Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as co-chair of the House Trails Caucus, I am pleased to introduce a resolution highlighting National Trails Day', which will fall this year on June 6, 2009.

National Trails Day, which was founded by the American Hiking Society, is held every year on the first Saturday of June. It is a day of public events celebrating trails coordinated by the American Hiking Society in partnership with local trail clubs, parks, government agencies, and businesses. On this day, more than 1,500 trails events will take place around the country, including hiking, paddling, biking, horseback riding, bird watching, running, trail maintenance, and other activities.

I am introducing this resolution to highlight the importance of this day and to call attention to our Nation's network of trails. Trails improve our quality of life, whether they are urban paths running through major metropolitan areas or wilderness tracks leading to remote mountaintops. Some of my favorite moments have been spent running or biking on the Leif Erickson Trail in Forest Park or hiking on the Timberline Trail around Mount Hood.

Trails provide Americans with opportunities to engage in activities that improve our physical and mental health and they promote a greater understanding of nature and a connection to communities. In addition, the hundreds

of thousands of volunteers who care for our nation's trails understand the value of volunteerism and stewardship of our public landscapes.

This resolution recognizes the contribution of trail volunteers and organizations, highlights the opportunities trails provide to improve our physical and mental health, supports the goals and ideas of National Trails Day, encourages people to observe National Trails Day, and applauds national, State, and community agencies and groups for their work in promoting awareness about trails.

I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating National Trails Day and recognizing the value of America's 200,000-mile trail network. On June 6, I hope we can all take time to join our constituents in doing trail maintenance, hiking, or another fun outdoor activity in honor of this day.

Madam Speaker, I rise to present my best wishes to Dr. James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, as he celebrates his 80th birthday on June 1. He is a friend and an exceptional steward of the Library of Congress.

The Library, a priceless although perhaps underappreciated resource, has evolved into so much more than a Congressional collection. It is truly the nation's library, containing a diverse multi-media collection of 140 million items on more than 600 miles of shelves.

It is our good fortune that this institution has been wisely directed since 1987 by James Billington, a scholar and an outstanding public servant. During his tenure, Dr. Billington has expanded the Library's collection to include not just hardcopy works, but digital and interactive material as well. Dr. Billington has displayed a commitment to public access and engagement by sharing the Library's priceless collections widely and also delving more deeply to generate knowledge and distill wisdom. I look forward to the continued development of innovative programs such as the National Digital Library and now the World Digital Library, and the annual National Book Festival on the Mall. In his inaugural address as Librarian he said, ``This place has a destiny to be a living encyclopedia of democracy, not just a mausoleum of culture, but a catalyst for civilization.''

I take great inspiration from the Library's art and architecture, and also in knowing that the Library of Congress is here for all. We've formed the bipartisan Congressional Library of Congress Caucus to promote this world class resource and to show appreciation for the Library, its collections, curators, and Librarian.

Thanks to Dr. Billington's vision and efforts the Library of Congress is now a must-see destination for visitors in Washington. I greatly appreciate his efforts and leadership of this esteemed institution, and wish him the best.

George Will's recent rant attacking Secretary of the Transportation Ray LaHood and my hometown, Portland Oregon, tells more about him than Secretary LaHood.

As Will glides into his seventies, he has lost track of more than just the facts, although it's staggering that he was off by a factor of 400 times about where biking already is in America, and 8000 times where Portland is with the ratio of cycling.

But this is not about bikes and street cars, or even livability. A younger, principled George Will would have understood why young people, even without jobs, are moving to Portland. It's a rich community with more choices at lower costs. It's about choices that enhance the quality of life.

I invite Mr. Will to bring his bow tie to Portland and debate me on the ground. See why a younger George Will, who may have been put off by all the Democrats and moderate Republicans, could still have admired the freedom that a high quality of life provides.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the passage of the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act. This legislation will help to create a fairer consumer credit market by curbing some of the most egregious and arbitrary credit card lending practices. Current industry practice can trap consumers in a vicious cycle of debt--this legislation will assist in breaking that cycle.

Americans now carry roughly $850 billion in credit card debt, roughly $17,000 for each household that does not pay their balance in full each month. A recent Sallie Mae survey indicated that 84% of undergraduates had at least one credit card and that, on average, students have 4.6 credit cards.

The legislation bars the practice of ``universal default.'' Credit card issuers will not be able to increase a cardholder's interest rate on existing balances based on adverse information unrelated to card behavior.

The legislation also bars so-called ``double-cycle billing'' and similar practices, where credit card companies bill consumers for balances already paid by the borrower.

The legislation requires that consumer payments be directed at the highest interest portions of a credit card balance, allowing consumers to more quickly pay down their balances.

The legislation also requires that fees be reasonable and proportional to the consumer's late or over-limit violation. Penalty clauses are generally unenforceable in the realm of contracts. Why should consumers be unfairly burdened? Congress should ensure that consumers will not be terrorized into performance.

Oregon students and families, like students and families across the country, are heavily burdened by credit card debt. I support this bill because it requires fair terms for this burden and it levels the playing field for consumers by increasing consumer protections.

This is an era where new media and communication devices are seemingly created overnight. Was it only 3 years ago that YouTube bounced on the scene? It seems like it was last week that we first heard about Twitter.

Well, the first and most influential of the ``new media'' still plays a large role in our lives. Radio captures that magic in part because of the radio personalities who captivated us with their distinctive voices and wit, made larger than life by how much was left to our imagination in terms of the production and even what they looked like. William Conrad was the radio voice of Gunsmoke's marshal, Matt Dillon, who was played on TV by actor James Arness, 6 foot 6, tall and rangy with craggy good looks. William Conrad, the radio voice, sounded that way, but he was short and rotund. And while he looked distinctive, few would confuse him with a matinee idol. From Fred Alan, Jack Benny and Edward R. Murrow to Scott Simon, Garrison Keillor

today, these people play an important role not just in a communication and entertainment medium, but in the lives of Americans.

In much of the commercial radio wasteland today, where content is centralized and digitized, while costs are cut, local personalities, who played such a profound role in virtually every community, are more and more a distant memory.

In my hometown of Portland, Oregon, we are still blessed with a few distinctive local voices. But sadly last month, we lost one who can only be described as an icon. For decades Les Sarnoff was the most distinctive personality in what started as an idiosyncratic, offbeat and obscure FM station. He helped it grow into a major commercial success and a Portland fixture. The characteristics that made him such a well respected professional and beloved local figure helped him rise above and survive the turmoil in the industry, the often destructive changes, to brighten the mornings of tens of thousands of my neighbors every day for the better part of three decades.

