Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act which will help prevent violence and ensure that justice is served.

The special attention that hate crimes require can easily stretch local law enforcement beyond their capacity. Many of these crimes go unreported, allowing the perpetrators to escape punishment. This is unacceptable.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act provides the necessary resources to state and local governments for the investigation and prosecution of these crimes. This kind of commitment to justice is the only way to prevent such random acts of violence from occurring in the first place.

In my home state of Oregon, four hate crimes have been reported this year and in 2008, twenty-nine hate crimes were reported. Just last month, a man and his boyfriend were on a spring-break trip over the weekend when they were beaten unconscious on a beach in Seaside, Oregon. Last November, a 20-year-old woman was walking along a street in Aloha, Oregon, when the man asked for a cigarette. He asked if she was gay and when she said yes, he then started berating her about her sexual orientation. Eventually he pushed her and she fell to the ground. She tried to defend herself, but he knocked her back down and struck her in the head with a rock.

These violent crimes effectively terrorize the entire community and chip away at our freedoms. We must protect all our citizens--whether they are black, disabled, Christian, or gay.

Madam Speaker, the reauthorization of the Pre- Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program sends an important signal about the effectiveness of hazard mitigation in ensuring public safety and reducing financial losses in the event of a natural disaster. I am pleased that the House is reauthorizing the program for an additional three years and increasing the minimum amount that each State can receive from $500,000 to $575,000.

I have been a longtime supporter of pre-disaster mitigation and the approach adopted in the 1990's by former FEMA Administrator James Lee Witt as illustrated in the `Project Impact' pilot program. The City of Portland, Oregon and Multnomah County, areas I represent, were early partners in the Project Impact program which helped to establish a flood hazard Community Rating System. By taking steps to mitigate potential flood damages in excess of FEMA standards, some area floodplain residents were able to qualify for reductions in their flood insurance premiums. On a national scale, Project Impact helped communities large and small across the country make much needed investments in hazard mitigation.

In 2005, the Multihazard Mitigation Council, on behalf of FEMA, found that on average, a dollar spent by FEMA on hazard mitigation provides the nation in about $4 in future benefits. In that regard, the Pre- Disaster Mitigation program is a leading example of how the federal government can be a better partner to local communities by helping to improve public safety and reduce disaster related financial losses. It is the right thing to do for communities that are rebuilding after disasters, like New Orleans, and for those trying to avoid becoming the next victims.

Mr. Speaker, from April 12-18, 2009, our nation celebrated National Library Week and the vital role that these institutions and their dedicated staff play in supporting our communities. On April 22, 2009, the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 336, supporting the goals and ideals of National Library Week and encouraging Americans to take full advantage of these wonderful public resources.

In Oregon, we pride ourselves on our strong community and a commitment to quality of life and education. Public libraries are a vital piece of this fabric and, in fact, Oregon has the second highest circulation of public library materials in the nation and the only 5- star library in the Northwest. As the economic downturn has pushed family budgets to the brink, these resources are more important than ever. In addition to public reading and visual materials, libraries offer Internet and computer access for all, free of charge. Many also serve as community spaces for gatherings and events.

Another library that deserves recognition is our very own Library of Congress. In 2008, to highlight the world-class work of this institution I formed the Library of Congress Caucus, now nearly 50 Members strong. I have the distinct honor of co-chairing this bipartisan organization with my friend Congressman Zach Wamp. Our goal is to draw further attention to the nation's library, its collections and curators, and to encourage further use by Members of Congress and the public alike.

The Library of Congress not only houses the much-appreciated Congressional Research Service, it also offers 1.6 million visitors access to 15 million primary-source documents and operates the Veteran's History Project and the Surplus Books Program. One of my favorite programs, the Surplus Books Program is an innovative book donation program, through which Members may send library materials to the schools and libraries in their home district. At a time when funding for libraries is scarce, this is a simple way to reduce book waste and distribute excess resources to our communities and schools where they are needed most.

I strongly encourage members to take advantage of these extraordinary programs and resources, and congratulate all our nation's libraries, librarians, and library-enthusiasts.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased, along with my colleague, Betsy Markey from Colorado, to offer this amendment to create a wastewater and storm water reuse and recycling technology demonstration program within the Environmental Protection Agency.

I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Gordon and to his staff for working with us to refine the amendment. This is important work that's being done. I appreciate the debate and the energy, and we are pleased to offer this small element that, I think, makes a big difference.

Water reuse involves taking wastewater or storm water, giving it the appropriate level of treatment for its intended use and using the resulting reclaimed or recycled water for a new, beneficial purpose. These beneficial purposes can range from agriculture and landscape irrigation, to industrial processes, to toilets, to replenishing groundwater.

It's clear that this is not necessarily a new technology. According to the Water Reuse Association, reclaimed water has been used for crop irrigation for more than 100 years and for landscape irrigation for more than 70 years. The Earth has recycled and reused water for millions of years through the natural water cycle, but the amount of water that we reuse and recycle is just, if I may use the phrase, ``a drop in the bucket'' compared to what we could be doing, which is why I think a new demonstration project is in order.

