country. At the current levels, Mr. Chairman, we are facing people who went through the trauma of base closure in 1988, for instance, in Sacramento; they are going to wait over 60 years to be cleaned up. I appreciate the words of the subcommittee Chair and ranking member in terms of what they are trying to do with the difficult issues regarding BRAC, and I appreciate there is a very generous number that have been established, maybe not completely adequate, to try and deal with the people who were just whacked in the last round of closure. But, for heaven's sake, we need to keep our commitments to the communities that have worked in good faith, that had their bases closed 5 years, 10 years, 15 years ago, and still are awaiting our meeting, our commitment to them. I strongly urge support of the amendment that I have introduced with Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to close the ``Hummer Tax Loophole,'' which fixes a serious mistake in the Tax Code that provides an additional incentive for business purchases of luxury SUVs weighing over 6,000 pounds, such as the Hummer. This legislation is co-sponsored by my colleagues Ed Markey, Rahm Emanuel, and Allison Schwartz. The tax code allows small businesses to get a tax break for vehicles they use in business. In 1984, a limitation was put in place to make sure businesses didn't just buy luxury vehicles and write them off. These vehicles were described as under 6,000 lbs because, at that time, luxury vehicles over 6,000 lbs were not as pervasive. Today, there are many luxury SUVs that are more than 6,000 lbs, such as the BMW X5, the Hummer H1 and H2, and the Cadillac Escalade. Buying these vehicles entitles small businesses to an extra tax break, which constitutes the loophole. This legislation closes the Hummer Tax Loophole by applying the limitation that currently applies to vehicles under 6,000 pounds to those over 6,000 lbs. In other words, businesses will no longer have an incentive to buy the biggest, most gas guzzling SUV on the market. Legislative language and regulations would guarantee that the limitation not apply to trucks or vans used for legitimate business purposes, such as farm vehicles, fork lifts, cranes and derricks, school buses, flatbed trucks, cement mixers, and other vehicles as designated by the IRS. This bill will make sure that U.S. tax policy no longer encourages the purchase of the heaviest, most polluting, and least fuel-efficient vehicles for business use.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, as we consider the FY 2008 Military Constructions Appropriations Act, I am concerned that we are significantly under funding our commitment to clean up communities impacted by base closures in the past. There is an estimated $3.5 billion backlog of environmental cleanup at bases closed during the previous BRAC rounds. Unfortunately, the funding levels in this bill are not enough to make a dent in cleaning up bases closed in previous BRAC rounds. The bill does include significant funding to deal with cleanup at bases closed in the 2005 BRAC round. The irony is that the new round of BRAC has so much money appropriated that current outlays will spend less than 10% in the upcoming fiscal year of its budget authority while in the same vein the Legacy BRAC account will be spending nearly half of its budget authority in the same fiscal year. I appreciate that there is an increase above the President's budget for this effort, but it is simply not enough to make up for past years of Congress abrogating its responsibility of environmental restoration of past BRAC rounds. Communities across the nation have waited decades for remediation and at the current levels of funding will have to wait for over 40 years before the job is done. In order to address this problem, I am submitting the following amendment with my colleague Congresswoman Brown-Waite in order to properly finish the job of environmental clean up at former military bases before we can fully address a new round of cleanup. The amendment I am offering decreases by $201,000,000 the Base Realignment and Closure Account 2005 account and increases the Base Realignment and Closure Account 1990 by $50,000,000 in order to work towards this goal. CBO has scored this amendment as outlay neutral.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, because it is a critical advancement in scientific research. The medical possibilities from stem cells continue to excite the scientific community, holding great promise for therapies to alleviate human suffering from diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and cancer. Perhaps no area provides more potential to revolutionize the lives of Americans than the ability to avoid or cure debilitating diseases. It is time for the Federal government to be a full partner in the critical advancement of stem cell research. This legislation enables scientists to pursue research in a responsible, ethical manner, through the utilization of the 400,000 surplus embryos currently frozen in storage at fertilization clinics across the U.S. The strict confines of this legislation present no threat to the sanctity of human life. I strongly concur with the National Institute for Health Director's statement that it is in the best interests of our scientists, our science, and our country to pursue all aspects of stem cell research--both adult and embryonic--to the fullest extent.