Les was a dedicated and disciplined professional, arising shortly after midnight every weekday to spend hours in preparation before his morning shift. He was a step ahead of legitimate trends in music, but with a profound respect for both music and artists that was timeless. He had a rapport and a chemistry with not only his audience, but the outstanding people that were part of his morning team over the years. Despite a demanding schedule and brutal hours, Les always made time to be part of public events and public affairs.

Now, media and people in politics need for, professional and ethical reasons, to maintain a certain distance. That is far more important to a media personality like Les, than for a politician like me. And observe that distance he did, but always with a sense that I was a friend, with a sense of interest and awareness whenever I would visit him in the station or more often do a telephone interview from our Nation's Capitol or an occasional lunch or interaction at a civic event. But it was not Les Sarnoff letting his guard down. It was Les revealing that at core he liked, understood and respected everyone. He was curious, funny and caring. Even in his passing, Les brought our community together as thousands gathered last Sunday to honor his memory in Portland's Pioneer Square, our City's front yard. By reflecting on his life, we reflect on ours.

To his wife Rita, Les' many friends and colleagues, because of his love for and work with you, we have all been touched. We will never be the same without Les, but also, we will never be the same because of Les Sarnoff.

Mr. Speaker, in communities across the Nation, the scourge of foreclosure is a deepening problem. In Oregon, 3,388 homes went into foreclosure in March, a 107% increase over the number of foreclosures in March 2008. Nationally, lenders filed foreclosure actions against more than 340,000 properties in March alone. These figures helped make the first quarter of 2009 the worst on record for foreclosure activity.

I support this bill because it will equip homeowners and lenders with new and improved tools to combat foreclosures. It will help banks to increase their lending to small businesses and American consumers. While this bill is not a cure-all for our Nation's economic troubles, it makes important contributions towards the protection of American homeownership.

In particular, I support the bill's modifications to the HOPE for Homeowners program, which will ease restrictions on eligibility and enable refinancing of underwater mortgages for a greater number of borrowers.

One major difference between this bill and the one that the House passed in early March is the judicial modification provision, missing from this bill. Allowing bankruptcy judges to modify principal balances of residential mortgage loans is an important policy, and one which I continue to support.

It is only fair that Congress offer average families the same alternative to foreclosure that has been available under the law for many years to owners of vacation homes, investment properties, private jets, and luxury yachts. Under such a provision, while some mortgage lenders would not get every penny owed to them, on balance they would get more than if these families had no better choice than to fall into foreclosure.

Mr. Speaker, a little over 100 days ago, President Obama took the mantle of Commander in Chief and assumed responsibility for the tragic war in Iraq and the under-resourced conflict in Afghanistan. True to his promise, and my pledge to Oregonians, this Supplemental Appropriations bill starts the process of bringing the war in Iraq to a close. We are on track to end the combat mission in Iraq by mid-2010 and remove all U.S. military forces by the end of 2011.

I have routinely opposed Supplemental Appropriations bills for the wars in the past as open-ended funding for a tragic conflict. For too long this type of emergency funding has been used to support misguided policies: avoiding responsible budgeting and thoughtful adjustments in the direction of our foreign and military policies. That's why I'm pleased that the Obama administration has also committed to transparency in war funding, both in this final Supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan, and for including future costs in the baseline budget.

There is much that is good and important in this bill, including substantial investments in humanitarian assistance overseas and in preparing for the next pandemic, which we fear swine flu may become in the future.

Nevertheless, it was difficult to cast a vote in support of this Supplemental. I am troubled by some of the funding, including an increase in defense acquisitions and military assistance for some countries that haven't earned it, like Egypt. My greatest unease is perhaps the direction that has been taken in Afghanistan. I am not comfortable with the escalation there; my discomfort was heightened when I said goodbye on May 2 to the largest contingent of Oregon National Guard members sent overseas since World War II.

I will give the new administration the benefit of the doubt because there is much in this bill to support and because they have inherited dire circumstances not of their making. But from this point forward, these conflicts are in the hands of the Obama administration and I will hold them to the same standard of accountability.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy and leadership of Chairman Miller and the committee, following up on the good work you did earlier, to make sure that we do have schools of the future.

The schools are the foundation, the building block of a livable community, and green schools are the schools of the future. It is where America and the world is going in terms of being sustainable, efficient, and healthier.

But green schools are also the schools of today. This is an opportunity under this legislation, the 21st Century Green High- Performing Public School Facilities Act, to be able to illustrate our environmental values, that young people who are in school will be able to see through the operation of this legislation that we are going to walk the talk, we are going to implement our values.

The provisions of this legislation will save money almost immediately because there is lots of low-hanging fruit. Indeed, in schools across the country in terms of green sustainable practices, it is not low- hanging fruit; it is picking the fruit up off the ground that will save energy, that will save water, that will be gentler on the land. It will put people to work. This is activity that is amazingly labor intensive. There are few investments that we can make greening our schools that will make more of a difference for people of all skill levels, whether they are casual laborers, they are skilled efforts, they are professional positions, to be able to make a difference.

In the State of Oregon alone, it is 62 badly needed million dollars that is not only going to circulate through the economy, but it is going to do things that school districts need and it is going to save them money for years to come.

I appreciate the fact that the bill includes how young people get to school as part of energy efficiency. A generation ago in virtually every school district in America, more than 50 percent of our children got to school on their own, walking or riding a bike. Today the national average is 15 percent. I work in some communities where it is far less than that.

By investing in ways to make young people be able to get to school safely on a bike or walking, we are going to reduce the carbon footprint while we make their footprint a little lighter. We are dealing with an epidemic of childhood obesity, and these provisions cycle back to make young people healthier.

This legislation will make the schools of today the schools of the future, and it will do it in the very near future. I am pleased to support it. I thank the committee for its work. The implementation of this legislation is going to make our community schools truly the building block of livable communities and make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, in every great problem there is a great

opportunity. We are now facing the most severe economic crisis in a generation. At the same time, the scientists are telling us clearly that our inaction dealing with carbon pollution is threatening the planet that is our only home. Fortunately, the same actions that will fix the economy will also help save the planet. In an economic downturn, we want to put people to work and help them manage costs. Energy efficiency does both and reduces carbon emissions at the same time.

The United States finally shook off the great economic depression of the thirties by mobilizing the economy to fight World War II. We can fight off this recession, deep as it is, by mobilizing our fight against global warming.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama, from the rostrum before you, laid out an ambitious agenda in his first speech to the Members of Congress, recognizing that as Americans we can do great things when we come together to work for the common good, as we did dealing with the challenges of World War II and the Great Depression.