Across the globe, water consumption has tripled in the last 50 years. According to the EPA, at least 36 States are anticipating local, regional or Statewide water shortages by 2013 even under non-drought conditions. As communities grow and water supplies decrease, they will be forced to seek alternative sources of water. In an era of climate change and water stress, water reuse and recycling has a great deal of potential to help alleviate pressures on water managers and to help communities become less dependent on ground and surface water sources.

A demonstration program will help reduce the costs of these technologies, and it will also help communities overcome the technical and social barriers to water reuse and recycling.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I don't see my cosponsor here, so I'm the last speaker. I'm prepared to close if you have no other speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I respect my good friend and colleague, the ranking member, and I appreciate what he mentioned in terms of the prior legislation, but I would say that was just research.

What we're attempting here is to be able to have demonstration projects. The EPA has done a great deal of work in this area in helping communities across the country undertake recycling and reuse projects. What we're doing here is having a coordinated program in the agency rather than just a few projects here or there that would allow the EPA to do the monitoring, evaluation and documentation necessary to promote the new technologies nationwide. Reclaimed or recycled water is highly engineered for safety. Indeed, the quality can be more predictable than some existing surface and groundwater sources. Right now, only about 5 to 6 percent of municipal wastewater effluent in the United States is reclaimed and beneficially used for any purpose.

In addition to enhancing water supplies, these technologies can help the environment by reducing the diversion of water from sensitive ecosystems, reducing nutrient and pathogen loads from wastewater discharges to waterways and reducing pollution from storm water runoff.

So beyond research, we really need a coordinated program of demonstration.

I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment to create a program to pursue technology demonstration projects at the building, site, neighborhood, and watershed scales.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in honor of the 39th Annual Earth Day celebration, I am introducing the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009, with Representatives Donald Payne, Dana Rohrabacher, Jesse Jackson Jr., Zach Wamp, Peter Welch, John Boozman, Dan Burton, George Miller, and Jeff Fortenberry as original cosponsors. The purpose of this Act is to empower the U.S. Government to respond to the pressing poverty, security, and environmental threats presented by the dire mismanagement and shortage of global freshwater.

Today, one-fifth of the world's population relies on freshwater that is either polluted or significantly overdrawn. A lack of safe water and sanitation is an ongoing threat to global security and remains the world's greatest health problem, accounting for 2 million deaths a year and half the illness in the developing world.

At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa the United States and 185 other countries agreed to the goal of cutting in half the percentage of people without access to safe water and basic sanitation by 2015. I worked with the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos, and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders Bill Frist and Harry Reid to enact the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005. This landmark bipartisan legislation established investment in safe and affordable water for the world's poorest as a major goal of U.S. foreign assistance.

We are halfway to the 2015 Millennium Development completion date and we must redouble our efforts. Although progress is being made through innovative partnerships between the U.S. Government, NGOs, businesses, and local partners, nearly 900 million people worldwide still lack access to safe drinking water and 2 out of 5 people on the planet lack basic sanitation services. By 2025, climate change and rapid population growth will further stress water resources and are expected to leave 2.8 billion people in more than 48 countries facing severe and chronic water shortages.

The United States cannot sustainably meet its poverty alleviation, global health, or development assistance goals without addressing the issue of safe water and sanitation. This legislation answers the call to act. The overarching goal of the Water for the World Act is to provide 100 million of the world's poorest with first-time access to safe drinking water and sanitation on a sustainable basis by 2015. To accomplish this goal the legislation builds upon the Water for the Poor framework for investment, expands U.S. foreign assistance capacity, and recognizes sustainable water and sanitation policy as vital to long- term diplomatic and development efforts.

The Water for the World Act complements legislation introduced recently in the Senate by Senators Richard Durbin, Bob Corker, and Patty Murray. Through this legislation we will help the U.S. government focus its efforts and fully implement a smart and efficient global water strategy that meets our commitment to extend safe drinking water and sanitation to over a billion people in need.

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest environmental threats in the entire globe is the supply and quality of water.

In honor of the 39th annual Earth Day Celebration, I'm proud to introduce the Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009. The purpose of this act is to empower the United States Government to respond to the pressing environmental, poverty and security threats presented by mismanagement and shortage of global fresh water.

Today, one-fifth of the world's population relies on fresh water that's either polluted or inadequately supplied. The lack of safe drinking water and sanitation remains the world's greatest health problem, accounting for 2 million deaths and half the illnesses in the developing world.

The bipartisan ``Water for the World Act'' builds upon the framework of our 2005 Water for the Poor Act, expanding United States foreign assistance capacity, elevating sustainable water and sanitation policy, and investing in low-cost, high-impact solutions.

There are lots of things that divide us here in Congress, but one of the things that brings us together is a commitment to make the world and its environment better. And I deeply appreciate the leadership of my colleagues, Congressmen Donald Payne, Wamp, Rohrabacher, Boozman and Burton in joining me on this Earth Day to enact this important legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Spratt, for the courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, and thank you for your leadership, providing to the House of Representatives a budget blueprint that was reflective of the challenge that President Obama laid before us all a scant 3 months ago in his first State of the Union speech.

