Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply requires the Secretary of the Army to update the principles and guidelines used by the Army Corps of Engineers in formulating, evaluating, and implementing water resource projects. As I said on the floor earlier today, they have not been updated since 1983. It is embarrassing that the Corps is operating under guidance a quarter century old. We have learned a lot in the last 25 months, as I look to my colleague from Louisiana, about Katrina and others in terms of the Corps. Imagine how things have changed in the last 25 years. Under this amendment, the Army Secretary would incorporate the latest scientific and economic knowledge, eliminate biases and disincentives, would be required to consult with the public and other Federal agencies while updating the principles and guidelines. I want to be clear about what it would not do. It would not impact any project already underway or impact any project that is in the bill that has been created here today. It would not prevent the Corps from doing structural projects and would not delay any projects at all. It is why it is supported by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the professionals who actually do the work, taxpayer organizations, and environmental groups. The National Academy of Sciences in a report from the year 2000 pointed out that the current principles and guidelines were state-of- the-art thinking when it was written, and some of the concepts and paradigms that underpin it are relevant today. However, in over 20 years since it has been updated and revised, it needs to be revised to reflect contemporary management paradigms; analytical methods; legislative directives; social, economic, and political realities. I deeply appreciate the work with the committee's staff, the Chair and subcommittee Chair in getting this to this point.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I am proud of the time that I was able to work with you for 10 years on this subcommittee. I rise in support of the bill. As was referenced by the Chair of the committee and the subcommittee, this is an important and complex bill with 682 projects. They are important economically. They are important environmentally. We found out less than 2 years ago how critical they are to the Nation. Hurricane Katrina revealed it can literally be a matter of life or death. This legislation has been hung up since the year 2000, in part because of disagreements about the reform agenda with the Corps of Engineers. I am pleased that we have signaled an effort to try and move forward, to be able to break that impasse with this legislation, the provisions in it and others that will follow. I am also pleased to have an opportunity to offer an amendment to update the principles and guidelines that would help the Corps move even closer to developing environmentally, fiscally, and structurally sound projects. Let me be clear. The amendment will not impact any project currently under way or anything covered in this legislation. It would simply tell the Corps of Engineers to update their own principles and guidelines, the playbook for developing water resources projects that are over 25 years old. The National Academy of Sciences has said they are woefully out of date. And the Corps and the Congress' inability to update these principles and guidelines is one of the reasons why the Corps has drawn criticism from the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, and the OMB, along with internal Pentagon reviews. It is one of the reasons why we have had trouble passing WRDA in the last 6 years and reconciling it with the Senate which has similar provisions. It does not affect anything in the bill currently; and I think it will be an opportunity for us not just passing the bill, but it would be a reason for the President to sign it, given the problems they have had. I appreciate the hard work that has been done. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of the bill, and look forward to having support for the amendment for updating the principles and guidelines later in the afternoon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this rule and on this bill. I further appreciate what this represents. It has been my privilege to serve for the last 10 years on the Water Resources Subcommittee for Transportation and Infrastructure. Over that period of time, I have watched as we have focused legislation to deal with the amazing needs that face water resources around the country. Unfortunately, the legislation that we have passed through this House with strong support in recent Congresses has never been able to find its way into law. I think that with this legislation, we are able to find a way to help break the impasse. I would like to speak to one of the elements that was in that legislation that has been made in order by the Rules Committee, an amendment that I am offering along with my colleagues Peter Welch and Tom Petri to help bring the Corps of Engineers into the 21st century by updating the principles and guidelines under which it operates. Our amendment takes a step back from the politics and controversies that have surrounded the Corps' activities over recent years. In fact, there has been some finger-pointing at the Corps, but frankly, Congress itself is part of the problem and can be part of a process that can help move this forward. These principles and guidelines are used for the formulation, evaluation, and implementation of water resources projects. The current rules under which the Corps operates have not been updated since 1983. It seems hard to believe, given how important water resources are and how much we have learned about the science, about hydrology since 1983. Think about it for a moment. In 1983, Ronald Reagan was President. We were dealing with the movie ``Return of the Jedi.'' A year later, the 3.5-inch floppy disk was introduced, and IBM was soon to launch the first portable computer which weighed 30 pounds. Half the people who work for me in my congressional office weren't even born in 1983. Every Member of the House is aware how much has changed since 1983 in terms of technology, science, environmental