The President has presented us with a clean energy jobs plan, a plan that will create new jobs that can't be shipped overseas, a proposal that will protect existing jobs while it reduces our dependence on foreign oil. It will avoid tax increases on working families as we all work to reduce carbon pollution. This plan starts by regulating carbon polluters and making them pay for the pollution that they've been allowed to spew out for free into the sky, damaging the atmosphere and threatening the water and land without regard to the cost to the rest of us.

Then the President's plan will create new jobs through research and development and deployment of new clean energy technologies such as wind, solar and biomass. It is exciting to see in the President's economic recovery package that we have already taken decisive action, investing billions of dollars across America to do something about it.

His plan further provides the support and the incentives needed to help the American spirit of innovation and creativity to build the new clean technologies of the future. Just as we led the world in developing the automobile and the computer, we can, and if we follow the plans that have been set forth that have been articulated by President Obama and the Democratic leadership, we will be able to lead the world in developing the new cheaper, cleaner energy technologies that will power this century in America and around the world.

These new technologies are already resulting in clean energy jobs that are forming the basis of our new economic security. Change is difficult under the best of circumstances, but I think there is growing recognition at this point that we have no choice. But we want to be thinking about the future, not planning the economy through the rear- view mirror.

The proposals that we are working on will provide all Americans with clean energy tax credits so that they will have money to buy clean energy technologies so that they personally can join in America's clean energy future. This will allow them to be stewards of the family budget while we are all stewards of the planet. In this way, the actions of millions of Americans to reduce their energy bills and to protect the planet will create even more jobs and lead to that prosperity that is so important to us all.

There are any number of examples, Mr. Speaker, about how what we have already done in energy efficiency has made a difference. Researchers at the University of California calculate that the gas and electric energy efficiency measures for the past 30 years in California have saved the residents of that State $56 billion while producing 1.5 million new jobs.

They have projected that the savings in jobs for meeting California's new carbon cap-and-trade law, and by projecting it forward just to the year 2020, that Californians will save an additional $76 billion in energy costs just at current rates. And I heard my good friend from South Carolina on the floor just a few minutes ago predicting that energy costs are going to be going up. I personally agree with him, I think he is right. But even at current rates, Californians would save $76 billion and create an additional 400,000 new net jobs.

I'm from the Pacific Northwest, where we've been working very hard on energy efficiency over the course of almost 30 years. My hometown of Portland, Oregon, was the first city in the United States with a comprehensive energy policy that has made a difference for us in terms of saving money on energy, while we've created new economic opportunities and have reduced our carbon footprint.

In the Pacific Northwest, our Power Planning Council has estimated the work that we've done just in the Northwest alone between 1980 and 2000, where we invested almost $2.5 billion in energy efficiency, our region earned that total investment back about once every 18 months. This is a rate of return of about 67 percent, annual rate of return on investment. An extraordinary record when we think about how our 401(k)s are turning into 301(k)s and 201(k)s. Watch the gyrations in the stock market and uncertainty in housing prices. Looking at what has happened with a very solid year-in, year-out rate of return on energy efficiency is truly encouraging and inspirational.

Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now. We have heard the warnings from the vast majority of scientists developing a consensus about the threats to the planet. We are already feeling the effects of changing climate as we watch large quantities of polar ice disappear, as we watch snowpacks rise, when we watch the shift of patterns of migration of birds, where the permafrost in Alaska is no longer perma, and the roads are buckling and coastal villages washing away.

The realities of climate change effects are being visited upon Americans across this country in all 50 States, and they are gathering momentum in terms of a sense of urgency and public awareness. We are watching groups in the evangelical arena, scientific arena, civic organizations, American business, labor, environmental organizations coming together to be part of this consensus. Leadership is being exhibited on college campuses and at synagogues across the country. Over 900 cities have made the decision that they weren't going to wait for the Bush administration; they were starting ahead with their own efforts to reduce pollution from carbon.

Well, we ignored the warnings of experts, for example, with the risks in the financial sector and, sadly, we've seen the consequences. We have learned the dangers and added costs of trying to move after the fact, after a disaster or after some sort of natural catastrophe occurs. It is very expensive cleaning up after Katrina, after flooding, after wildfires, as opposed to taking action to try and prevent it.

We, once again, need to act as good stewards of the Earth, protecting our children and grandchildren. We must remember that there will be great costs associated with dealing with impacts once they have occurred. Mr. Speaker, Mother Nature doesn't do bailouts.

We need to focus on the big picture. The economy is the task at hand. The next step to create millions of American jobs in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and modernization of a smart electric grid is going to make a difference now. Clean energy can provide an engine to drive the Nation out of a recession and sustain our economy for years to come.

It is time for us to step forward, investing seriously in energy innovation. We invest about one-tenth of 1 percent of our annual energy bill in research. It is absolutely ludicrous to have an area that is so central to our economy and our way of life, where we see costs escalating around the globe, and that we have neglected to invest in ways to drive technological innovation. Luckily, as part of the economic recovery package and legislation that is working its way through the House and the Senate, we will be addressing this issue of greater investment in innovation.

I see I have been joined by my colleague from the great State of Washington, Congressman Inslee, who has focused a great deal of time and attention on this question of innovation as it relates to energy. He has sponsored legislation in this regard. He has been a champion in speaking out in forums large and small around the country and is hard at work now on the Commerce Committee in the formulation of legislation that will codify these opportunities and bring them to fruition.

I am pleased to yield to my friend if he would care to share some of his thoughts in this area.

I, likewise, appreciate your comments and observations and bringing it down to real-life examples.

One of the nice things about being a Member of Congress is that we have a chance to see these products emerge. We have a chance to hear. We both serve on the Global Warming and Energy Independence Committee that the Speaker has set up, and for 30 months we have seen a parade of witnesses come before us with new and emerging technologies in wind and solar and transportation that are already putting Americans to work while they're working to save Americans money. But that is just, I think, a hint of what we can do in the future.

I'm watching in my hometown of Portland, Oregon, where we reintroduced a modern streetcar to the landscape. We just received approval from the Obama administration to move forward with a streetcar extension that's going to not only create nearly 1,300 jobs for construction and not only will we be manufacturing the first streetcar built in America in 58 years, but I know in your area in the Puget Sound you already have the South Lake Union Trolly that is in operation. You're looking to expand that. Every one of these projects not only represents an economic opportunity, but it dramatically changes the carbon footprint.

Servicing 240 units along a trolly line instead of a suburban subdivision is a million pounds of carbon a year that is saved. A trip not taken. Being able to extend things like modern streetcars to communities large and small across America, like they were a hundred years ago, provides an opportunity for thousands of construction jobs, changing the carbon footprint, changing the technological and manufacturing advances in ways that are going to affect millions of lives.