The budget outline we have before us is an opportunity to do something constructive for those who want to legislate. There are some that say some Members of the House shouldn't be legislators; they should just be communicators, throwing up speed bumps and ignoring the reality of the problem that we face that the President inherited from a former dysfunctional administration that was enabled by my Republican friends when they were in charge: massive budget deficits, serious problems hollowing out the economy, a housing bubble that burst, problems overseas, and ignoring climate change not just in this country but global leadership. What we have seen in 3 short months is an opportunity in this Congress to do something about it.

There is a positive choice that is brought forth in the budget resolution that would be undercut by the motion to instruct to give almost $100 billion over the next 10 years to students instead of bankers, to students instead of bankers. In States like mine with an unemployment rate of over 12 percent, and I know my colleague and friend from South Carolina has a high unemployment rate, we have a chance to help students and their families that are struggling, putting more money in their pockets, not into the pockets of bankers. This budget resolution gives us more leverage to deliver on that promise. It is a blueprint to work with the President and the legislators here who want to legislate, not just talk, to provide alternative choices to American families dealing with health care.

Already in the first 100 days of the President, we have acted to extend health care to 11 million children across the United States. We have dealt in the economic recovery package with bridge financing to help them keep their health insurance if they are laid off. These are things that are part of a constructive program that's available to all who take seriously their responsibilities to roll up their sleeves and legislate.

I appreciate that.

Madam Speaker, there is a concern that is talked about time and time again about reconciliation instructions dealing with climate change. I'm one of the people that would like to have strengthened the hand of the House of Representatives in this vital debate on the future of the planet and the health of our economy to give more leverage to deal with carbon pollution and to put more green jobs into the economy and money in the hands of consumers, not utilities that are polluting. But that's not there.

I would strongly urge my colleagues to reject this motion as they rejected an ill-considered 5-year freeze on some of the most important spending on behalf of our constituents that the Republicans offered up. We rejected that, wisely, and I'm pleased that many Republicans voted against it because it was so ill considered and draconian. It is time to reject this motion and get to work.

Mr. Speaker, it was enjoyable to listen here to my colleagues from the other side of the aisle with their version of what they would like the debate to be about.

I do hope that the American public zeros in on what we are saying here tonight, listens to my friends on the other side of the aisle, and draws their own conclusions. This is the most important discussion that we are going to have in this session of Congress.

Now, my good friend, the gentlewoman from Minnesota, doesn't think there are any problems with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's interesting to listen to her say that something that was naturally occurring simply couldn't be harmful, ignoring the fact that we have the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for two-thirds of a million years. The consensus of the scientific community, not people making things up on the floor of the House, is that this has been profoundly influenced by human activity starting with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, where we started consuming huge quantities of coal, burning fossil fuels, accelerating that over time. The consensus of the scientific community is that this is, in fact, a serious problem.

The debate is going far beyond sort of the modest disputes that people may take back and forth from one another that it may not work. The new Secretary of the Department of Energy has likened it to somebody who has been given an assessment by an engineer that their house is in danger of falling down, that it has an 80 percent chance of falling down or burning up because of faulty wiring. And the response, before a rational person spends huge sums of money, they might get a second opinion. And if that second opinion says, yes, that house is going to burn up or fall down in the not too distant future, it would be not irrational to maybe get a third or a fourth. But as Secretary Chu points out, it's pretty risky business to run through all the engineering professionals until you find one outlier who says forget about it, don't worry, your house isn't going to fall down. None of us, none of us, would treat our family that way.

I am embarrassed for them that they continue to trot out the number of somehow a $3,100 cost on the American public according to an MIT research analysis. Well, as I pointed out during the debate on the budget before the floor of the House of Representatives, that is a hopelessly tortured interpretation of some decent scientific research. The author of that study, John Reilly, sent, on the 1st of April, to John Boehner a letter setting the record straight. Mr. Reilly indicated that it was wrong in so many ways, it's hard to begin. The fact is that they totally misrepresented the thrust of the research and they assumed that none of the benefits would flow back to the economy or the families in question.

Professor Reilly pointed out that that's a bogus number, that it is perhaps, at most, one-tenth of that amount, according to their research. And yet the Republican leadership and Republican members keep coming to the floor citing erroneous information, but it is symptomatic of the approach that they have taken to this critical issue. They ignore the fact that we are facing dramatic changes to our economy, to the health and future of our family, to our way of life, to the environment, if we continue down this path.

Sir Nicholas Stern issued a report on behalf of the British Government that indicated, according to their analysis, that the cost of inaction is five times greater than the threat of moving forward and making a change.

So it's one-fortieth of what Boehner is talking about and the other Republican talking points, but they are not comparing it to what is happening to our environment now and where this path is going with rising temperatures, with permafrost that is no longer perma, roads buckling, changing patterns of disease, insects, problems with forests that are infected, coastal areas washed away, drought, loss of snowpack.

