Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the budget that President Obama submitted to Congress last week calls for the reinstatement of the ``polluter pays'' principle for the Superfund program.

As someone who has been dealing with a Superfund site in my district for over 20 years, I am pleased that the President has added his important voice to this cause. I have introduced H.R. 564, the Superfund Reinvestment Act, which would implement his recommendations. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor it.

The Superfund program was created in 1980 to provide money to clean up the Nation's worst hazard sites where the party responsible for polluting was out of business or could not be identified. Superfund sites contain toxic contaminants that have been detected in drinking water wells, creeks and rivers, backyards and playgrounds all across America. Indeed, about 1 in 4 Americans lives within 4 miles of a Superfund site.

Communities impacted by these sites can face restrictions on water use and recreational activities as well as economic losses as property values decline due to contaminated land. In the worst cases, residents of the community can face serious health problems such as cardiac impact, infertility, low birth rates, birth defects, leukemia, and other cancers and respiratory difficulties.

Approximately 30 percent of these sites are considered ``orphan'' sites where a responsible party cannot be found, cannot pay or refuses to pay. In these cases, the Superfund trust fund is tapped to help pay for the cleanup. That Superfund program has contributed to the cleanup of over 1,000 sites across America.

Before the tax expired in 1995, the money for the Superfund trust fund came mainly from taxes on the polluters, themselves--the oil and chemical companies--that profited from the sale or use of the chemicals being cleaned up. Because Congress in the past has not reauthorized the taxes, the rate of cleanup for Superfund sites has declined, and the burden for funding the cleanup of these toxic waste sites now falls on the shoulders of all tax-paying Americans, not those who were responsible for it.

By 2003, the balance in the Superfund trust fund had dwindled to zero, delaying 29 sites around the country. Today, the Superfund relies heavily on scarce general fund revenues, increasing the burden on American taxpayers at a time when cleanup costs are increasing. The lack of funding also reduces the EPA's leverage in forcing companies to clean up after their own sites. The delay has resulted in greater health risks to people living near Superfund sites. It has resulted in increased damage to local communities as sites remain a drain on the local tax base, and in the long run, it results in higher ultimate cleanup costs.

One of the sites that has experienced delay due to the EPA's lack of funding is the Portland Harbor Superfund site in my district, officially a Superfund site in December of 2000 but a source of concern for years. The sources of contamination include former and current industrial operations and, indeed, the Federal Government, itself, because of World War II shipbuilding.

While a number of potentially responsible parties, such as the Port of Portland and the Northwest Natural Gas Company, have stepped forward to begin the cleanup process, it is expected that much of the pollution at the Portland Harbor site will be unaccounted for. Normally, this orphan share would be paid by the Superfund. Since there is no money in the fund, the EPA may decide to distribute the liability to those already identified responsible parties, significantly increasing their cleanup costs and serving as a disincentive for people to come forward and help voluntarily. This may be one of the largest and costliest in the program's history, but it is but one example around the country.

Many of the responsible parties are eager to clean up actions on the site, but the EPA has not even issued a record of decision to clean it up. The EPA tells us this record of decision is about 3 to 5 years away, which basically has been the same story for the past 9 years, in part, because we don't have the resources. In the meantime, contamination is negatively impacting navigation and redevelopment activities around the region, not to mention threatening the health and safety of those who live around the river.

Portland Harbor is one of many examples of sites around the country that will benefit from reinstating the Superfund taxes. Until it expired in 1995, the Superfund tax generated about $1.7 billion a year to clean up these hazardous areas.

I hope that my colleagues will work with me to ensure that the polluters, not the general fund taxpayers, clean up our country's most hazardous waste sites by cosponsoring the Superfund Reinvestment Act,

Madam Speaker, President Kennedy, speaking 48 years ago at the

establishment of the Peace Corps, remarked that, ``The initial reactions to the Peace Corps proposal are convincing proof that we have, in this country, an immense reservoir of such men and women-- anxious to sacrifice their energies and time and toil to the cause of world peace and human progress.'' As the proud father of a Peace Corps volunteer, I know what was true in 1961 is true today; Peace Corps Volunteers are an outstanding group of men and women serving the cause of humanity across the globe.