policy, our national priorities, and our understanding of water resources. Yet, the Corps of Engineers and the thousands of dedicated men and women who work for them have a planning process that has not kept up. It was my privilege with the former head of the Corps, General Flowers, to meet with representatives of all of the planning agencies for the Corps across the country. They understand the problems; they are striving to make some adjustments. We are still developing projects, yet they are still working under an umbrella that was based on principles and guidelines when James Watt was Secretary of the Interior. This amendment is very simple. It directs the Secretary of the Army to update the principles and guidelines in consultation with all the other Federal agencies that have a stake in the process, to work with the public to deal with what we have learned over the last quarter of a century. This is a very important step on addressing criticisms from the National Academy of Sciences, the OMB, the Government Accountability Office, and others. It does not impact any project that currently is approved or under way, none of the projects that are listed in the bill we have before us, but it is going to help us change the process to get at the root of a long-term problem. Passing the amendment will not delay any projects or tie the hands of the Corps in any way. In fact, I am convinced that it will break the paralysis for projects in the future by making sure they are structurally, fiscally, and environmentally sound. There are some projects around the country that have been delayed in recent years due not just to funding, although that is a serious issue, but due to lawsuits and other controversy. The ones that I have looked at that have met bumps in the road were in this situation in the main because they weren't properly planned and ground-truthed, as they say; and they have stirred up unnecessary controversy in some instances. This amendment will make it easier to approve and construct good projects in the future. This amendment will make it easier for the House and the Senate, which in the past have been at loggerheads over principles of Corps reform. I think this is an area of common ground that will bring people together. This amendment represents a fresh break. It won't solve all of the problems of the Corps, that will await another day; but with this amendment, it gives us a chance at a new beginning for Congress to be positively involved in these issues. We start by equipping the Corps with the latest science and analytic tools to bring them into the 21st century rather than tying their hands with out-of-date policies. I strongly urge that each of my colleagues join with me in supporting our amendment, which is endorsed by Clean Water Action, Taxpayers for Commonsense, Republicans for Environmental Protection, the National Audubon Society, Friends of the Earth, American Rivers, the National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, the League of Conservation Voters, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the people who are charged with making these projects work. I deeply appreciate the progress that this represents in bringing us forward. I appreciate the Rules Committee making it in order, and look forward to being able to carry this amendment to the floor, hopefully for its approval, and being able to break the impasse surrounding water resources projects. In the aftermath of the tragedy we saw with Hurricane Katrina, with the flooding that has occurred in the Northeast just in recent days, this legislation is more important than ever.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy. I appreciate his leadership in working with me on this bill. Madam Speaker, as we stagger under the implications of what we have just witnessed at Virginia Tech, I think part of what we ought to do is to rededicate ourselves to simple steps that will help make the world a better place. I can think of no better or direct way for us to act today than what this legislation means for us. I would begin by thanking the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, who can't be here right now because she is actually chairing a committee dealing with water pollution as we speak, as Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee. She has been really a terrific champion. I see here today my friend from Tennessee, the former Chair of the subcommittee, who likewise has been focusing on the central need for us to be respectful of water supply. As the old joke goes, God gives us water for free, but he doesn't give us the pipes, the distribution system and purification. Across the world, as my good friends from the Foreign Affairs Committee have just enumerated, every day millions and millions of poor people are paying the price for nature's failure to provide water exactly where they live, and a failure of stewardship on the part of governments and individuals to take care of the water that they have. They are paying the price for pollution from inadequate or nonexistent sanitation, and far too many poor people are paying a huge amount of their scarce income because they can't otherwise get water. They are paying in time and in money. There are some poor people that are slowly going blind because of arsenic poisoning in their water system in Bangladesh. I used to think that the pictures in the National Geographic articles with the water jug on the head was sort of exotic, but now I recognize this as the face of poverty. Indeed it is a travesty as young women particularly spend 1, 2, or 3 hours with that jug of water balanced on their head to meet the needs of their family. That is time that they are not spending in school, that is time that they are not spending economically to support that family. As has been mentioned, every 15 seconds a child dies from lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and each is an unnecessary death because we know exactly what to do to stop it. Indeed, there are people from churches and synagogues and Boy Scout troops and Kiwanis Clubs that are acting on their own to help provide water around the world. Lack of access to drinking water