It is so important for us to be thinking about that big picture because we are exporting overseas over a billion dollars a day for oil and we're watching that probably starting up again. Last year it was $700 billion that was lost. And this is money that is taken out of our economy. In my community, the difference between just the fact that we drive 20 percent less keeps $800 million a year circulating in that local economy that isn't sent to Venezuela or to Saudi Arabia.

I will be happy to.

May I just elaborate on that point. I think that is a very important point to make, that this is 100 percent American energy, but also in terms of what happens with the net economic impact. There are some who claim that, well, we should deal with the fossil fuels, the oil and coal, because they create jobs. Well, they do create jobs, but I think the evidence is clear that the investment in the alternative energies of the future that you're talking about, in wind and solar, the clean energy economy creates about four times the jobs for each million dollars invested as in the traditional fossil fuels. And when you consider that we are also avoiding some of the most negative consequences of burning dirty coal on the health of individuals and of the larger ecosystem, it is a multiple benefit to the economy and the environment.

You know, on the floor, and this was incredible to me, last week I heard my Republican friends being upset that the Speaker, with the initiative to green the Capitol, had replaced dirty coal with natural gas, which has half the carbon emissions. It doesn't have the other problems in terms of sulfur dioxide, in terms of carbon monoxide.

The Capitol Heating Plant was the number one source of pollution in our Nation's Capital, threatening the lives and health of people who work around the capitol. Children in our schools and the opponents of responsible action for a clean economy were saying that was somehow an attack on coal.

I appreciate your clarification of that. As it stands now, the way that we are using coal indiscriminately, not dealing with the consequences of not just the carbon pollution, but, frankly, there are other pollutants that we have been struggling with for years because of the hazards to human health and to the environment, but the willingness to focus on ways to truly try and make it possible to use coal in a way that is environmentally sensitive. I think it's very important. It is important not just because the United States has vast amounts of coal, but it would be nice if we could use them in a way that was safe and environmentally sound; but we are also facing a situation where there is still heavy reliance on coal in China, in India.

We, in the Pacific Northwest, are breathing Chinese coal pollution in the Puget Sound area, in metropolitan Portland every day. So your work on the Commerce Committee, to be able to have some resources to try and move this research forward dealing with ways to truly make it environmentally benign, I think it's very important, establishing standards and sticking by them.

I will be coming to the floor soon to talk about another methodology that has been employed in the past, which is an underground gasification process, where you never bring the coal to the surface, that the process of conversion takes place in the actual coal seam. There are projects under way right now in Wyoming. It was actually a technology that was developed by Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union in an earlier era dealing with gasification of coal, but has tremendous potential for being able to use coal in a way that is environmentally responsible.

I appreciate the work that is being done to help advance these technologies and others.

We are following, on the Ways and Means, these provisions, closely. We are looking forward to having the bill out of your committee and on to our jurisdiction, one of the areas that Ways and Means jurisdiction deals with trade provisions. And we are quite confident that we can work with you in this area to make sure that people are not able to export their carbon pollution overseas or that other countries can import their carbon pollution into the United States.

I am looking forward to seeing the refinement that comes from your committee and working with my colleagues on Ways and Means to make sure that there are strong border protection provisions to make sure this is neutral. It is not anti-trade; it is not pro-trade. It is simply preserving the integrity of the carbon pollution regulation, and I am quite confident that these tools can be employed to accomplish precisely that.

I appreciate the context that you have provided, and your unrelenting interest in understanding and acknowledging and advancing American technology, but, sadly, we are not--you mentioned having fallen behind the Germans, for example, in technologies that we developed in terms of the commercial application.

China is spending six times more than we spend on clean energy, $12.5 million every hour of Chinese expenditure. We can't afford to be complacent about this. We need a sense of urgency.

While we are pleased with what's happening in the Pacific Northwest, you referenced the large wind farm in southeastern Washington. Portland, Oregon, is competing with Denver and Houston to be the wind energy capital and a couple of international companies have located their American headquarters there. And there are many technologies that we helped initiate, but we are falling behind.

We rank below Spain, Denmark and Portugal in the use of wind power. We watched what happened where little Denmark, what, about the size of the State of Washington, set its sight on being a wind energy leader, being the wind energy leader 30 years ago and have accomplished amazing feats, both in terms of their own energy production and the dominance of world wind energy activity, that one of those leading companies I mentioned that has its American headquarters in Portland, is Vestas, a Danish company.

So we watch what countries that we think are less developed than in the United States, like the Chinese, or small countries, like Denmark, really making significant advancement and putting the pressure on us to step up and do what we know we can do.

And even problems of the intermittency dealing with wind energy, if it is coupled with other areas of innovation, like plug-in hybrids and using storage capacity in vehicles to be able to help balance some of the loads, we have tremendous opportunities to have these work together.

I must say, we are both from the Pacific Northwest, the issue of wind integration and how we are going to do that is something that is looming large on my agenda. I know you are concerned. We have our regional power marketing authority, the Bonneville Power Administration, which has been a leader in helping facilitate wind energy, but now it's looking at really rather dramatic cost increases for wind integration, which I am hopeful that we can look at very hard and help them find ways to not provide disincentives for wind energy production right at the point where all of the incentives that we have put in place are starting to kick in.

It would be unfortunate if somehow they are priced out of the market at just the time we want to engage them.

Thank you, Congressman Inslee, for joining us, and for your leadership and comments.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this Chamber will be able to reject the arguments of people who are looking at the smallest possible elements of the puzzle; people who are seeking to politicize it for short-term electoral gain at the expense of the long-term interests of our children.

I, frankly, have been embarrassed by some of the argumentation that we have heard; the misrepresentation of just basic factual information.

One of the things that we are hearing, sadly, from Republican leadership, is consistent misrepresentation, for instance, of the MIT study that you will hear referred to. The St. Petersburg Times had an editorial of late saying, ``The GOP is full of hot air about Obama's light-switch tax. If the Republicans had simply misstated the results of the MIT study, the Truth-O-Meter would have been content giving this one a False. But for them to keep repeating the claim after the author of the study told them it was wrong means we have to set the meter ablaze. Pants on Fire,'' was their evaluation.

In the Wall Street Journal: ``For starters, the figures cited by Republican House leadership is almost 10 times higher than the cost estimate provided in the study'' by Professor Reilly of MIT.

The Boston Globe: ``One particular issue is Republicans' assertion that a cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gases would mean a `light switch tax.' `It's just wrong,' Reilly said. `Wrong in so many ways, it's hard to begin.' ''

I would hope, particularly when we still have not had the actual provisions of the legislation put in place, for people to make wild misrepresentations about costs and consequences does a disservice to what is one of the most important debates of our generation.

Being able to protect the planet, to restore our economy, to regain our position of technological leadership, and be able to put us on the path of sustainability environmentally and economically for the future, the stakes are too high to have misrepresentation, to have an inability for people to engage in reasonable discussion.