During this National Peace Corps Week, I want to honor the service and commitment of the Peace Corps Volunteers from Oregon's 3rd Congressional district and express my pride in my fellow Oregonians who have chosen to devote years of their lives in service to others.

In particular, I want to recognize those Peace Corps Volunteers who have begun their service in the past year: Laura Baetscher (Honduras); Laura Bradford (Belize); Meaghan Corwin (Armenia); Paul Council (Moldova); Reianna Darosa (Guatemala); Anna Dinh (Cameroon); Alana Harris (Guatemala); Matthew Jones (Malawi); Daniel Koza (Uganda); Serene Loh (Botswana); Elizabeth Nolan (Nicaragua); David Schilmoeller (Bulgaria); Lacey Sugarman (Uganda); Allison Wells (Jordan); and Erik Wells (Jordan).

Their work to empower people and communities in developing countries is an invaluable contribution to creating a safe and prosperous world, building bridges between America and the world, and establishing a better future for people everywhere.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this just as I appreciate his hard work and leadership.

We hear our Republican friends from the other side of the aisle who talk about their hearts going out to people across the country who are facing the tragedy of losing their homes. They have their home mortgage under water, in circumstances beyond their control in a system that has systematically destroyed the ability of people to be able to actually voluntarily deal with a modification of their loan as my friend, the chairman, mentioned. This legislation steps forward to restructure the relationship, to be able to have the modification. But most importantly, it is the fastest, least expensive way to cut through the thicket of these issues.

Now, I hear people talking about cramdown provisions. It's exactly the same provision that Donald Trump is going to have the next time he goes bankrupt on his fourth vacation home. I've got a situation in my community, and it's much worse on the gold coast of Florida, or in Las Vegas, or in some places in California, where we have condominia, where there are people who bought three, four, five units as investments. Then there is somebody who has the misfortune of just buying it to live in. The investor, the speculator can have the ``cramdown'' provision, he can have the terms modified, with the interest rate reduced, the balance reduced, but the poor person who just is living in his or her home is stuck. Doesn't sound to me like their hearts are going out to the people who are in trouble. That's not equitable. If we had had these provision in law before, we never would have securitized goofy loans and had this pyramid scheme start in the first place.

I salute the committee's work; I'm proud to support it. It is going to make a big difference, and everybody should vote for it.

Mr. Chair, this bill is a significant step in the right direction for all Americans struggling to pay their mortgages.

Today, our economy is facing a real and growing crisis, threatening the longest period of economic stagnation since the Great Depression. Nowhere is that problem more evident than in the wave of home foreclosures. In my state, the foreclosure rate is below the national average but continues to rise. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, more than 20,000 new foreclosures will be initiated in Oregon in 2009.

These foreclosures affect neighbors who may have paid off their mortgages long ago and communities whose tax bases are eroding quickly, creating a vicious cycle of house price declines, defaults, and foreclosures.

I would like to highlight the bankruptcy provisions in this bill. Providing the bankruptcy courts with the authority to reduce the principal owed on mortgages, reduce interest rates, and reduce fees is a crucial victory for consumers.

Under those provisions, the bill provides bankruptcy courts with the same options for the treatment of primary residences that are already available to the courts for second homes, vacation homes, and investment property.

It makes absolutely no sense that Donald Trump can have the mortgage of his fourth vacation home modified to more acceptable terms if he goes bankrupt, but that John and Jane Doe living in their primary residence of Anywhere, USA, are not afforded this help.

Another key set of provisions are the improvements to the Hope for Homeowners program. Under the Bush Administration, that program--while touted as a lifeline for struggling homeowners--did not insure a single loan.

This bill opens the door to participation by homeowners by reducing insurance premiums, easing requirements for lenders to participate, and defraying some of the costs of refinancing mortgages.