These are things that we are facing right now in the United States. The high likelihood is that it is a result of our dependence on fossil fuels, greenhouse gases, failure to act.

And if we follow this path, we are going to pay a much greater price over time. But it is not true that there are no benefits to this alternative.

You know, if our friends on the other side of the aisle would ignore the advice of the Republican leadership that they not be legislators, that they be communicators, if they would ignore that, roll up their sleeves, work in the committees of jurisdiction, we would have an opportunity to have the give-and-take. We would be able to focus on optimal ways to make sure that the fees for carbon pollution are channeled back to the American public and incent new matters of economic development.

We are seeing an explosion in solar and wind energy. We have an opportunity to not only create new industries, but of making America no longer the greatest waster of energy in the world. We waste more energy than any country in the world at great cost to American families.

If the Republicans join with us, roll up their sleeves and look at alternative ways of dealing with the fees on carbon pollution, we would be able to provide opportunities for a whole host of new products, techniques, buildings and at the same time we can reduce the energy costs of American families.

It is true that if the massive polluters of carbon pollution into the atmosphere, if they are finally charged a fee, if it is no longer free for them to pollute the atmosphere with carbon like we did with sulfur dioxide, like we did with CFCs--and, I must note, at that time industry analysts, the Republicans, apologists, some of the business associations, claim that acid rain, the trading, was going to wreck the environment. They claimed that the health benefits were not supported by science.

Well, the OMB has found that the acid rain program accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits in history: $70 billion annually, more than any federally-implemented program in the last 10 years with benefits exceeding costs more than 40-1. Likewise, when we were concerned about ozone-depleting chemicals, DuPont warned that the United States' costs would exceed $135 billion and ``entire industries would fold.'' Well, the actual costs were almost 100 times less, and not only didn't DuPont fold, but they made millions of dollars selling substitutes for phased-out chemicals.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that there will be some attention from the American public, attention to what the consequences will be for a fee on carbon pollution, the benefits for stopping the progress of global warming, the benefits for a whole new array of industries and practices, ways to make families safer, strengthen America, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and move us into a path in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I am joined this evening by a number of my distinguished colleagues who are leaders in the efforts to protect the environment and the American public and to chart a new direction for environmental protection and the revitalization of our economy, creating jobs and saving the taxpayer money.

One that I would like to turn to right now is my friend Paul Tonko from New

York, who came to Congress recently, but he has over two decades of administrative, legislative and policy experience. I have been pleased to work with him on these initiatives to share the program with him, and I would yield to my friend to provide some of his insights into this issue.

Absolutely spot on, and I hope that you can stay with us.

We have been joined by a number of our colleagues here, and I would like to be able to move as quickly as I can to include them, because we have truly outstanding leaders.

I want to turn next to John Hall, with whom I have been privileged to serve on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Our colleague, Congressman Hall, has been a leader in the environmental movement long before he came to Congress. In fact, my wife has music that he recorded, a song that maybe he will sing here from the floor, but a man truly ahead of his time, multitalented and passionate about how we save the environment.

I deeply appreciate your comments, your insights. We'll worry about the music later.

But it is something that you have helped me with, some of the insights that you've offered on our work on the Global Warming Committee, and I appreciate your joining us.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Congressman Himes, a new Member of Congress, but somebody who has been involved with community development and finance for a number of years at the local level in Connecticut, has already hit the ground running, being actively involved in these debates and deeply appreciate your willingness to enter into this discussion this evening.

Thank you very, very much. And I appreciate your point about the cheapest kilowatt is the kilowatt that we don't expend, that we don't have to build the coal-fired plant or even a solar collector. And we have watched what has happened over the course of the last 30 years because business now in the United States does produce more product per kilowatt than it did before.

This is not going to be easy. And it's not going to be without cost and consequence. But I am absolutely convinced that the hardest part is not going to be the technology, but it's cutting through the misrepresentation and the misunderstandings and, in some cases, I think, willful misrepresentation of the facts.

I was stunned to hear the gentlelady from Minnesota, from the floor of the well tonight, declare that carbon dioxide concentrations were not a problem because carbon dioxide appears naturally in the atmosphere; this coming after the EPA has finally owned up to its responsibilities and acknowledged the fact that the concentration, the greater concentration of carbon dioxide is, in fact, a threat to human health.

Mercury occurs naturally in the environment. But when it is concentrated in the wrong places, it can be deadly. And we need to just be able to get to the heart of some of these issues and sweep aside some of these misrepresentations that, frankly, are dangerous, if they're not refuted.

We've been joined this evening by my colleague, Congressman Massa from New York, a Naval Academy graduate, a retired Navy commander, serves on a number of committees, but important for the discussion this evening, he's on the House Agriculture Committee, and on the subcommittee that deals with conservation, credit, energy and research, both in his committee assignment and the work that he's done, in his area of upstate New York, or not upstate, I'm not saying it right. I know where it is, to the west. And Congressman, we welcome some observations and comments that you would have.

Thank you, and I appreciate your bringing this home in very real terms about what the upside has been and what you have seen in Corning as making a difference. Your point about some of the newer Members of Congress, I think, is well taken.