and sanitation is the number one preventable killer in the world. And I won't repeat the statistics, mind numbing as they are, of over 2 billion people without access to sanitation, and the fact that half the people who are sick today around the globe are sick needlessly from waterborne diseases. As my friend from Florida said, this is tied to other health problems, HIV/AIDS, and poverty reduction. The tragedy is compounded because we are not doing enough to stop it. By recognizing the goals and ideals of World Water Day, we commit again on this floor to spread the word about this grave issue and build the momentum to address it. As the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out, in 2002 the world did take a stand. I was privileged to be at that conference in Johannesburg, where the United States and 185 other countries agreed to that ambitious goal. The frustration is that this goal can be met, if done correctly, for less than the cost of a takeout pizza a year for an American family. In 2005, the Congress passed and the President signed into law the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act, which I thought was important because not only were we for the first time taking a stand, but the way that we did it, with the leadership of Mr. Lantos and Mr. Hyde; and on the Senate side we had the minority leader and the majority leader coming together in broad bipartisan legislation. We were for the first time providing a plan to implement the commitment that the United States and 185 other countries made. I am saddened as we come to the floor today, however, that the Bush administration has failed to implement this legislation. Instead, as I read the budget, the President has proposed major cuts to the already inadequate commitment from the United States to water and sanitation. The centerpiece of this bill was to create a strategy for meeting our international commitments, to bring together some 15 agencies and departments, to have a plan. Sadly, the deadline has passed, and as yet, we don't have yet that comprehensive plan. We continue to use gimmicks and numbers games to claim that the administration is meeting Congress' requirements, but they are not. This resolution ought to be a point of emphasis that Congress demands a greater effort, not lesser, from the administration, and indeed from ourselves, as we come forward with the budgets this year. We should insist that the United States stand by its word and actually do something about this crisis. We are saying that we have to partner with poor people wherever they are, not in a few allied countries in the Middle East, but especially in sub- Saharan Africa, in South Asia, and around the world. I would hope that with the help of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the distinguished leadership on the floor here that when the State Department comes back to Congress this June with its second report on the implementation of the bipartisan ``Water for the Poor Act,'' I would hope that it will match our legislation in scope, ambition, and focus. If not, let us return to the drawing board to find ways to help the State Department meet its obligation under the Act.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Georgia, the distinguished chairman of the Oversight Committee, for permitting me to speak on this bill, and I commend his hard work. I find no small amount of irony hearing one of our friends from the other side of the aisle talk about how it might be time now for tax reform. The other side of the aisle was in charge for 12 years, and it is interesting that in the last 6 years, when they controlled the White House and Congress and had three major tax bills before us, the words in the Tax Code increased 1.5 million; 1.5 million extra words, special-interest provisions, while ignoring opportunities to simplify the code and to deal meaningfully with the tax tsunami that is coming at us, the alternative minimum tax. I appreciate the hard work that the subcommittee has done, dealing with provisions like this that have no argument against them. These are things that are long overdue. I am glad we are moving forward. I commend the subcommittee Chair, and our Chair, Mr. Rangel, for looking at other provisions that would level the playing field, that would deal with simplification, deal with fairness, deal with some of the problems that lower-income citizens have in terms of trying to cope with the complexity, and being able to equip the Internal Revenue Service to make sure that we deal with hundreds of billions of dollars that is uncollected revenue that shifts the burden on the vast majority of Americans who are hard working, who report their income, who pay their taxes fairly and on time. It isn't the fault of the worker who has got the W-2 that we have this vast amount of uncollected income. We have the complexity. I appreciate what this bill represents, a true effort at bipartisan cooperation to establish a foundation. We can move forward to have an Internal Revenue Code that is fair and effective for all.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I am pleased to join with my colleagues from Oregon in recognizing the importance of the anniversary of the flooding of Celilo Falls. Mr. Speaker, we have, in the Northwest, I think, in recent years, started to re-evaluate our relationship to native peoples and to the special sites that are holy for them. I remember in my youth Celilo Falls when it was a site of the native fishing, going by on a train, watching the dip netting, pulling these fish from the falls. It was something that I didn't properly appreciate at the time. People in my own family were talking about the great dam that was about to be constructed, and using it as a metaphor for progress in our community. Well, transforming the mighty Columbia River into a machine that has aided navigation and electric generation has had many positive aspects for the Pacific Northwest, but it has been devastating for the Native Americans. Sadly, our history, since the treaty of 1855, has been one where we have not always honored even the provisions in those treaties to Native Americans. And particularly the site at