Overall, this legislation is a good step in the right direction, but we cannot take our eye off the ball, and I will continue working with my colleagues to addressing these challenges.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

Listening to my friend from Indiana talking about funny money and fiscal responsibility, well, you know, we didn't hear that from you when those on the other side ran the economy into the ditch for the last 8 years, turning a $5 trillion surplus into a massive budget deficit. If he would have listened to the President last night, he would have

heard that the President said the economic recovery package had no earmarks. Now, even though this Omnibus has one-fourth of the earmarks that the previous Republican crew had when they ran the place, the President wasn't talking about today's bill. He was talking about the economic stimulus.

I appreciate the hard work of the committee in bringing this forward. As we know, this work was largely done last year but we had a President that was running out the clock. He wouldn't work with the committee to deal with then what our established budget resolution was. He wanted more Draconian cuts. The committee wisely sidestepped that, moved forward with a new Congress and a new administration. This $410 billion package works in harmony with the economic recovery package, and I am pleased that it refocuses on the pieces that matter.

I have got a little provision in here that makes a difference for my community, a broadly supported effort for $45 million to revitalize our community with a Portland streetcar, something that's gaining attention across the country. People look at this as an opportunity to rebuild and renew, create jobs, revitalize community. It also contains important funding provisions for Public Broadcasting that will allow our hometowns to continue to invest in quality, commercial-free, educational, and cultural programming. It continues the investment in renewable energy.

I would like to conclude by paying special tribute to the committee and especially Chairwoman Lowey for her success in raising the profile and investment in international clean water and sanitation.

Mr. Speaker, we came together with bipartisan legislation in 2005, the Water for the Poor Act, but Congress didn't put any significant money in it. There was less than $10 million for all of Sub-Saharan Africa. This year there is $300 million to implement the Water for the Poor Act, and a significant investment in Sub-Saharan Africa. It's going to mean that hundreds of thousands of lives are going to be saved and the United States is going to be regarded differently around the world.

Simple, common sense, should have been done years ago, is going to be done now, and I appreciate the committee's hard work.

Yesterday, the House engaged in a vigorous debate on the captive primate bill, H.R. 80, which would prohibit the interstate transport of chimpanzees and other monkeys across State borders. It was fascinating listening to the give-and-take on the floor of the House. The argument against the bill seemed to center on two points:

One was that this bill was not the most important thing that we could possibly be considering at the time. The second was that it would not stop the ability of some people to have a chimpanzee as a pet in their own homes.

I found it interesting because the notion that somehow this measure is not the most important issue is true. Congress deals with thousands of issues in a wide range of areas--from passing budgets, to dealing with the national debt, to recovering our economy, to naming post offices, to dealing with protections for the environment.

There are a wide range. One of the things why we have 435 of us here and 100 Senators is because we can do more than one thing at once.

But I will tell you, the woman who is in the hospital in Cleveland, who had her face ripped off by a chimpanzee last week, would probably think, along with her family and friends, that it might be important to deal with the safety of Americans, over 100 of whom

have been attacked by primates in the last 10 years . . . 100 that we know of. The most important issue of the world? Maybe not, until tragedy strikes your family or your community.

The second notion, that somehow it would not magically stop overnight the ability to have a wild animal, that is not domesticated, that has no business being treated as a pet in somebody's home, is an excuse not to act. That betrays lack of knowledge of what we have done dealing with animal welfare for the last 50 years.

To be able to deal with frameworks moving forward, establishing protections is important. In 2003 we dealt with the problem of having large cats, tigers, lions, panthers that people kept as pets. We're also going to have to do something in the long run with other inappropriate pets like crocodiles and pythons.

These are not trivial items. This is not appropriate treatment for some of God's creatures, and they put families at risk. We in Congress should establish these frameworks to avoid future problems.

The most important point is that, if the provisions of our bill had been established policy, that poor woman wouldn't be in a hospital in Cleveland because the monkey that attacked her would not have been shipped from Missouri (along with others that were disbursed around the country) to Connecticut to her neighbor.