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Congress is in the process of updating the Nation's agricultural policy for the first time since 2002 to see if it can serve the interests of all America's farmers and ranchers. This is more than a farm bill, it is a food bill as well. Everyone who eats is affected by our food and farm policy. Michael Pollan explained how the farm bill is the reason that a package of Twinkies, which contains 39 complex ingredients, costs less than a bunch of carrots straight from the farm. The farm bill should serve all Americans, not just a few special interests. Today, 70 percent of the payments go to the richest 10 percent of the farmers, while 60 percent of America's farmers and ranchers get no support whatsoever. It is time for a food and farm bill of rights that provides a comprehensive guide to reform the farm bill. We must move beyond the policies that were written for the Depression or the 1950s to one designed for the world we live in today; and, more important, the world we want to live in tomorrow.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, if there's been any good news on the Middle East peace process over the last 7 years, it's that barriers to ending the conflict are less about final-status issues and more about the challenge of reaching the outcome that majorities on both sides know will be necessary: an independent Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, living side by side with Israel in peace, with a shared Jerusalem and a negotiated solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Against that backdrop, it is unclear to me what good comes from passing a resolution which would place Congress out of step with large parts of the Israeli political spectrum. This resolution is disconnected from the reality on the ground. At a time of rocket attacks in Sderot, retaliations in Gaza, and renewed fears of war between Israel and Syria, it is, at a minimum, inappropriate for either the United States Congress or the Bush administration to stand in the way of whatever moves for peace Israel may choose to make, yet that is exactly what this resolution does. We should be more engaged at promoting a return to a peace process, not less, and we should be encouraging compromise, not intransigence on the difficult issues. Jerusalem is Israel's capital and a city of unmatched significance for the Jewish people. I will never forget my first morning in Israel and what it was like to go on a run around the Old City. However, I must oppose a resolution that reaffirms the need to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem prior to a peace agreement because, as both Presidents Clinton and Bush have recognized, this harms our efforts at diplomacy and, therefore, the security of Israel and the United States. Instead, we should keep faith with the Biblical injunction to ``pray for the peace of Jerusalem,'' reject this senseless resolution, and recommit our support for serious efforts at peace in the Middle East and security for Israel.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today, Representative Ramstad and I are introducing legislation that revises the Internal Revenue Code, IRC, to treat pet trusts in a similar manner as charitable remainder annuity trusts, CRATs. It will allow estates and donors with CRATs with a pet, or its guardian as a beneficiary, to receive a charitable deduction for the remainder interest when the trust is established. The bill provides a tax incentive for people to arrange for long-term care of their pets, which will result in a reduction of society's burden in caring for ``unwanted'' dogs and cats after the guardian dies. Currently 39 States and the District of Columbia allow pet trusts, which is a specific legal arrangement providing for the care of companion animals in the event of the guardian's death or incapacitation. When the pet passes, the remainder of the trust is then distributed to one or more pre-designated charities. Recognition of these trusts by the Federal Tax Code will allow for long-term planning of care for pets, as well as encourage people to engage in charitable giving. The legislation bears no cost burden for the Federal Government and brings relief to animal lovers and shelters alike.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 2316 and 2317--bills that significantly reform the lobbyist-lawmaker relationship for the better. By opening the lobbying process to greater oversight, we will reaffirm our commitment to accountability and transparency in Congress. Although I am deeply frustrated that stronger reform measures were abandoned, I believe this pair of bills represents an essential step toward a more honest and open government. Earlier this year, my colleague Greg Walden and I reintroduced H.R. 1136, the ``Ethics Reform Act of 2007,'' with provisions that tighten lobbyist disclosure and reporting. I am pleased to see similar provisions--such as quarterly disclosure requirements, electronic filing, and a public database of disclosure data--in H.R. 2316. I am also pleased to see increased gift restrictions, tightened reporting requirements, and stiffened noncompliance penalties included in these bills. These are critical components of effective lobbying reform whose adoption will help to clearly delineate an appropriate boundary between lobbyists and lawmakers. However, I must also voice a deep concern: these bills do not go far enough. The Senate easily passed--by 96-2--a more stringent bill which included stricter penalties and tighter lobbying restrictions on Members of Congress and their families. The House, in contrast, weakened the lobbyist, ``cool-off'' period in H.R. 2316. We can, and must, do better. With the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, I look forward to improving these bills in conference.