I am struck by the range of talent that we've seen here this evening in terms of people who have been legislators, policymakers, businesspeople, musicians. We're about to hear from another colleague, Ben Ray Lujan from New Mexico. In a prior life, he was one of those people charged with actually getting it right in terms of regulation. He was chairman of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, and as commissioner, he worked to develop the renewable portfolio standard in New Mexico to increase their renewable energy production by New Mexico utilities to 20 percent by 2020. I'm hopeful that he can give some insights based on his experience as somebody who has been on the ground, working on it, bringing that knowledge to Congress.

We appreciate you making a critical point about the difference between the price in what people pay on the bill and your notion of how we are more energy efficient, we're smarter, we have competition and the benefits that you, through your leadership, did in New Mexico and now over half the States have gone ahead following. And hopefully it's time the Federal Government is able to do that as well.

I wonder, turning to Mr. Tonko, if, based on your experience, actually on the ground with work in the leadership in the legislative assembly of New York, chairing the committee and your work with the entity in New York dealing with energy efficiency, if there is something that stands out in your mind as an example that illustrates this principle that you think would give us a path of what we can expect in the future.

As we're winding down, I would like to turn again to my colleague, Congressman Hall.

Congressman Himes, any last words?

I appreciate your providing that context. I have been involved in the political process all my life. I have watched people meet challenges. I have watched people come up to the edge and simply not have the wherewithal to follow through.

This seems to me to be one of the areas that is most exciting because of the leadership that has been articulated here on the floor. We are finding that actually we have to run to keep up with the public. We have 906 cities across America that have decided they weren't going to wait for the Bush administration, they were moving forward. Each of us have cities, college campuses, churches and synagogues in our district that are rolling up their sleeves and willing to move forward, and I find that a truly exciting development.

As we are winding down, I see Congressman Massa. I appreciated your earlier eloquence and focusing in on what difference it made to your hometown. Do you have any concluding thoughts?

Well, you go, indeed, Mr. Massa.

Congressman Lujan.

Thank you, Congressman Lujan.

Congressman Hall, thank you so much, Congressman Himes, Congressman Tonko. We deeply appreciate your taking time out. It is only 7:36 back home in Oregon, but for you gentlemen, it is the end of a long day--or you are probably going back to your offices. And being willing to be part of this discussion tonight and the work that you are doing in the committees and providing the leadership, for me it is inspirational, and I deeply appreciate it.

I appreciate your focusing in on the economic benefits, even putting aside the problems that we are facing as a result of global warming, but the opportunities to help families reduce their utility bills, to live more comfortably, to create not just thousands of jobs or tens of thousands of jobs, we are talking literally about millions of jobs. And already, as you pointed out this evening, we are seeing the glimmer of what can happen as a result of the economic recovery package.

We are seeing that there are all sorts of advantages from simply moving forward apart from that, in terms of the cost savings, given the fact that energy costs are going to be going back up in the foreseeable future without question. And last, but not least, the cost of

inaction dwarfs the cost of action. The downside risk is truly chilling. We are seeing that mount. We have seen study after study that shows that the American economy risks losing trillions of dollars of productivity. And the relatively small amount that we would be investing to forestall disaster seems like a bargain.

I appreciate your willingness to join with us this evening. I hope that we will be able to continue this discussion, not just in our committees, but here on the floor, to be able to put the bigger picture together. And I look forward to continuing that conservation with you.

Mr. Speaker, we thank you for the opportunity to share this with the American people tonight and yield back our time.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act of 2009. As we approach health care reform, there is no other area more vital for honest discussion and careful analysis than what happens at a patient's end of life.

For most of us, the majority of our lifetime health care will be administered in that last year of life. Indeed for many, it is just the last few months where we will use the most doctor care, the most medical procedures, and the most days in a hospital.

Advances in healthcare have led to an aging population facing increasingly complex end of life health care decisions. These strains make complicated, critical decision making about medical care incredibly difficult. Too often, these decisions are avoided until a crisis occurs, resulting in inadequate planning, unknown patient preferences, and families left struggling with the burden of determining their loved ones' wishes. For both families and patients, this is a time of incredible stress, confusion, and pain.

In response, health organizations in Oregon came together in the early 1990s to develop the Physicians Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment program to help seriously ill patients identify their treatment preferences using a clear, standardized template. Written as actionable medical orders and signed by a physician, these forms help communicate patient preference to health care personnel regarding intensity of medical intervention, transfers to the hospital, use of antibiotics, artificially administered nutrition, and resuscitation.

National interest in Oregon's Physicians Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment program has spread and Oregon has become the national resource for states and communities interested in developing similar programs. Last year, California and New York enacted orders for life sustaining treatment programs and over thirty other states are developing programs.

We can and should do more to support these efforts to enhance quality patient care at the end of life. The Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act provides coverage under Medicare for consultations regarding orders for life sustaining treatment. These discussions add quality and value to patient care, but they often require significant time, proper training, and great delicacy, which merit compensation through Medicare. Medicare currently pays for acute care services provided to beneficiaries, but it does not specifically recognize the important benefit of informed discussions between patients and their health provider about care preferences for their last months and years of life.

The Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act also creates a grant program to support the development and expansion of these programs, providing necessary resources to states and local communities. These programs provide valuable services to patients, their families, and health care providers through educational materials; professional training on advance care planning; coordinating and collaborating with hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, hospice programs, home health agencies, and emergency medical services to implement such orders across the continuum of care; and monitoring the success of the program.

To be effective, advance care plans must ensure that treatment preferences are elicited and presented in a way that is recognized and respected by the health care community--orders for life sustaining treatment programs do just that. These programs have a track record of promoting patient autonomy through documenting and coordinating a person's treatment preferences, enhancing the authorized transfer of patient records between facilities, clarifying treatment intentions and minimizing confusion, reducing repetitive activities in complying with the Patient Self Determination Act, and facilitating appropriate treatment by emergency personnel. Oregon is nationally recognized for our exemplary end of life care and orders for life sustaining treatment have played a critical role providing quality, patient-centered care for those in their final chapter of life.

I am proud to introduce the Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act of 2009, which will lay the groundwork so all seriously ill Americans have the tools to make informed medical care decisions, convey their care plans as clearly as possible, and feel confident their wishes will be known and respected by health care personnel.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Healthy Workforce Act of 2009. In order to alleviate our public health crisis, we must make it easier for Americans to make small, easy choices that improve their overall health. With many Americans spending more than half of their day at work, it makes sense to encourage our places of employment to offer the information, opportunities and support they need to make healthy choices.

The Healthy Workforce Act provides companies with an up to fifty percent tax credit for implementing employee wellness programs. These programs can include, but are not limited to, health education or health risk assessments, behavioral change programs that encourage healthy lifestyles, such as classes on nutrition or smoking cessation, and to support environment changes to encourage employee participation. Programs like this have a myriad of positive benefits for personal health, employee productivity, workplace environment and the economy.

There can be no doubt that America is facing a public health crisis: 63 percent of Americans are overweight and 31 percent are obese. Even more alarming, according to the Surgeon General, obesity is responsible for 300,000 deaths per year. This crisis not only impacts the daily lives of many Americans, but the bottom line for American companies. Average employer medical costs increased 72 percent between 2000 and 2006, with some companies spending more than fifty percent of their profits on employee health care expenses. Employers are increasingly bearing the costs of diet-related chronic disease and obesity through employer-provided health care plans and indirectly through higher rates of absenteeism, decreased productivity and higher health care costs. Obesity related health conditions cost employers approximately $33 billion in health care and other indirect costs.

The Healthy Workforce Act of 2009 will make it easier for companies to encourage their employees to make healthy decisions and in turn, decrease health care costs for employers, employees, and taxpayers.

We're going to hear more of our friends from the other side of the aisle talk about their budget proposal today. It's ironic that they're proposing things that they couldn't, wouldn't enact when they ran everything.

But one of the things I find most distressing is their repeated falsehood about some $3,100 increase in taxes on the American people based on research done by MIT. They talked about it four times again last night.

Talking to Professor John Reilly, who actually did the 2007 study, indicates that they are using an intentional misrepresentation of the study. In fact, when somebody from the Republicans ``called me on March 20 and asked about it, I explained why the estimate was incorrect and what they could do to correct it.''

The actual number is one-fortieth of what the Republicans are talking about. And the fact is that in the budget we have an opportunity for people who want to be legislators--not communicators--to help us allocate how those benefits will be utilized.

Will the gentleman yield on this point?

I really appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak to this, because I endured this through the Budget Committee. I didn't say anything in the Budget Committee. I've listened to it on the floor.

Does the gentleman know where the $3,100 figure comes from? Does the gentleman know?

I yield.

Does the gentleman know where the $3,100 figure comes from, that your leadership----

Okay. This $3,100 figure that has been cited by Republican leadership, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and referenced, I

thought the gentleman from California would talk about it coming from MIT. That's where it came from, and his colleagues have referenced it repeatedly on the floor. This is from research by MIT professor John Reilly, done in 2007.

Republican staffers at one point, since they were citing it, called him and he said, and I quote, ``called me March 20 and asked about this. I had to explain why the estimate they had was incorrect, and what they should do to correct it. But I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time.'' He pointed out that it actually was one-tenth of that figure, it was a net welfare that was going to be $300 per person, that the Republicans are intentionally misrepresenting the research from MIT.

Now, I would suggest that it's further flawed because we have, in the budget, left this element to be worked on by people who want a legend. But this canard ought to be rejected.

Okay. I want it to be clear. I didn't say it would be worked out. I said that the study that you and Republicans have repeatedly cited----

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to clarify that the professor who's being referenced by your leadership said that it would be one-fortieth of that amount.

Will the gentleman yield?

What do you think, assuming that it is one-fortieth or larger, what do you think happens to that money?

Will the gentleman yield?