I would suggest that it's important for people to take a step back and look at critical areas of animal welfare and the relationship that we have with them. It is important to pass this legislation, as the House did overwhelmingly last session, only to have it die in the Senate. It's important to pass it again, but it's also important for people to be able to deal with establishing an appropriate framework for relationships with animals so that it doesn't have to become the most important thing in the world for one family or one community. Instead, we have a logical, rational set of policies that are good for the welfare of animals, that protect our families and have the Federal Government playing its appropriate role.

Already 20 States around the country have done their job with an outright prohibition. It's time for the Federal Government to amend the Lacey Act to extend the protections dealing with captive primates, to help in a small but critical way make all our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill and her leadership in guiding it to the floor once again.

We often speak of an idea whose time has come. Today's legislation is long overdue. Even though the Captive Primate Safety Act passed the House overwhelmingly last session, it was one of those bills alluded to by my friend from Utah that went to the other body to die. I hope that today our vote will at least be nearly unanimous, overwhelmingly again, and the Senate follow our lead. This is a critical step in terms of protection of the public. The gentlewoman referenced the last week's horrific chimpanzee attack that brings renewed urgency to the legislation before us.

I am a little frustrated when I hear my distinguished colleague attempt to belittle the import of this bill. It is common sense that exotic species or animals destined for the food chain are treated not just as an animal welfare issue but as a human welfare issue. Animal welfare legislation is about far more than merely treating God's creatures with the dignity and respect that is their due. How we treat these animals in our community reflects a lot on our own values and who we are.

Last week's attack shows what can happen when primates are treated like pets rather than a wild animal. It's not an isolated instance. There have been 100 attacks on humans by primates in the last 10 years, 29 of which involved children.

We don't know why the chimpanzee that had been treated like a member of the household snapped. We don't know what prompted the act, but we do know the results. And, indeed, all the money my friend decreed will be spent and more trying to deal with this one woman who was horrifically maimed. And it could have been much worse. What if the rampage had taken place near a school, if the officers hadn't responded quickly, or if the chimpanzee in question had been infected with one of the many diseases they commonly carry? Primates should be added to the Lacey Act prohibition just as we added lions, tigers, and other big cats in 2003 with the passage of the Wildlife Safety Act.

There is this notion somehow that we will just sit back, let the States provide legislation protection or not. Well,

we didn't do that with the big cats, appropriately so, and already it is not just illegal to import primates into the United States, but it's outlawed by 20 States. But primates are still readily available. Exactly the same way we have worked to deal with horrific consequences of animal fighting, which used to be legal in the various and sundry States, first dog fighting was made illegal, then cockfighting in a variety of States, but the prohibition of interstate transfer and making it a Federal misdemeanor was an important part of providing a chain of protection. When these animals can be regularly transported across State lines, they can be sold over the Internet, it's very difficult to have a pattern of protection.

I salute the animal welfare advocates for their efforts. At times people are dismissive of one element or another, but the total package here is very important. With thousands of primates exposed to people around the country, we are in a situation where we have an opportunity to take the next important step. It is the least we can do to extend the protections of the Lacey Act. When we treat animals properly, respect the fact that they are not like us, that their needs are not being met, dressed up in tutus or taught to drink wine from wine glasses. The Lacey Extension Act will overnight stop the trade in animals that have no business being household pets. It will mean that the Federal Government is doing all we can to protect our citizens from attack and from disease. And, hopefully, this will be another step in a framework of protection where the 30 States that still allow primates as pets, including a number that have no regulation whatsoever, will be inspired to join the Federal Government and the 20 States which outlaw them entirely. In the meantime we are stopping this trade.

I will be happy to yield.