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Congress is poised to approve a short-term funding proposal for Iraq without strong conditions to phase down this war. I, for one, will not vote for it. But the sad fact is that we don't yet have a majority in this House to end the war. Yet it is hardly a victory for the Bush administration. Congressional support is slowly crumbling, even among Republicans, as the politicians are catching up to where most Americans are on this war. I would urge people not to be discouraged by the vote today, but to keep up their spirits and their pressure. Americans will be heard, and this nightmare will end.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I do not support the motion to table the Resolution regarding Representative Murtha. My vote is not a statement of judgment on the allegations since I don't know the facts about what happened, and that's exactly the point. The issue deserved debate or a referral to the Ethics Committee. If Tom DeLay had been accused of threatening a Democrat on the House floor, I would expect the same. A discussion of a potential violation of House Rules is in order if we are going to be the most ethical and transparent Congress in history.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your courtesy in permitting me time to speak on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1104 for all the reasons that have been articulated by my friend from California and my friend from Florida. Iraq today is the scene of the fastest-growing humanitarian crisis in the world. It rivals only the problems that are being faced in Darfur. As has been pointed out for one group in Iraq, our moral responsibility is unquestionable to Iraqis whose lives are at risk because they helped the United States. Having cooperated with the United States military, the United Nations, or even a nongovernmental organization, can literally mean a death sentence at the hands of any of the many sides of this civil war. This bill is an important first step, expanding the current limit of the 50 special translator visas to 500. I became acutely aware of the magnitude of this problem working with a local high school in Portland, Oregon, who were partnering with the members of the Oregon National Guard who had served in Iraq and recently returned, who were trying to bring their former translator to the United States, literally to save this young woman's life. But they kept running into bureaucratic hurdles. It took us months to, thankfully, secure her entry into the United States, where she is safely a college student today in Portland, Oregon. I have heard the same story over and over again. We should keep faith with those who have served our brave men and women in uniform. This is a basic moral responsibility and a simple issue of fairness. What we have before us in this bill is a critical first step. But as my friend from California pointed out, it's only the first step. We have 4 million Iraqis who have been driven from their homes and tens of thousands who are at risk because they helped the United States, not just as translators but as drivers and construction workers, NGO support staff. We are, sadly, failing Iraqi refugees. We have allowed into the United States fewer than 800 since 2003, 69 since this fall, only 1 last month. The Swedish prime minister told me last week that Sweden is going to admit 25,000 Iraqi refugees this year. I introduced, last week, bipartisan legislation H.R. 2265, the Responsibility to Iraqi Refugees Act to address this ongoing humanitarian crisis by using all of the tools at our disposal, admitting refugees, providing assistance to the region and using diplomacy to ensure their well-being. It would allow not 50 or 500, but 15,000 Iraqis who are at risk because they helped the United States to come to this country, along with their families. It would establish a special coordinator for Iraqi refugees and internally displaced people, and requires the United States to develop, finally, plans to ensure the well-being and safety of these Iraqi refugees. It increases the number of persecuted Iraqis who can be admitted as refugees. This legislation has been endorsed by Amnesty International, Church World Service, the International Rescue Committee, Refugees International, the Jubilee Campaign, the Truman National Security Project, and many others. I strongly urge that we adopt this bill today. But I would implore the Members of this House, regardless of how they feel about the war in Iraq or its future, to join and cosponsor my legislation--broad, ambitious, a comprehensive response to the Iraqi refugee crisis--before it's too late, too late for people whose only crime was working with Americans. It is also clear that it is not just these Iraqis that we ought to be concerned about. If we cannot keep faith with refugees that the United States has a responsibility for, it sends a very unpleasant message about the reliability of working with us, and, sadly, it sows the seeds for additional instability in the region. With 1 million Iraqis in Jordan, it creates an untenable situation for the long-term stability of that country. I strongly urge passage of this bill, but I do hope that each of my colleagues will look at the comprehensive legislation that I introduced and determine what they are going to do to stop the fastest-growing humanitarian crisis in the world today.