I know the Republican leader has said that his members shouldn't be legislators; they should be communicators. They should be talkers instead of doers. I hope--I fervently hope--that many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reject the leadership's marching orders to politicize, to talk, and to not engage; but, instead, to deal with the facts; instead, deal with opportunities to restore our economy; to create millions of clean energy jobs--some in a whole new industry; that we take important steps to reduce the tragic dependence on imported oil.

Even if we weren't concerned about the pollution, even if we weren't concerned about global warming and the damage that is attendant thereto, just in terms of the strategic interests of the United States, we should stop wasting more oil than anyone in the world. We should stop using more oil per capita for transportation than anybody in the world. We should reduce our strategic vulnerability to actions of people who don't like us very much in unstable or hostile parts of the world. And, of course, the damage that is done to our economy by shipping over a billion dollars a day overseas.

I'm hopeful that we will be able to reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming, that will enable us to be good stewards of the land now, because the effects of global warming are going to cost a lot more than the consequences of reducing it.

As we have discussed this evening, this is in fact an opportunity for us to put our economy back on track, create millions of jobs, strengthen our strategic position, while we make a contribution to the future of humankind.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend some time this evening dealing with this issue. I look forward to continuing the discussion about the new technologies, about the facts of science and economy on the floor as we prepare to move this legislation forward. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the bipartisan ``Veterans Home Loan Improvement Act of 2009'' along with Reps. Bob Filner (CA), Susan Davis (CA), Kurt Schrader (OR), Greg Walden (OR) Peter DeFazio (OR), David Wu (OR), Ron Kind (WI), Steve Kagen (WI), Al Green (TX), and Don Young (AK). Together we represent each of the states that would benefit from an expansion of the Qualified Veterans Mortgage Bond program.

This program was originally created after World War II to promote homeownership among our returning troops. Together, our states offer veterans mortgage loans at more favorable interest rates as a reward for their service to our nation. As part of a comprehensive review of veterans' services in the state of Oregon, the Oregon Governor's Veterans Task Force recommended a further expansion of this highly effective program.

This Act is based on one particularly timely recommendation to expand eligibility for our state programs and bring affordable mortgages to an additional 264,000 veterans. I look forward to continuing to work on behalf of Oregon and the nation's veterans to ensure that we provide the best possible quality of care and service.

Madam Speaker, I know the Republican leadership has opposed, even mocked, the Speaker's determination that the House lead by example by greening the Capitol. Helping each office reduce its carbon footprint, eliminate waste, and save money is exactly what Americans want from their leaders.

But last night's attack on the floor of the House by my Republican colleagues on the conversion of the Capitol Power Plant from coal to natural gas was bizarre. That Capitol Power Plant is the number one source of pollution in the District of Columbia. We've reduced the carbon pollution 50 percent, 95 percent of the sulfur oxide, at least 50 percent of the carbon monoxide, reducing a serious problem for the respiratory health of the District of Columbia's children.

I hope that people in their zeal to score political points don't get unhinged. This is important business. We're moving in the right direction, and we ought to be able to understand these basic facts.

Mr. Speaker, last week's decision by the Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood to authorize $75 million in Federal funds to extend Portland's streetcar was not just important news for our community, although it was welcome. Indeed, it's going to create over 1,200 new jobs, construction starting almost immediately.

It's going to help serve as a magnet for development for a broad swath of our community. But it is important for what it symbolizes as the potential for a new partnership with the Federal Government for the reintroduction of the modern streetcar into our communities across the country.

One hundred and twenty years ago, streetcars were very much in evidence here in Washington, DC and, indeed, from coast to coast. You could travel from Boston, Massachusetts, to Chicago, all but about 13 miles, uninterrupted, on streetcars and interurban electric systems. These streetcars shaped our modern communities with an efficient mechanism for transportation. People liked them, and it was something that helped develop housing and downtown density.

Over the course of this last decade, I am proud of the role our community has played helping to launch the first modern streetcar in the United States that is serving as a model for what can happen across the country. Our first line has already been extended three times. It has attracted over $3.5 billion of new development, millions of passengers and, very important, the trips that aren't being taken by automobile, saving carbon pollution, fighting congestion, saving people money.

The decision by the Department of Transportation to administer the small starts legislation that I authored in the last reauthorization means that we can spread these benefits all across the country. There are dozens of cities, Boise, Idaho; Washington, DC; Tucson; Fort Lauderdale; Charlotte; Cincinnati; Des Moines; Miami; Providence, Rhode Island; New Haven, Connecticut; Seattle, Salt Lake.

The list is extensive of communities that are poised and ready to go with a modest amount of investment. The streetcar costs a fraction of what a light rail system would do. Our initial streetcar costs less than 1 mile of urban freeway.

But it's important to think about the ripple effects across the country. Not only can you think multiplication of the 1,200 construction jobs that we have in Portland that could be visited in these communities, just on laying the tracks, reshaping the landscape, relocating the utilities, but it also is going to be a magnet for the development on the adjacent property. This is something that is a signal to developers large and small about a transportation alternative.

Then there is the opportunity for the first time in 58 years to have a modern American streetcar manufactured in the United States. We have developed in the City of Portland a prototype car that is being manufactured locally that's being delivered to this new project. Each streetcar results in 15 additional manufacturing jobs in our community, but also another 15 jobs per car for subcontractors across America. I have a list of subcontractors from coast-to-coast, particularly in the hard-hit manufacturing areas of the upper Midwest where machine shops are going to be providing parts for this modern American streetcar.

Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for this Congress and the new administration to build on the promise, not just to have a streetcar line extended in the City of Portland, but to start a modern industry of rail transport, taking us back to the future, with the tram, with the trolley, with the streetcar, whatever one wants to call it, that will have a transformational effect on our communities while it helps revitalize our economy.

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to sit here on the floor and listen to my colleagues deal with their talking points about climate change, carbon pollution, and what they would like to debate. Sadly, they are a little bit out of phase with what, in fact, we are facing as a Nation. Luckily, the American people understand that there is a serious problem facing us dealing with carbon pollution, and they favor action to do something about it.

The American people know that ice disappearing in our polar regions, birds migrating further and further north because of the change in the temperatures, the weather that is being disruptive with drought and extreme weather events and the consensus of the scientific community all converge. We've got a problem, and it is threatening life as we know it.

The American public is not likely to be somebody who is told by 98 doctors that their child is seriously ill and needs a specific medicine or treatment. The American public would not be inclined to go search for a single doctor that disagrees, to take a chance. If you have engineering experts who tell you that you are living in a building that is likely to collapse, you think about that seriously. And if you get a second opinion and a third opinion and a fourth opinion and a fifth opinion and they all agree that the building is likely to fall down upon you and your family or your customers, you are not likely to keep searching for that one outlier who says don't worry about it.