I appreciate the gentleman's inquiry. And let me explain. I will use the analogy that I just made on the floor with animal fighting. Dog fighting and cockfighting used to be commonly accepted activities. There were those in this Chamber who fought against having Federal protections to stop it. And what we saw is that when we don't have the Federal protections, when we rely on inadequate activities across State borders, there are many States that don't step up, that don't provide the protection, and if it isn't a serious enough element, the Federal Government doesn't deploy enforcement tactics. In fact, I think it was in your home State of Georgia that we finally had a horrific example of Michael Vick and animal fighting that finally drove the point home and raised the profile of that issue.

Now, what we are going to have to do is to provide a framework of protection to move to where we are, in fact, actually taking seriously this responsibility. And it is not a case of monkey bites, and people are dismissing it, that it's not important, we will just leave it to the State. Obviously, there are some States that aren't stepping up and providing protection.

I want it to be clear because this is an important step. It doesn't solve it overnight, but if we had moved earlier, provided protection, stopped the interstate transfer, put the spotlight on how serious this is, maybe, maybe we would have had States move forward to do what the other 20 States have done, to outlaw them. And when we get to this point where we have a framework of protection, licensing, and outlawing, we are not going to have a place where a neighbor called in distress comes forward and has her face ripped off. This monkey would not have been shipped from Missouri and the victim would not be in Cleveland getting a face transplant.

I sincerely hope that you and other skeptics look at what is happening around the country and revise the notion that this isn't a serious problem, that instead the Federal Government ought to do all it can to stop it, that States ought to step forward and prohibit it, and in so doing all our families will be safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

I yield.

I appreciate the suggestion.

What I'm saying precisely is that having a Federal framework to stop the transport of animals that are dangerous, that are not household pets is an important first step. This is, in fact, serious business. You can make the same argument, you can make exactly the same argument, about prohibiting big cats from being transferred. Just let it go. This is something that can be handled on the State level, that animal fighting is something that can just be handled on the State level and there is no role to play because you're still going to have problems. I respectfully suggest that contrary to your assertion that by having a framework for big cats, having a framework for animal fighting, and now for dangerous primates that should not be routinely treated like the traffic of household pets is an important step to protect the public. It was important for the big cats. It was important for cockfighting and dog fighting. And I think it's important that we do what we can to stop the potential of additional problems from primates and by not having them move in interstate commerce to be trafficking around the country. This is an important step for regulation and control.

I think it's an important step forward. It's why there was an overwhelming vote last session, why it's supported by zoo keepers, animal welfare, research. This is, as I say, Mr. Speaker, legislation whose time has passed.

I would think what we saw in Connecticut is an example of why we need to be serious about the role that these primates play. They aren't pets. The Federal Government should not facilitate their treatment as pets to the 30 States that still, sadly, permit them in households, and many of them that don't have any regulatory controls at all.

We will be doing our part today to do what the Federal Government can do to prevent such tragedies in the future, but I think it is an important signal for State legislatures around the country to step up and provide protection for their communities to prevent these activities, and I think it's critically important that we are part of an effort to inform the public of this problem.

Thank you again.

I don't want to belabor this, but I find no small amount of irony that my good friend from Utah is saying, well, we shouldn't be wasting time with this, we should be dealing with the major issues of the day, really the critical things. And then I look down the agenda and, lo and behold, he has two items on the suspension calendar that he is sponsoring that are coming forward, and I don't know that they meet the test that he just made of things that are going to shake the roots of the democracy and move forward to solve all our economic and global problems.

We can, as they say, do more than one thing at once. We have a variety of

things that may not be earthshaking for everybody and deal with the future of the republic, but are important business none the less. That's why you put them on the suspension calendar to move them forward and that is why I have done so with this bill.

I want to just conclude with the notion, though, of the framework, and the dismissive notion of, you know, animal bites. I would respectfully suggest that having your face ripped off is not the same as just an animal bite, a nip here or a scratch there. We are dealing with animals that have the potential of inflicting serious damage and death.

We have a patchwork framework right now where the States, some have stepped up and recognized the responsibility and the danger to their citizens and have outlawed it. Others are starting to move in this direction and have some registration, for example.