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The farm bill is described as the most important legislation that most of America ignores. It's big, complex and involves lots of money all over the country, but the details are not well known. One of the reasons might be the name. We call it a farm bill. But it could and perhaps should be called a food bill, because that is what it is. Many people do not understand that the farm bill isn't just about farmers. It is a bill that funds food stamps, nutritional programs and farmers' markets. The programs we're talking about all impact rural, urban and suburban families alike. Currently, our farm programs provide too little help to the majority of American farmers and ranchers. The majority of commodity payments go to a few large-scale farm operations with only 40 percent of the farmers receiving any commodity payments at all. My State of Oregon is an example. Even though it is a major agricultural producer, it really doesn't benefit that much from the farm bill. With the 2007 farm bill reauthorization, we have a chance to make dramatic reforms in American agricultural policy by crafting forward- looking policies to help farmers manage the transition to a new farm economy. I would suggest some basic principles for strengthening the farm bill so that we ensure the future of American agriculture by giving small farmers the increased markets they need, a dependable workforce, the ability to pass their farms and heritage on to the next generation, and be protected from urban sprawl. Farm workers also need safe, family wage jobs, and rural communities need a stronger economy. We need to provide safe access to nutrition and reliable foods to all Americans, especially the most vulnerable members of our communities; children, the elderly and the poor. We need to increase the health and safety of our communities by improving access to local markets that can improve farmers' revenues, improve rural economies, and strengthen the vital connections between urban and rural communities. We can have programs to reimburse farmers for providing environmental services such as flood control, carbon sinks and wildlife habitat. This can help reduce global warming, increase communities' resilience to natural events, and give farmers the opportunity to diversify their revenue stream. In short, we can move American agriculture into the 21st century by not being devoted to policies from the last 200 years. To that end, I have recently introduced the Local Food and Farm Support Act to connect local farms to schools to provide healthy food choices for children and promoting a stronger local farm economy by providing funding and programs that connect farmers with local markets, including school to cafeteria programs, and the promotion of farmers' markets. This legislation would provide grants to farmers to explore innovative new ways to connect to local markets and increase food assistance for senior and low-income families. Mr. Speaker, I could just as easily talk about the farm bill as being the most important piece of environmental legislation we will consider in this Congress, because the potential for energy with biomass and wind, greenhouse gas reduction and energy conservation all enable us to reduce the carbon and energy footprint of America's vast agricultural landscape. In the area of water, a sound farm bill is the best and most cost-effective way to improve the quality and quantity of water across America, and of course it is essential to land preservation. This is why we all need to pay attention to this critical legislation. Every Member of Congress should deal with the challenge to work with America's farmers and ranchers to produce agricultural legislation that meets the needs of America in the 21st century.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have great respect for the chairman, and I do appreciate what he is saying, that there are some issues involved in going from a pilot project to a national effort. I look forward to working with your task force under the chairmanship of my friend from Colorado. I understand what the gentleman is saying, and I would be happy to withdraw my amendment at the appropriate time and work with the committee in that fashion. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the effort that has gone into this evening's debate. It has been lively and at times amusing. I rise to offer an amendment to extend the effort that is intended here to extend home ownership to a greater number of families. The problem that I seek to focus on is that by having a uniform threshold for the loan limits understates the purchasing power of people in often high-cost, low-impact areas, people who live, for example, in urban areas, in central cities, who spend far less on energy and transportation than the typical person but often is faced with much higher home costs and they get caught in a double whammy. They are actually better credit risks because they have more disposable income, but they are running up against loan limits that discriminate against them. The average American family spent over $5,100 in gasoline, home heating, and electricity last year. Families routinely list transportation cost as their second largest household expenditure on average. Sometimes it is the greatest. Research shows that when these families live locally near where they work, shop, and socialize close to public transportation, they actually have more disposable income. My amendment would instruct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to credit mortgage applications for the savings that a transportation-friendly location and energy-efficient home generate, making it easier for these homeowners to purchase these homes. By recognizing the added purchasing power home buyers generate from both transportation and energy savings, lenders can quantify these savings and place them in the ``shelter'' category of expenses. This would allow