The public knows that we have a serious problem. There is a consensus in the scientific community that we need to do something about it. And, indeed, everything that we are talking about doing to control carbon pollution and to reduce our dependence, particularly on petroleum, but especially foreign oil, all of these are things that we should be doing anyway, even if we weren't threatened by global warming and serious disruption from the carbon pollution.

Sadly, the last hour demonstrated again that too many on the other side of the aisle have simply lost their ability to have a serious conversation about what the scientific community and the majority of the American public feel is a serious problem; indeed, maybe the greatest single threat to our way of life.

I am reminded of what happened 68 years ago in this Chamber. The world was being slowly engulfed in World War II. The Nazis had taken over most of Europe and Great Britain was at risk. The Japanese had moved throughout the South Pacific. The United States was looking at an international landscape that was increasingly more and more threatening. But 68 years ago, there were some in this Chamber-- actually, a majority on the other side of the aisle--that weren't that concerned. They felt that we were still shaking off the events of a Great Depression and we couldn't afford money on a military buildup, that we shouldn't have the human resources in our military.

We were facing the expiration of the conscription, the military draft. There was a vote 68 years ago that by only one vote, 203-202, enabled us to have a military draft and have some semblance of the tools available when the inevitable happened. And on December 7, 1941, the day that President Roosevelt said before us in this Chamber would live in infamy, at least we had those tools available to be able to spring into action and fight to save our country from existential threats.

I feel very strongly that we are facing something similar today, and we are going to have too many people in this Chamber who are not going to be able to answer a question that will be posed by history 68 years from now. They are not going to be able to look their children and grandchildren in the eye 10 or 15 years from now and explain why they weren't part of a process to provide a solution to the threat of global warming.

Listen to the echoes that are still in this Chamber from our colleagues. One gentleman I like was talking about how there was a recent MIT study that showed that there was $3,100 in cost from a program of preventing carbon pollution, a cap-and-trade program. And then he acknowledged, well, there are some controversies surrounding it. Absolutely there is controversy surrounding it. But then he went on to say, well, it appears as though the number is even higher than $3,100. Absolutely false.

The author of that report, in fact, has written to the Republican leadership that has been misusing the study to say that it is wrong in so many ways he doesn't know how to count. It would be a tiny fraction of that amount, and that assumes that we are not giving things back directly from those resources to make a difference for people. It is embarrassing that people are still purposely misstating research like that, but it is typical.

Echoing in the Chamber now, there was somebody who was talking about how important it is to support Republican legislation to prevent the EPA from doing its job under the Clean Air Act to deal with carbon pollution. I find that embarrassing. For the last 8 years, the Bush administration has abrogated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to take action. Indeed, even this Supreme Court slapped them down for dragging their feet dealing with the auto tailpipe standards. What an outrageous response. Instead of joining in an effort to work to make sure that we are meeting the challenge, instead we are going to introduce legislation to prevent the EPA from doing its job if Congress fails to act.

We heard my friend from Illinois talk about how deeply concerned he was that, under the Speaker's leadership, we have changed the Capitol Hill Power Plant that for the 14 years that I have been in Congress has been belching cold smoke into the air--one of the most serious sources of air pollution here in Washington, D.C.--somehow the fact that the Speaker has acted with legislative leadership in the Senate to solve this problem by cutting the emissions in half and using natural gas instead of coal, that somehow that is bad. Well, as somebody who lives in Washington, D.C. over a third of the time, I am glad that we are not going to be polluting the air with carbon pollution. I think it is the least we should be doing for the millions of people who live in the metropolitan area, in terms of clean air, dealing with the awful substances that are part of the emissions from coal. And to think somehow that that is wrong gives you a sense of the mindset.

The new Representative from Pennsylvania was troubled by ``a complete lack of an energy plan.'' Well, maybe he is so new to Congress that he hasn't noticed that George Bush and the Republicans have been running things here for the last 8 years and, in fact, have passed various pieces of legislation to the benefit of some of the polluting energy industries, but failed to come forward with a comprehensive energy proposal.

The notion somehow that we can't move forward in a thoughtful, comprehensive fashion to be able to design a system to reduce carbon pollution, I think, is, frankly, embarrassing. Luckily, the Democratic leadership is committed to moving forward. This is one of the top priorities of Speaker Pelosi.

We have work that is undertaken in the House Energy and Commerce Committee moving forward with draft legislation which hopefully will be moving on to us in a matter of weeks, if not days. We are poised to work with the House Ways and Means Committee as part of this partnership, and the Obama administration has set down markers and is prepared to act, either administratively or in cooperation with us, with legislation.

This country shook off the Great Depression by mobilizing the economy to fight World War II. We have an opportunity to mobilize against a threat at

least as great--that dealing with global warming--and to harness new technologies, new industries, new products and services to be able to put people to work.

Contrary to what has been suggested, alternative energy--wind, solar, biomass--across the globe are some of the fastest growing industries on Earth. Solar and wind power industries alone have sustained annual growth rates of 30 to 50 percent, creating tens of thousands of jobs while reducing reliance on foreign sources of oil and helping to shrink our carbon emissions.

Now, it is true that these renewable sources today account for less than 3 percent of the world's power generation, but the opportunity here is enormous. We expect that there will be increased energy demands in the United States and around the world, but only about a third of the generation capacity that will be needed to meet expected demand by 2030 has been built.

We have an opportunity to shape and direct how we manage that, to be able to direct it in a way that is going to make the greatest impact on our economy.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a fair amount of hyperbole about what will be the costs of controlling carbon pollution and moving into a new economic era. The IPCC has been in the forefront of this with the research that's coming forward, and we have had a chance to look at the parameters that they have suggested. In survey after survey of greenhouse gas reduction scenarios undertaken by respected and peer- reviewed modeling groups, there is a projected average GDP reduction of perhaps five-tenths of a percent to three-quarters of a percent to 2030 and 2050, respectively. The estimate is that by 2030, the overall United States gross domestic product is projected to double to some $26 trillion. Without a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, the United States reaches that doubling by January 2030. With a cap, it reaches that goal 3 months later, April 2030. This is consistent with the research that we have done in Oregon at Portland State University. The State Carbon Allocation Task Force, looking only at the electrical sector, found that while carbon reductions to meet the State's 2020 goal of 10 percent below the 1990 levels would increase energy rates. Under most conditions, average consumer costs would be the same or lower due to cost savings from energy efficiency.