The budget doesn't have anything for the rebates because the program isn't in the budget. The budget allows----

No. Give me the courtesy----

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

In attempting not to be a potted plant but to respond, there is no detail in terms of a cap-and-trade proposal. There is an----

The purpose of a budget resolution is to provide a framework, and if the House and the Senate provide a framework that involves a fee on carbon pollution, then we will have the chance to work our will. There is, in this bill, a framework to move forward.

Madam Speaker, nobody can make guarantees, but the framework is to allow the body to work its will. There's no tax. There's an opportunity for us to have a framework to fight carbon pollution.

Thank you. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this.

It was interesting here to watch the exchange on the floor where my good friend, the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, had to instruct my friend from Texas--I guess who's left the floor--about who is a socialist and who isn't.

It's no small point that people on the other side who are offering their world view don't actually know who our allies are and who runs two of the top eight economies in the world. It's the same sort of disregard for facts that has encouraged them to willfully misrepresent the costs of coming to grips with global warming and carbon pollution. And in fact, the chair of the Global Climate Committee Program at MIT had to send a letter to the Republican leader explaining that they are misleading people by attaching a $3,000 figure, indicating that that is grossly out of proportion and depends entirely on what would happen with a much smaller burden.

The point is, under the progressive budget, under the other Democratic alternatives, these moneys would be returned to people to reduce their energy costs, create green jobs. There was a time when conservatives would be worried about cost overruns in the Department of Defense and wasteful spending on Cold War weapons. That time is not now.

It's why I support these budgets and urge the rejection of the Republican alternatives.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

Today, you are going to have an opportunity to listen to debate from our friends on the other side of the aisle on an alternative that seems too good to be true, and in fact it is, because they are proposing today a budget alternative that they never imposed when they had control of all the levers of power: Additional tax cuts that are outmoded and discredited, and we can't afford; and, most important, cutting aid to Americans most in need, students, the elderly, the sick, disabled, assaulting our environment, the elements that are so important as we are fighting, with our new President, to try and get the economy back on track and moving forward.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a distinguished member of our leadership.

It is interesting that my friend from Louisiana didn't vote for those budget deficits in the past because he wasn't in Congress. But if he had been here and joined with the Republican majority, he would have voted for them. That is what got us into this fix.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a new Member who wasn't a part of this in the past, but is working on solutions in the future.

I'm happy to yield on your time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I will take 15 seconds, if I may, before recognizing the gentleman from New York.

What I said was the gentleman didn't vote for it because he wasn't here. But if he was and voted with the majority of Republicans, he would have been part of that problem.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I yield myself 15 seconds just to point out to my good friend from Georgia that he confuses the marginal rate with the rate that corporations actually pay. Thirty-five percent is the marginal rate. If he looks at how much American corporations actually pay, because almost nobody pays the marginal rate because of the loopholes, it is down to about 5 percent. It's the second lowest of the top 20 economies.

I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the real State of Washington, not Oregon, and a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Larsen.

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining for both sides.

Thank you.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Madam Chair, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Chair, I will yield myself the remainder of the time.

Thank you.

It is interesting listening to my other friends because, when they had their hands on the levers of power--of the Presidency and of Congress--they engineered the massive debt that the President inherited with a combination of tax cuts for people who needed it the least and with a rate of spending increase that was greater than Lyndon Johnson's in the Great Society. Not only was it greater than Bill Clinton's spending, but it was greater than Lyndon Johnson's in the Great Society.

Now, all of a sudden, when they're out of power, they're suggesting that they're going to do something that they never did when they had control. They're proposing a massive, across-the-board cut of about $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Now, this is serious money, dealing with serious programs that the American people count on, and they count on them today more than ever before: Pell Grants, food stamps, nutrition activities, health care for low-income people, Medicare.

Madam Chair, the range of activities that would be subjected to the budget knife--again, that they never did when they were in control but that they propose to do now--would have the impact of scaling down our growth and our activities, and it would put the burden on those who can least afford it.

When it comes to taxes, well, they're back to the same old story. They want to make permanent tax cuts that we found out were not affordable in the form that they passed them, and worse, they would increase taxes on about a quarter of the Americans who are lower income Americans.

Madam Chair, in the Democratic budget, there are no tax increases this year. We understand that it's not appropriate to raise taxes.

I will yield on your time.

I will yield on your time.

In this budget that we are going to be offering up, there are no tax increases. The House of Representatives, in its wisdom, did recently approve a tobacco tax increase that provides health care for 4 million American children, something that the last Congress passed, and there were bipartisan votes who supported that because that's good for Americans.

What we are seeing in paychecks this month across America is that 95 percent of the people are witnessing the promise of a reduction in taxes being delivered by President Obama and this Congress. This is for 95 percent of the American people.

I find it interesting the rhetoric about bureaucrats running health care. In fact, my friend from North Carolina just pointed out that they protect the bureaucrats running health care for veterans. They protect the veterans with the program.

I will yield on your time only. I have very few minutes left.

Madam Chair, health care is one of these critical areas. There is nothing in the Democratic budget that suggests we're going

to turn over to some shadowy, bureaucratic influence a bureaucratic mechanism that's going to control Americans' health care.