home buyers, based on his or her enhanced buying power, to either qualify for a mortgage or qualify for a larger mortgage. This would have a particular benefit for lower income and first-time home buyers in locations that they tend to congregate that are more efficient. It will strengthen the communities that we wish to celebrate that are less impactful on the environment, requiring this energy. It would encourage families to reduce vehicle and energy use. This will translate into benefits for the larger community in terms of congestion, cleaner air, and reduced dependence on foreign oil. Now, this is not an unknown concept. I know there are some that have some concerns about it. Fannie Mae has been a partner in pilot programs offering what are termed location and energy efficient mortgages in the past. It has been limited to just a few cities, but these programs have demonstrated that they make a difference on the lives of the families that have been able to benefit from them. There was a pilot project in Illinois, in Chicago, for the first time, the first initiative, with the location, energy efficient mortgage, and it provided a $53,000 benefit for the people involved in terms of the home that they could qualify for. I would respectfully suggest that this amendment would extend the effort that the committee has to promote affordable housing. It would eliminate the discrimination against people in these energy and transportation efficient areas, and it would provide more justice to people in terms of what we are trying to provide in this system.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite words. Mr. Chairman, one listens to the ebb and flow of this debate, and you sort of lose track of what it is that we are about here this evening. As Senator Moynihan said, that we're entitled to our own opinions, we're not entitled to our own facts. And perhaps if my friend from Texas had spent less time making up things to try and scare people back home in terms of political fantasy and spent some time dealing with the substance that we have here this evening, we would have less disagreement. It was cited earlier that this proposal is an experiment in socialism. Well, one can look at the history of how the special status of these entities evolved from being government agencies to being in this special hybrid status of the government-sponsored enterprises. The fact is that the Federal Government sets the ground rules. Congress sets the ground rules. As my friend, the chairman of the committee, pointed out, that there are costs associated with everything we do. Goals for affordable housing entail some cost. The regulations entail some cost and consequence. Focusing in on the lowest income has some costs and consequences. This is all right. This is what we are about here this evening is to determine whether or not, as Congress exercises its oversight, its focus, that it is appropriate in nature and it is reasonable in its outcome. Mr. Frank has pointed out that what we are talking about here, in terms of this fund, is a tiny fraction of the overall profits of multi trillion dollar holdings. He has also pointed out, and something that has not been refuted by our friends who are trying to kill it, is that there are other proposals that they are talking about which would bear far greater impact on the profitability of the enterprises. The question we should be asking is whether the goal is one that is appropriate. And it seems to me very strongly that what has been identified here is an appropriate goal. It is consistent with the creation of these entities. It speaks to a crying need in community after community. I would strongly urge that we vote down this and each of these proposals to gut this essential provision that would help us make substantial progress in providing affordable housing for those who need it most.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's permission to speak on this bill because I am pleased, as having joined with her as a member of the Budget Committee, to embrace a new direction in terms of the Democratic management of the budget. I have been in this Chamber for the last 11 years and watched Republican performance fall short of what Republican promises were made. We have watched people who are preaching austerity fall short time after time after time, record deficits, coupled with tax benefits concentrated for those who need it the least and truly Draconian budget cuts. We have watched, in a particular that I have specialized in in terms of the environment, the natural resource funding, the Function 300, has been cut 16 percent, and anybody who's been in our national parks has a chance to see the consequences. There have been lost conservation opportunities and Superfund cleanup has languished. I am pleased that we have a budget framework that focuses on tax relief for those who need it the most, and there will be extended obviously those areas where there is broad bipartisan consensus dealing with the lowest income tax brackets, protection of family, marriage benefit, but the Democrats will be focusing on the tax tsunami that is bearing down on the American public, and that's the Alternative Minimum Tax which once was supposed to be limited to the wealthiest of Americans and now has morphed into a tax on middle America. It's not the hedge fund managers that are going to be paying it, but every middle class two-income family with children is going to be threatened with this if we don't act, and that's what we have focused on. Last but not least, we have rejected further Draconian budget cuts. They were offered up here on the floor, rejected, because people