But what we do with this legislation is provide a framework so that it is possible to actually have some enforcement. But what I mentioned in terms of the analogy, and I am sorry I wasn't clear to my friend from Georgia, that when you don't have a framework, when States are free to do whatever they want and you can transport things across State borders, it undercuts the abilities of the States that are trying to protect their citizens like with animal fighting. With all due respect, this provides a framework to start making this enforcement work. Even if you disagree, if this bill had been the law of the land, the chimp in the most recent attack would never have been shipped from Missouri and an unfortunate woman would still have her face.

Mr. Speaker, I support the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. While this legislation is not perfect, it marks a strong response to the economic challenges faced by Oregon's hard-working families and it deserves support. In particular, I would like to highlight several elements of the legislation that are important to Oregonians and to the nation.

This legislation will create 3.5 million jobs and will give 95 percent of American workers an immediate tax cut. The bill also offers significant tax relief to homebuyers, manufacturers, and small businesses.

The legislation provides a significant extension of unemployment benefits, provides aid to Oregon to modernize our unemployment system and expand its coverage, and helps unemployed workers maintain their healthcare coverage.

This legislation puts a down payment on a much-needed investment in roads, bridges, mass transit, energy efficient buildings, flood control, clean water projects, and other infrastructure projects. These efforts will begin rebuilding and renewing America.

The legislation invests in health information technology to modernize our health care system and improve health outcomes. This investment will put people to work and will create a more efficient, effective health care system with fewer deaths, fewer complications, and lower health care costs.

The economic recovery package also represents a leap forward for the nation's clean energy economy. It includes about $37.5 billion in funding for energy programs, almost double the Energy Department's typical entire annual budget, and more than 10 times the amount normally spent on conservation and renewable energy. It also includes about $20 billion in tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable programs, which I helped design as a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Oregon is known for the progress that we have made developing a new energy future and for the innovative ways that we approach healthcare, sustainability, and transportation. This legislation will buttress those endeavors, while creating jobs and easing the economic impacts on those already hard hit. So, while I retain concerns about elements of the legislation, I feel strongly that we must seize this opportunity to rescue our economy and transform it to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.

I take some delight in listening to my friend from Texas rail about the government not being able to spend money it doesn't have. Yet these Republicans are the people who have been spending money the government didn't have for years, putting a war in Iraq on our children's credit card, putting massive tax cuts in place to benefit a tiny portion of the tax-paying public and ignoring the needs of the vast majority. They have been on a spending binge under the Bush administration and Republican control to fund special interests and ``bridges to nowhere.''

We invite anybody to look at the proposals that have been advanced. It is to stimulate the economy, to help stop the economic free-fall in our States, to shore up the problems in States from Michigan to Oregon to Florida, to keep the promises that the President made during the campaign, and most of all, to stop the wasteful spending for special interests and focus it on the taxpayers who need it the most.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this resolution as I appreciate his leadership in these areas.

As I listened to my colleague a moment ago conclude her comments, one could be confused a little bit about why we are here. We are here celebrating the engineering profession. But it is interesting in the context of stimulating the economy and rebuilding and renewing America the role that our engineers have played. Just last week, the American Society of Civil Engineers introduced their report card. Every 5 years they provide a snapshot of the role that infrastructure plays in this country. Last week, their report card graded infrastructure in the United States as a D. And the gap of meeting the infrastructure needs just for the next 5 years has increased from $1.6 trillion to $2.2 trillion.

I have appreciated over the years working with the engineering profession. One of the most rewarding portions of my career was 10 years as Portland, Oregon's Commissioner of Public Works, where working with people in the engineering profession to deal with long-term value, environmental protection, and the infrastructure for transportation, safety, environmental protection are invaluable.

For us to take a little time recognizing on the floor of the House the role that this profession has played in helping us do our job, if each Member of this body would spend time at home working with their local engineers, thinking about the challenges that they face with clean air, clean water and transportation in their own communities, they would have greater confidence in coming back and supporting a robust economic stimulus package, but one that deals with the future of this country.