I want to be very clear about this because, contrary to the assumption of some critics sticking to their talking points, any money that is generated from fees on carbon pollution is not somehow buried, it's not shot into space, it's not locked in a vault someplace. This money is used to be able to strengthen our energy infrastructure, and higher prices are further going to encourage efficiency, and last but not least, we will be investing in new products and services in energy- efficient standards. So that as a net result, 20 years from now, at least in our community, it's clear that we're not going to have, as a result of the change in electricity, some massive burden on individual consumers because we will be smart with our investments and people will be smart in terms of what they do, and we anticipate there will be no net increase.

Now, one of the factors that is also important to point out is that we are going to be looking at new technologies and products that leapfrog ahead. Back when we were considering in the Northwest the plans that we were going to make in the 1980s, we didn't actually consider that compact fluorescent light bulbs were going to be a serious lighting efficiency choice, but by the year 2000, these CFLs were widely available. And now, even more efficient lighting technologies, the LEDs, were on the horizon and moving forward. There will be further technological innovation, exactly what we saw when there was a restriction to deal with another gas in the atmosphere, the CFCs, the chlorinated fluorocarbons, that were threatening the ozone. You will recall at that time companies like DuPont threatened that there would be massive disruption, a massive increase in costs, and people would be put out of work. Well, actually, that's not the case. The initiative was taken. Not only were there not massive dislocations, a large increase in unemployment, but companies like DuPont actually made money by producing alternative chemical refrigerants. And surely the same will occur now if we are diligent about our investments.

But more to the point, what's going to happen if we take the alternative that is offered by some and continue with business as usual, to not control carbon emissions, to fall victim to concern about temporary problems with the economy? The report by Sir Nicholas Stern for the Government of the United Kingdom suggests that the mid-rate growth for global emissions are projected to cost 5 percent of the global GDP. A 5 percent loss of the world economic output. Now, actually the trend line is a little more disturbing than what Sir Nicholas Stern came up with because he was just dealing with the mid level of the projections. We have seen that emissions in the last several years have been at or above the high projections in the IPCC fourth report from 2008. And as a result, we have to look at that higher range that was suggested by the Stern report, which could be a 20 percent reduction in global GDP.

The status quo, ignoring the problem, trying to score debate points, roll back the Clean Air Act, and wait poses much more serious problems in terms of what we are likely to see as a consequence. And many of these potential problems are not market related. The effects of this extreme variation, I have had Members of Congress today joking about the unstable weather here in Washington, D.C., extreme rain, heat, cold. Well, we're seeing global weather instability increasing around the planet. And the droughts, the heavy rains, the windstorms, these carry with them a cost as well.

There are socially potentially disastrous effects that relate to unease and upheaval from drought, fighting over water. There's a whole range of social costs that people need to be thinking about.

There are, I think, very sober voices that should be heard above the talking points. One voice that I find most compelling is that of retired United States Army General Anthony Zinni, who has written: ``We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today or we will pay the price later in military terms, and that will involve human lives.''

We are already looking, in my State of Oregon, at the likely adaptation costs. We've got issues relating to flooding, landslides, forest fires, the potential need to relocate highways and other public works. We are facing real threats in our State like they are already being faced by coastal villages in Alaska and in the British countryside of being eaten away by the increase in sea level and storm surges. We are already facing the problems of competition for lower summer stream flows from hydroelectric power, irrigation, navigation, municipal water supplies, and system stream ecosystem needs. We're having a drama being played out now in the State of California with their prolonged drought. That's a taste of what we are looking at in the immediate future if we are unable to act.

We have brought that down in Oregon, a State that has been a leader in efforts to curb greenhouse gasses, to plan for energy futures, an intensely environmentally conscious State. We recently had a study published by the University of Oregon's Climate Leadership Initiative by Echo Northwest, a consulting firm located in Oregon, that estimates the cost to Oregonians by 2020 from the impacts on global warming of $3.3 billion annually, almost $2,000 per Oregon household or 2 percent of our current gross domestic product. Put in perspective, that would be the equivalent of a household annual electric rate increase of 175 percent.

Mr. Speaker, these are sobering facts that deal with the highly likely outcomes of our failure to get our arms around this problem and move forward to deal with the problems of greenhouse gas emissions. We need to be serious about opportunities dealing with the savings from energy efficiency. This is an area that we should be doing regardless of greenhouse gas emissions. This is something that is within our power right now.

Part of what is being ignored by critics and their talking points is that all of the major approaches to deal with

greenhouse gas emissions, with the cap-and-trade, would put much of this money back into a system to help people improve energy efficiency. Remember, I mentioned the one study that, in fact, estimates that people would actually be paying less by 2030 than they're paying today, even though electric rates would well go up, because of increased energy efficiency.

We are currently wasting more energy than any other country in the world. The United States is less carbon efficient than 75 out of 107 industrialized countries, and we use the most transportation fuel per passenger mile. There is absolutely no reason that we, as a society, as we are working to create new green collar jobs built on an energy- efficient, carbon-constrained economy for the future, can't take advantage of this to be able to not only reduce power rates in the future, saving Americans money, but put people to work now. We have seen this work in the United States. California has some of the highest electric rates in the country, but over the course of the last 30 years, electric energy efficiency has saved Californians $56 billion while producing 1\1/2\ million new jobs.

The University of California at Berkeley projected savings in jobs from meeting California's Assembly Bill 32 carbon cap-and-trade law. By 2020, they project $76 billion in saved energy costs at current rates and 400,000 new jobs in California.

Mr. Speaker, the opportunities to move forward to capitalize on energy efficiency is something we want everybody to look at. We have had experience in this area in the Pacific Northwest.

We have engaged in one of the most comprehensive efforts with our northwest power planning council, electric utilities in the Northwest, to try and deal with least-cost energy planning, looking at the big picture. I am proud to say that my hometown of Portland, Oregon, was the first American city with a comprehensive energy policy enacted in 1979.

There has been a lot going on in the Pacific Northwest dealing with energy efficiency. Between 1980 and 2000, the region invested almost $2.5 billion in energy efficiency. It costs money to be able to move forward on that energy efficiency curve. But during that period of time, the region earned that total investment back once every 18 months.

Let me repeat that: over the course of that 20-year period of time, we invested $2.4 billion in energy efficiency and the savings, as a result of that investment, were repaid every year and a half. That's a 67 percent average annual rate of return on investment.

This is what we are talking about in terms of being able to move this forward. Now, there are some that suggest, well, you can't do this because it's going to pull the plug on State and local economies; they can't survive this aggressive push towards energy efficiency.

Well, looking at what has happened in the Pacific Northwest over the last 25 years. That's simply not the fact. Californians have actually had some reasonable economic growth in this period of time. We have had the same in Oregon. By not being intensely carbon based, investing in energy efficiency, we have been able to produce substantial economic benefit while we are growing in a sustainable fashion.