didn't want to further erode environmental protections, erode educational benefits, erode benefits for our veterans. Instead, you have a budget that is on a path towards balance, tax relief for those who need it most, and being able to focus on critically neglected programs in the past. Anybody who wants to look at the difference can look at what we have supported with what the Republicans have failed to deliver over the last 6 years when they controlled everything. I appreciate the rule that's brought forward, look forward to its passage and the passage of this ultimate legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this year's Defense Authorization presented us with a great opportunity to bring the focus of the American military back in line with American values. Unfortunately, that opportunity was missed. This bill does little to correct the President's misplaced priorities of missile defense, indefinite detainment of prisoners, pre-emptive war, and weapons for wars we are not fighting today. Last year the House passed the Military Commissions Act which attempted to add legitimacy to the improper actions of the Bush administration to ignore habeas corpus rights for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. By not adhering to the strictest standards when putting suspected terrorists on trial, we run the risk of punishing innocent people who could simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is now widely known that hundreds of inmates at Guantanamo Bay may in fact have had nothing to do with terrorism. Sadly this bill does nothing to change the status quo of wrongdoing. It perplexes me that while we are fighting an urban war against improvised explosive devices, snipers, and suicide bombers in Baghdad, we continue to spend precious resources on weapons that are unproven or designed for an obsolete Cold War. We had an opportunity today to push the Department of Defense to review these weapons and report back to Congress on their viability and value, but unfortunately the amendment failed. I also voted for an amendment to ensure that the power to declare war solely resided with Congress, as our forefathers intended, and not with the Executive Branch. This amendment also failed. This administration has repeatedly shown that it will make bad judgment and has repeatedly crossed the line of its constitutional powers. I am deeply concerned that the House is unprepared to rein in the President's stance of pre-emptive war with Iran and it is my hope that we will not regret this decision in the future. Finally, I planned to offer an amendment that would have simply required the Department of Defense to create a database of incidents involving unexploded ordnance. I am disappointed that it was not made in order, and that we were not able to deal with that critical issue today. With so little progress made in this year's authorization, I am forced to vote against this bill. I will continue to work for the changes that the American people and our men and women in the military deserve.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as the ethical cloud of the last dozen years has hovered over Congress, I am proud that the new Democratic Members are aggressively pursuing an agenda of ethics reform. Long overdue. I have introduced bipartisan legislation with my Oregon colleague, Greg Walden, to help establish an independent commission to do the hard work of professionally investigating and evaluating ethics charges. I am hopeful that some provision of that nature will find its way to the floor. The Democratic leadership has indicated that they will allow votes on key provisions and allow the votes on such proposals, the chips to fall where they may. I am confident with a wide range of choices that we will be able to have a longer, stronger prohibition from the congressional lobby revolving door and independent oversight. I hope that Members from both sides of the aisle will seize this opportunity to strengthen our ethics framework.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, this year we have an opportunity to reform our nation's farm policies, and a fundamental element of my vision to do this is the Local Food and Farm Act. By increasing the availability of fresh foods in cities, schools, and underserved communities, my bill not only strengthens market opportunities for local fanners and ranchers, but it also protects the environment and gets healthy food into our communities. This legislation, which I am introducing today with Reps. Nancy Boyda, Steve Kagen, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bobby Rush, Donald Payne, Jan Schakowsky, Tom Allen, strengthens and expands existing programs that support value-added agriculture and fanners markets, promote the availability and affordability of healthy and fresh foods, increase fruits and vegetables in school meals, and remove barriers that keep local fanners from selling products into schools. It also establishes a new program to provide innovative financing for the processing and distribution businesses that create local jobs and are best-suited to help innovative, small and midsized farmers and ranchers take advantage of local and regional markets. Increasing the availability of healthy and fresh foods in our communities is critical to improving the overall health and food security of the United States. By growing and distributing some of these foods locally and regionally, we can create profitable markets for many small and midsized family fanners and ranchers, help to preserve farmland, and protect the environment with reduced transportation costs and more sustainable farming practices.