Celilo, where we are talking about over 10,000 years of history, strikes special significance. It is an unparalleled meeting point for people of native tribes that, slowly but surely, now we are starting to recognize, starting to appreciate, the Federal Government is starting to invest in working with them to restore the heritage. I hope that this recognition of the significance of the 50th anniversary of the flooding of the falls might be another signal that we are appreciating our responsibility in partnership with native people, the need to work with them in terms of first foods, in terms of historic sites, in terms of restoring the spirit of partnership in those treaties too often that has not been observed. I appreciate my colleague, Congressman Wu, bringing this forward. I appreciate the Congress focusing attention on it today, but I hope it is the beginning of a more sustained effort to keep faith with our native people.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today, 4 million Americans are paying the price for the misplaced tax priorities of the Bush administration and the Republicans here in Congress. For the last 6 years, their obsession with assisting the top \1/10\ of a percent and other favored special interests to reduce their tax burden has riddled the Tax Code with more loopholes, adding about a million and a half more words to that code. At the same time they have considered three mammoth and expensive tax bills in 2001, 2003 and 2004 that refused to address the alternative minimum tax inequity. They have made few modest additions with broad benefit like the 10-percent bracket but showered their real attention, their affection, and huge sums of money on those who need help the least. In the process, the $5.6 trillion surplus inherited by this administration has evaporated, to be replaced by $2 trillion more in additional national debt. In the meantime, the alternative minimum tax, signed into law by Republican President Richard Nixon to ensure that the richest of Americans, who used tax shelters, pay at least some income tax, has morphed into a tax on millions of Americans who are caught because they pay their State and local taxes and are raising their families but largely leaves the most wealthy untouched. Without extraordinary action, over the course of the next 3 years the alternative minimum tax will ensnare 32 million families, virtually every two-worker middle-class family with children. It won't bother the hedge fund manager or the NBA superstar but it will tax the teacher married to the firefighter with two kids. Because a tax shelter now means paying your local property and income taxes but does not include the tremendous tax advantage from capital gains, it won't hit the high- tech billionaire but will hit the postal worker and the nurse with three teenage kids at home. The zeal to make permanent these tax changes has left the needs of tens of millions of Americans at risk. Indeed, the number one priority of the administration and the Republicans in Congress for taxation would not only make a true reform of the alternative minimum tax prohibitively expensive, it would rely on the ever-widening reach of the alternative minimum tax to finance their schemes. On this day that millions of Americans are filing their tax returns and 4 million are paying the mutated, unfair alternative minimum tax, it is time to have that critical national debate on taxes in honest terms: Should we tax people who work at jobs more than people whose money works for them? Do we care about reducing the ability of some very privileged people to escape taxation? What is our priority for tax reform? Is it to freeze the patchwork of special interest provisions over the last 6 years? Or to prevent 32 million families from an unjust alternative minimum tax, and then paying billions more to accountants just to calculate the damage? I would hope that this is the last year that this unjust tax is used to provide unnecessary tax benefits for those who need them the least at the expense of those truly in need of tax relief.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud join with my colleague, Representative Tom Cole, to introduce the ``Rural Wind Energy Development Act,'' which would provide an investment tax credit to individuals--homeowners, farmers, and small businesses--to offset the up-front costs of owning a small wind turbine. Small wind systems are electric generators that produce 100 kilowatts or less of clean and renewable energy to power homes, farms, and small businesses. With these small turbines, individuals can generate their own power, independent from the electric grid. These wind turbines will allow consumers to cut their energy bills and, at times, put power back into the grid. According to the American Wind Energy Association, a single wind turbine can provide $2,000-$4,000/year per megawatt or more in additional farm income. This legislation is necessary because there is no Federal support for small wind systems. The Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) applies mainly to large utility-scale wind projects, not to individuals who want to install their own wind systems for on-site power. An investment tax credit for small wind systems will help provide stability and certainty for the industry to make the necessary investments to grow. It will also help consumers afford this pollution-free energy. In the 2005 Energy Policy Act, residential solar systems received a similar investment tax credit and saw an increase of more than 20 percent in installations over the last year. Specifically, this bill would provide a tax credit of $1500 per \1/2\ kilowatt of capacity for small wind systems, which could be carried over for a customer unable to take advantage of the entire credit within a 1 year period. The bill also calls for a 3-year accelerated depreciation for wind property. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this important policy to promote wind power, which produces no harmful greenhouse gas emissions, involves no environmentally damaging natural resource extraction such as mining or drilling, and does not need fuel imported from foreign governments to run.