It has resulted in Oregonians, in the metropolitan area of Portland, exporting fewer of their dollars to Houston, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia and, in fact, they have almost $2,500 a year more disposable income that they are not spending just on transportation alone. This makes a real difference in terms of the initiatives that were made.

In Oregon, we have been working to reduce carbon emissions. Our carbon emissions were 30 percent lower than the national average in 1990, and by working very hard, they are 36 percent lower than 2007. But it's been done without any reduction in our State gross domestic product.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these are important points that need to be part of a serious discussion. The status quo, business as usual, head in the sand, we are not going to worry about it now, we are to going to make it a political football is, I think--there may be a time when politics could be played this way. I think the stakes are too high. The American public knows that.

I hope, sooner, rather than later, my friends on the other side of the aisle will understand that this is a serious problem and it invites a serious response.

I hope they will reject the advice of Republican Leader Boehner, who has been misusing, for instance, the MIT study repeatedly, despite having had a call to his office's attention how misleading that figure is. But his advice has been to Republicans to not be legislators, but to be communicators, to talk instead of act.

I sincerely hope that that approach will be rejected, because we will be better off, not as a, just as a Congress, we will be better off as a country and as a people if we have broad bipartisan interaction. They may not agree with each and every point, but at least have an honest debate, stop misrepresenting facts and give people permission to be involved with serious efforts to solve this problem.

Because, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, this problem demands attention and it will get attention. One of the most important decisions of the Obama administration is that they were going to start following the law under the Clean Air Act and deal with carbon pollution. This is clear, we are heading down this path.

If Congress doesn't act, we will be dealing with carbon regulation through a combination of administrative action and legal action. It's one way to solve the problem. I, personally, don't think it's the best, but it's one of the approaches that will be taken.

We find now that there is growing support from leaders in the business community to act seriously to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is a growing consensus among business leaders that now is the time to act, and they are participating with us in serious discussions to craft a workable solution.

It's somewhat ironic that we hear the United States Chamber of Commerce being cited by some to cite that there are problems in opposition to dealing with greenhouse gas cap-and-trade initiatives. Actually, the best research I have seen is that there are only four companies on the board of directors of the Chamber of Commerce that are in support of this ``just say no'' attitude.

Of those companies that have taken a position on the board of directors, 80 percent support Federal regulations with goals to reduce total U.S. global warming pollution, not all in agreement on precisely the response, but Alcoa, Caterpillar, Deere and Company, Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, Eastman Kodak Company, Entergy, Fox Entertainment Group, IBM, Lockheed Martin, Nike, PepsiCo, PNM Resources, the Robertson Foundation, Rolls Royce North America, Siemens Corporation, Southern Company, Toyota Motor North America, Xerox. These are all companies that have realized, in many cases, because they are global in nature, that Europe is moving, Japan is moving. Even China is moving on areas of energy efficiency, and there are opportunities for us to work with them, even as they move to be the leader in wind, solar and electric cars.

So major businesses, 80 percent of those on the Chamber board of directors that have taken a position, favor Federal regulation. This is the wave of the future. This is what we as a society need to do.

I am encouraged with the progress that we have made already here in the work under the leadership of the Speaker, of our various committee Chairs, and an active group of Members in the Democratic Caucus moving forward and advancing this debate.

I look forward to having legislation on the floor this year that we can deal with and hopefully enact, working with the administration. I look forward to the United States when it comes to coming together with the global community to deal with climate change in Copenhagen in December.

I look forward to our being there with the United States no longer being missing in action, but, instead, assume its rightful leadership role as the most powerful Nation in the world, as the strongest economy, and, frankly, as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in history that we accept our responsibility, our leadership and move this forward.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening to share

some thoughts. I look forward to our being able to continue the discussion on the floor of the House. I hope, I sincerely hope that we will be able to engage in a thoughtful, deliberate discussion of alternatives that will reduce greenhouse gases, the threat to the planet, strengthen our economy and make a more liveable world for our children and grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I began work on the Portland Streetcar as a Commissioner of the City of Portland. Our first line opened on July 20, 2001, becoming the first modern streetcar system in North America. It represents a remarkable local partnership. I'm proud of its success.

As a Member of Congress, I have championed streetcars at the federal level, introducing the Community Streetcar Development and Revitalization Act in 2003, which became part of the Small Starts program and was included in SAFETEA-LU.

Unfortunately, the implementation of the Small Starts program failed to deliver any form of federal partnership to our communities. Communities across the country have struggled to utilize the Small Starts program as the Federal Transit Administration delayed these projects. These delays have caused steep cost increases and stalled worthy projects that otherwise would generate investment and development in these communities.

The Fast Starts Act responds to the vast pent-up demand in communities around the country caused by the prior administration's obstruction and delay with regard to streetcar projects. It authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to streetcar projects provided that they are supported by an acceptable degree of local financial commitment, have met all necessary environmental requirements, and can be under construction not later than March 1, 2012.

These bills will revitalize America's neighborhoods and urban spaces, while providing transit options, reducing sprawl, and curtailing greenhouse gas emissions. I am looking forward to seeing a resurgence of streetcars around the country and nowhere more so than in Portland, Oregon.

Madam Speaker, the Federal Streetcar Revitalization Act creates a transportation investment program that, under a competitive program, offers grants to transit projects. These projects must be justified based on a review of their effects on local economic development, land use, travel patterns, and greenhouse gas reduction potential.

This program will unlock streetcar investments across the country and will fulfill the promise of the Community Streetcar Development and Revitalization Act that I introduced in 2003 and which later became part of the Small Starts program in SAFETEA-LU. Unfortunately, the implementation of the Small Starts program failed to deliver any form of federal partnership to our communities. Communities across the country have struggled to utilize the Small Starts program as the Federal Transit Administration delayed these projects. These delays caused steep cost increases and stalled worthy projects that otherwise would generate investment and development in these communities.

For an example of the benefits of streetcar systems, the Portland Streetcar opened on July 20, 2001, becoming the first modern streetcar system in North America. This system has created jobs and spurred development along the streetcar corridor. In fact, the Portland Streetcar has spurred $3.5 billion in new development in downtown Portland. The streetcar system also provides tremendous environmental benefits. The Portland Streetcar is one reason that vehicle miles traveled per capita have declined by 6% since 1990 in Portland, Oregon. Providing sustainable transportation options to our communities can significantly reduce our carbon footprint.

These bills will revitalize America's neighborhoods and urban spaces, while providing transit options, reducing sprawl, and curtailing greenhouse gas emissions. I am looking forward to seeing a resurgence of streetcars around the country.