I hope that people take the time to listen to the men and women who are working with local business and with local governments to understand the fix that we are in. If we're ever going to restore a robust economy and prepare with protecting the future of the planet while we deal with the liveability of our communities now and making our families safe, healthy and economically secure, it will be in large measure because we're able to link with and to utilize the power of this profession, people who are there working with us to try and get it right.

So I rise in support of this resolution. I salute the engineers that I have had the privilege to work with over the years. And I strongly urge my colleagues not just to vote for the resolution, but to go home and work with and listen to the engineers at home, because they have got a prescription for restoring our economy, rebuilding America's future and making all our families safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Multi- Modal Transport Benefit and Technical Corrections Act,'' a bill that encourages flexibility for employees and employers hoping to take advantage of the bike commuter tax benefit created in last year's financial rescue package. The bill also makes small technical changes to the program.

This legislation amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employees to receive transportation fringe benefits for the same month both in the form of transit passes and reimbursements of qualified bicycle commuting expenses. It offers smarter, more flexible benefits without imposing additional costs on employers or taxpayers, as the multi-modal benefits fall under existing caps for transit.

Allowing individuals to choose how to commute to work, and providing parity to those who choose alternative methods of transportation, simply makes sense. Bike commuters--who burn calories instead of gasoline, emit fewer fossil fuels and have a much smaller impact on our roads and transport systems than most other commuters--should at the very least have the same access to fringe benefits that their car driving colleagues enjoy. The ``Multi-Modal Transport Benefit and Technical Corrections Act'' will level the playing field for bike commuters and ensure smooth application of the bike commuter tax benefit for employers.

I am proud to introduce this bill today and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, Oregon lost a remarkable leader last week with the passing of Wendell Wyatt. He was a man who served his country in the FBI and the Marine Corps. He was a citizen volunteer and a leader of his political party. He also served for 10 distinguished years here in this Chamber. A Republican who could manage partisan clashes as well as chair a Presidential campaign, he was skillful in bringing people together. He shared his progressive insights from the hard-headed perspective of a principled conservative. I will miss his wit, intellect and insight, but will always cherish his friendship.

Madam Speaker, I just listened to my friend from Colorado expound upon the problems of deficit spending. Well, he's absolutely right about the deficit spending from the Republican administration and Congress. They piled up debt with tax cuts for people who didn't need it, a reckless war in Iraq on a credit card.

This package that's coming before us today is actually doing something for the American people, investing in infrastructure and energy. It is looking to a plan for the recovery of the economy, using new technology and new ways of doing business, getting more value out of our investment.

I am pleased that the President reached out to the other side of the aisle even as their leaders were saying before the meeting they were against his package. But I am pleased, while he reached out, he was unwavering in his commitment that our package is going to focus on the people who need help the most, revitalizing the economy, and moving us forward.

I look forward to the passage today of this legislation and further refinement as we move it through Congress with our new administration.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his leadership in this area.

I listened to my friend from Indiana wondering what could possibly have economic impact investing in the arts or climate change. Well, I don't know what is going on in Indiana, but if you talk to the arts groups in Oregon or in Massachusetts or in New York or Illinois, they will tell you that investments there will produce economic activity in areas that are strained and underserved. Investment in climate change and energy research creates jobs, and business is crying out for it, large and small.

But I am pleased that they have come forward with their alternative. Listen closely to what the Republicans say: ``If we assume what some economic model applies to the way we would like our legislation to work, it would be twice the jobs for half the cost.'' These are the same people that told us the Bush tax cuts were going to lead to nirvana. These are the people that said that the Clinton economic programs would lead to disaster; they were dead wrong about the economy in the Clinton era. Look at the results of their models when they have been put into place: Exploding deficits, problems with the economy.

I am glad, however, that they have offered this alternative, because it puts in clear relief what their priorities are: Reduce tax relief for 95 percent of the American public and give more to the few who need it the least. Take money away from 4 million students who would have this tax relief. My favorite of their proposals is to actually continue to game the alternative minimum tax to purposely push more people into it with tax gimmicks rather than work with us in fundamental tax reform that doesn't subject more people to the ATM and give us this yearly charade.