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today I voted for both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus alternatives to the budget resolution, in addition to voting for the House Democratic Budget resolution. I believe all three of these proposals have a great deal of merit. The Congressional Black Caucus's alternative provides high levels of funding for important national health initiatives, including increasing funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $10 billion and increasing funding for veteran's benefits and services by $3.4 billion over the amounts provided by the House Democratic resolution. Importantly, the Congressional Black Caucus's alternative provides an increase over the House Democratic resolution in foreign aid spending by an additional $3.1 billion--providing much needed funds to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The Progressive Caucus's alternative also showcased wise policy choices; it also would have provided increased funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program and would have invested in America's future by funding educational opportunities, job training programs, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In addition, the Progressive Caucus's alternative reflected one of my highest priorities, which was to strip funding from obsolete Cold War era weapons programs that divert precious resources away from America's actual security interests, and its budget projections assumed a complete withdrawal from the Iraqi Civil War. I was also proud to help craft and vote for the House Democratic Budget resolution, however, because it provides for increased veterans benefits and services, increased educational benefits, increased environmental initiatives, and leads to a budget surplus by 2012. In sum, it represents a reasonable balance of opportunities and it does so within our means--unlike the Republican proposals. A critical aspect of the House Democratic Budget resolution is its provisioning of reserve funds that enable this Congress to begin repairing the damage done by the Republicans to our Nation's fiscal stability by fixing the alternative minimum tax--a ``stealth tax'' on millions of middle class taxpayers--and preserving tax cuts for the middle class. I voted to express my support for the ideas contained in Congressional Black Caucus's and the Progressive Caucus's budgets, but I also voted to support the House Democratic Budget resolution because it provides a reasoned blueprint for the fiscal decisions facing this country.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Our Republican friends have no credibility on fiscal affairs. They had three times to take a bite at the tax cut apple in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. They ducked solving the looming AMT crisis, instead implementing a grab bag of tax benefits for the most well off. Now this budget puts at the top of their list more tax cuts, $1 trillion for the top 1 percent, financed by cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, the environment, and education. When they had their hands on all the levers of power, they couldn't even pass a budget. They left unpassed 11 of the 13 appropriations bills. I strongly suggest rejection of their misguided fanciful approach and support for the majority resolution.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the Republican rhetoric about the Democratic budget still echoes in the Chamber, and the misrepresentation is astounding. Why, just last night, jaws dropped across America as the author of the Republican alternative referred to the Concord Coalition, a respected centrist organization, as a ``left-wing think tank''. Well, the Republicans have zero credibility when it comes to the budget. Last year, when they were in complete control, they couldn't even pass a budget resolution. They couldn't even pass the appropriations process, leaving town with 11 of the 13 budgets unfinished. The wheels completely fell off. These are the folks who gave us the rainforest in Iowa, the Bridge to Nowhere. This is why 77 prominent national organizations have endorsed the Democratic budget, from the American Legion to Ducks Unlimited, the Environmental Coalition, the Military Officers Association to Veterans of Foreign Wars and the National Education Association. I am proud of this Democratic alternative. I hope people read it to see through the Republican rhetoric.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the advice of the Chair. They cut spending for the environment, the 300 section, 16 percent; and under the leadership of Mr. Spratt and the Democrats, we are reversing it. We can't deal with all their problems in just one year, but we are making a good start with over $2.5 billion to deal with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, dealing with cleaning up of superfund sites and toxic waste. But look at the details of what they offer in their alternative later. Mr. Ryan has suggested almost $19 billion of reductions in ag, transportation, and natural resources. These are conservation, these are clean water, these are environmental protection. The contrast could not be more stark. We are investing in America's environmental future. They, if their alternative were adopted, would continue the deterioration, the disinvestment, the attack on America's priorities. I would respectfully suggest that this alone ought to be a compelling argument to reject their alternative offered later and to adopt the Democratic proposal that is before us this evening.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, what we are hearing this evening almost gives hypocrisy a bad name. We have our friends on the other side of the aisle somehow chastising us for not doing enough on entitlement reform when they have had 6 years of being in control. We have a situation, in spite of their collapse of the budget process last year, they couldn't put it together, collapse of the appropriations process and, quoting from the Heritage Foundation, that they presided over one of the largest run-ups in spending in American history. They somehow are looking at our budget and thinking that it is wanting. Well, through their warped prism, I can understand that. Their top priority is not dealing with the tsunami of the alternative minimum tax, which they have ignored for the last 6 years, but to put $1 trillion in the hands of the top 1 percent over the next 10 years with their tax priorities. As my friend Mr. Allen pointed out, this is about priorities. And, for the first time in 6 years, we are going to reverse their negative priorities dealing with the environment, one of the few areas that they could control spending. Now, bear in mind, these are the folks that gave us the rainforest in Iowa which they are now concerned about, the Bridge to Nowhere. Announcement By the Acting Chairman