What President Obama has suggested and what we've been discussing in our Ways and Means Committee, for instance, is having an opportunity for more choices for Americans, including some that are subsidized by the Federal Government to help fill some of these gaps.

It's interesting that, on one hand, they'll talk about something that isn't true--the shadowy bureaucratic control of health care--while they kind of conveniently forget that some of the best health care in America is provided by government, itself, by government bureaucrats, if you will, in the Veterans Administration. It's a little embarrassing to watch this schizophrenia that our friends are engaged in.

One of the most insidious portions of both of these budgets is to be found in taking back the recovery funds that States across America are counting on for economic recovery. I suggest that's a mistake as well and another reason to reject the Republican alternative.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

My friends on the other side of the aisle--and I attempted to claim the attention of my friend from Arizona when not once but twice today he talked about somehow a $600 billion tax on the American people. I was trying to get his attention to refer to the reserve funds on page 53 for him to look at to find where that number is. Where is that number in the budget proposal before us?

The reserve fund has no number. It is on page 53.

I only have a few seconds.

The point is, the people ought to look at the budget, at the reserve fund.

And find that it is deficit-neutral, and that the opportunity is here for us to address the climate change. I strongly urge that people refer to it.

Madam Chairman, I have listened to my friend, Mr. Ryan, whom I deeply respect, but am taken aback by his introduction. He's concerned that we're having the debate this evening. This is why we call it prime time. This is when you stage the Academy Awards, the Super Bowl, things you want America to see.

But I could understand why they would want it during the day when people are working and not listening to this debate because they want, as Mr. Ryan says, to go back to the America they grew up in, the policies of the Fifties, the energy policies of the Sixties, the fraying infrastructure of years ago.

This is a budget that points to today's problems with solutions for the future, a carbon-constrained economy where carbon pollution will no longer be free, and we can actually create the jobs they're talking about.

Remember the last time you heard them in high dudgeon; it's when the Democrats controlled everything and we passed that awful Clinton budget that produced, not the doom they called for, but sustained prosperity.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy because this budget represents a reinvestment in our Nation's public lands, infrastructure, and energy independence. It is a visionary budget that will help renew and rebuild America while protecting the environment. The Republicans tomorrow will present not one but two budgets that would shortchange those very environmental protections.

We propose rather than continue to ignore the dangers of climate change, which the Republicans have done for the last 8 years, an unprecedented coalition, we join with to urge carbon pollution no longer be free to be dumped into our environment by establishing a reserve fund for energy and climate change that leaves the opportunity for committees of jurisdiction to pass legislation to reduce greenhouse gases at least for those who are going to be legislators and not just communicators.

A strong investment in the area of energy and environment is important at a time when a third of our Nation's waters don't meet water quality standards, over 150 million people live in areas that exceed EPA's air pollution standards, and 76 million people live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. Tomorrow, the Republicans will give not one but two budgets that will shortchange those initiatives.

We have water systems, transportation systems, levee systems that are tested. We've seen it on television just this week, and the challenges of the 21st century demand a renewed national focus on ensuring the soundness of those programs. Tomorrow, the Republicans will propose two budgets to shortchange them.

Instead, Madam Chair, I suggest strongly that we work on moving forward with this budget, with agencies like the EPA and the Department of the Interior, to get back to improving air, water quality, preserving public lands, cleaning up toxic waste, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and reverse the damage of the last 8 years, while we create millions of jobs and strengthen our communities and protect the planet.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to vote ``yes'' on the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. This bill will designate more than 2 million acres of wilderness in nine states, including 127,000 acres on Mt. Hood and in the Columbia River Gorge. It also includes wilderness protection for other Oregon treasures in the Cascade Siskiyou, Oregon Badlands, Spring Basin, and Copper Salmon areas.

It is worth noting that in addition to wilderness on Mt. Hood, the legislation contains nearly 80 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, including stretches of Fish Creek, which contains crucial habitat for endangered fish, the East Fork of the Hood River, where wildlife habitat and low impact recreation opportunities abound, and Fifteen Mile Creek, another critical area for fish and wildlife, recreation, and scenic beauty. The bill designates 34,000 acres of new National Recreation Areas in the Mt. Hood National Forest and creates a long term transportation plan to address the challenges of getting to and from the mountain. It also directs the Forest Service to participate in three land conveyances. These exchanges will provide additional protection for the North side of Mt. Hood, the Pacific Crest Trail, and a parcel of land that is critical to the community in Clackamas County.

In 2003, I worked with other members of the Oregon delegation to hold a Mt. Hood Summit at Timberline Lodge, inviting local stakeholders to share their vision for the challenges and opportunities facing the Mt. Hood National Forest. Over the past six years a committed group of citizens, organizations, Native Americans, local, state and federal jurisdictions, and private interests have spent countless hours negotiating a long term stewardship and protection plan for Mt. Hood's forests and rivers.

Oregonians have worked tirelessly and waited years to have these treasured natural areas protected. I am extremely pleased that the hard work of so many committed local stakeholders is coming to fruition, and I hope that we pass this bill today and send it swiftly to President Obama for his signature.