I look forward to the leadership of Chairman Neal in Select Revenue, where we will fix the AMT. I strongly

urge the rejection of the misguided Republican priorities, taking away the infrastructure investments that would make so much difference for our communities and undercut our American families.

Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot here on Capitol Hill about Otto von Bismarck's old sausage metaphor, that one doesn't want to watch either sausage or legislation being made. Well, for too long, Madam Speaker, the legislative process in this House was a scene right out of Upton Sinclair's graphic novel, ``The Jungle.''

But currently with a new Congress and new Administration I would say that it has been a breath of fresh air watching this legislative process. It has been open. The ingredients have been great. The legislative leadership, the new President and his administrative team, have been involved, talking with people in both parties, in both chambers, and we are moving towards a package that I think people ought to embrace enthusiastically.

The economic stimulus is moving into stage II, almost the home stretch. We are putting down positions, principles and guidelines. Any timetable at this juncture is perhaps artificial in nature. The target figure of $825 billion or $800 billion or $850 billion is a little arbitrary and subject to amendment, to adjustment. Such parameters are useful, maybe necessary. They are not set in stone, and it is necessary that we do this right. What we can agree upon is to make the economic impact as soon as possible while we help rebuild and renew America to make it better.

I am concerned as the process moves forward, particularly as it relates to the infrastructure portion, that we make sure that the money gets to where it needs to go.

Primarily, I want to make sure that our metropolitan areas around the country are not shortchanged.

The last Surface Transportation Act was held up for 2 years because people were arguing about whether States got an allocation that was fair enough. But the greatest disparity for transportation funding in this country was between metropolitan areas, which seldom got their fair share: 78 cents on the dollar in Dallas, southern California shortchanged by over $1 billion.

One of the things we ought to do now, in this package while it's still in the formative stage, is to make sure that we use the existing STP allocation for all funds, not just part of the transportation funding. This formula would guarantee that metropolitan areas get their fair share and not concentrate money unduly in State departments of transportation.

The second suggestion I would make is that we not use a lot of onerous paperwork to make sure that people are complying with the use- it-or-lose-it provisions.

We have very powerful compliance tools. We could simply make modest reductions in future revenue streams for people that don't make their target--hold them accountable, get the spending, and be able to protect the Treasury.

Third, we ought to consider having local incentives for people that are actually going to reach in and put more of their own money into projects, being able to provide some modest incentive so that we reward and not penalize those who will get more money into the economy faster.

Last, we ought to assure that States put the money where it can be spent. For example, if the State of New York has areas that can't take advantage of their allocation in time, but there are areas that can, we encourage the shift. The City of New York has almost $2 billion worth of projects that could meet that 2010 guideline. We ought to put language into this bill that encourages States to reallocate to areas that can use it, not risk losing it.

We ought to make sure that we don't shortchange transit investments. I think we ought to go back to the marker laid down by Chairman Oberstar last December, of $12 billion; that ought to be a recommendation as a floor for transit. This would assure that we are able to make investments in these transportation activities that actually create more jobs than other types of transportation investments. Transit is very job intensive.

A perfect example is a project we have in Portland, Oregon, where we have had stuck in the Department of Transportation a ``small-start'' streetcar expansion project for months. It meets all the statutory criteria, but the Bush Department of Transportation and their FTA and OMB could not figure out how to allocate the money. They couldn't even issue ``small start'' administrative rules that complied with the statute.

This is an opportunity to be able to jump start something that would not only be millions of local dollars for the transit project, but it would incent millions more for related development along the alignment. And it's not just Portland, Oregon; it's Tucson, it's Seattle. We have a chance to jump start a new American industry for streetcars for the 80 communities around America who want to move in this direction, even manufacturing streetcars in America for the first time in two-thirds of a century.

I urge we move in a positive way. Support transit, support our metropolitan areas, get our economy moving while we revitalize our communities.