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I was just taken aback when I heard one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I think from South Carolina, talk about the concern they have about being, that they weren't big spenders enough. Well, what we have seen under Republican control, where they had the executive and both branches, the spending has skyrocketed. In fact, we saw essays from Republican conservative pundits saying that probably they should have lost in the last election because they have lost control of the budget process. The greatest increase since the Great Society. I think it is important to go back and look at their record. When they had complete control, spending was out of control, and the most conservative pundits said so. The facts reveal it. They may try and run away from their record at this point by attacking a balanced budget, pay-as-you-go, and focus on priorities that the American public supports, but their record does not support the assertion.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And I appreciate the gentleman's pointing the Concord Coalition that makes it clear that it does not call for or require a tax increase and the type of mindset we are getting from our friends on the other side that they would dismiss former Senator Warren Rudman, Republican from New Hampshire, establishing a left-wing think tank.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I just think it is important that the American public can listen to politicians debate on the floor of the House, but they also have an opportunity to deal with independent groups.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and I appreciate his calling the attention, if not to our Republican friends, but to the American public, that they can look at page four in the resolution that is before us and find what has been said is simply not true. Additionally, they can keep thumbing to page 46, which deals with what our policy is, in fact. Because we do want to minimize the impact on middle America. We make it clear that we are very interested in terms of being able to support extensions, the extension of the child tax credit, the extension of the marriage penalty relief and the extension of the 10 percent individual income tax. What we are not interested in doing is buying into the grab bag of special interest tax benefits, most of which flow to the Americans who are most well off. I want, if I could, to just make one point in terms of talk of the largest tax increase in American history. Well, it's coming. There is a tax tsunami that is bearing down not just on the rich, not just on the upper middle class, but on middle America, and it is called the ``alternative minimum tax.'' For 6 years, Republicans in charge have had an opportunity to rebalance tax priorities in this country. My colleagues and I have called upon them to deal with permanent adjustment to the alternative minimum tax. They have refused. So now we have inherited a serious problem that is going to mean that middle America is facing the alternative minimum tax. Twenty-six million American families, 89 percent of people who earn between $75,000 and $100,000 will pay the AMT by 2010. Stopping this increase is our priority, that is what we are going to focus on, that is what we have committed to, that is what we are going to do, something that the Republican majority have failed to do in 2001, 2003, 2004.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Is the gentleman familiar with the provisions in our bill that set up the reserve fund so that it permits the opportunity for the Ways and Means Committee to be able to move forward, hopefully on a bipartisan basis, to be able to establish that within the pay-as- you-go rule?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy. You can hear the drumbeat from our friends on the other side of the aisle about the largest tax increase in American history. Well, the fact is we are today going to be able to talk about the largest tax increase in American history, but it is not contained in the Democratic budget. The largest tax increase in American history is $1.8 trillion that the President's budget anticipates as a result of the collection of the alternative minimum tax. It has never been a priority of the Republicans to deal with this looming disaster. Indeed, they squandered 8 years of hard-earned Democratic surpluses, unprecedented surpluses, squandered in a heartbeat in their relentless pursuit to give tax benefits for those who need them least. There are a few items in there that would have broad bipartisan agreement, the 10 percent bracket, tax credit for families, making some reasonable adjustment in the inheritance tax. But no, they were not interested in dealing with areas of agreement and then solving the alternative minimum tax. Each year, they have kicked the millionaire tax down the road. It has long since morphed into something that is not a millionaire's tax. It is going to be a tax under the President's proposal, and with the Republican priorities, it is going to be a tax on every two-income working family in America with children that have any sort of middle income. They are going to be paying the alternative minimum tax. And in fact, it is going to cost them more to compute in many cases than the actual tax. They get whacked twice. In 2001, in 2003, the Republicans refused to deal with this looming challenge and instead gave all sorts of tax breaks to all sorts of people and avoided solving this problem. In 2004, when we had a $4 billion problem with our overseas manufacturing tax credit, that morphed into a $137 billion tax grab bag and ignored the alternative minimum tax. I put forth to the administration in our hearings in both Ways and Means and in Budget to find out where their priority was. Well, their priority is not fixing the alternative minimum tax, just a 1-year patch. They want to extend all of these tax breaks, the good and, frankly, some of the bizarre, for people like Paris Hilton. Well, Madam Speaker, the Democratic alternative is focusing on what the real problem is. What we are doing in Ways and Means, we have made a commitment. Our number one priority is to solve the alternative minimum tax. Theirs, as is evidenced in their substitute, is going to take all of the potential headroom to make that challenge in solving the problem even more difficult by permanently extending all of those tax increases without any offset. The Democratic alternative is responsible, it speaks to the needs of working men and women, fiscal stability, and most important, our priorities stopping the looming tax tsunami of the alternative minimum tax, which will, in fact, be the largest tax increase in American history.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located as 630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in Portland, Oregon as the ``Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post Office.'' This post office, located near Martin Luther King Boulevard, shall serve to remind us of the civil rights leader who inspired a nation and served as a catalyst for change. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream of equality and brotherhood between people of all creeds and colors remains a vital and relevant vision. While our nation has come a long way since the days of the civil rights movement, it will always benefit us to be reminded of the ideals and inspiration of Dr. King. I am honored to introduce this bill as another tribute to and reminder of this remarkable leader.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. I appreciate also what Ranking Member Coble talked about in terms of outlining these issues. But it seems to me that there was just one area where I would take modest exception with him, and that is the notion that we should have been taking more time to vet this and look at alternatives. Because I fully agree with the gentleman from California, where there was not adequate time for Congress to be involved is when this was slipped into the PATRIOT Act revisions in the first place. Without the knowledge of anybody, it seems, in the House or the Senate, this change was done by the staff behind closed doors. We didn't know about it. I haven't heard yet from any of my Republican friends that did. By restoring the status quo ante the way that it had been for years, we get back to a situation where we can remove this from the table. We can have a dispassionate discussion about what has happened with the Department of Justice and its future; and, if we want to make any change, then at least we have something that has stood the test of time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I support the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act, which would raise the penalty for violators of the federal animal welfare law, from a class 1 misdemeanor to a felony. In an industry where thousands of dollars change hands with each fight, misdemeanor fines and charges are simply considered ``the costs of doing business''. This bill would close this loophole and keep criminals from traveling to states with weaker penalties to conduct their business. Animal fights are not only despicable for their cruelty to animals, but they are commonly associated with illegal gambling, drug traffic, firearms trades, and numerous other illicit activities. Recently in Oregon, officers found meth, cocaine, $10,000 in cash, along with 43 live chickens, cockfighting equipment including metal spurs and gaffs in a Portland man's home. Drugs are often the impetus for the discovery of gamecocks and illegal weapons. In another high profile Oregon case, a former Portland Trailblazer pled guilty to animal abuse for fighting his pit bull. Officials found her bloody, scarred, and covered in tar which is used by fighters as a cheap antiseptic to fresh wounds. But animal fighting doesn't just pose a threat to the people and animals who engage in them, it has enormous costs to the United States health and economy. Cockfighting has been implicated in the introduction and spread of exotic Newcastle disease in California in 2002-2003, which cost the U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate. The disease spread further to large scale egg farms in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas; costing the U.S. poultry industry many millions of dollars in lost export markets. Cockfighting has also been implicated in the deaths of at least 9 people in Asia who contracted avian flu after exposure to fighting birds. If avian flu were to reach the shores of America, the economic and human consequences would be staggering. This bill has widespread support across the country, including 303 cosponsors in the House and 35 cosponsors in the Senate. HR 137 is endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States, the National Chicken Council which represents 95 percent of the Nation's poultry producers, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Sheriff's Association, and more than 400 local law enforcement agencies. Currently there is only one bastion left for cock fighters; the State of Louisiana. Although gamers have attempted to use tribal lands as exemptions from state and federal laws, a federal jury recently convicted four men for their participation in a cockfight, and 70 others entered guilty pleas. It is my understanding that the increase in penalties contained within this bill would be equally applicable to animal fights held on tribal lands or Indian Reservations. It is far past time that Congress give our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to end this barbaric and consequential practice.