Floor Statements

Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's recognition. I appreciate Mr. Levin's courtesy.

I have been listening to our friends on the other side of the aisle. These are the architects of the Bush economic meltdown, who have given him billions and billions and billions of borrowed dollars, blank checks, to the last administration. All of a sudden, they are fiscally interested.

Well, let me just say, we just left a Budget Committee meeting where we had five brilliant respected Ph.D.s from all across the spectrum who said we are on uncharted water, you should err on the side of a larger stimulus, not a smaller, and that one of the most important areas deals with energy.

I am proud that we have taken these provisions that we have been dancing around for the last 3 or 4 years and playing Russian roulette with where the private sector couldn't invest in them. It was on again, off again. Now we have made them certain and indefinite. We have encouraged these investments by increasing the level and giving them a longer period of time to cope with them.

I think all of us ought to embrace this. These are provisions that are investing in our energy future. They are going to create jobs, they are going to fight global warming, and they are going to help us in the international arena.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate his leadership on this.

I just listened to our new colleague from Wyoming, and I am trying to track her logic. I was one of the people who had deep reservations about the original bailout proposals. I had even more skepticism about the people to whom bailout money was going to be entrusted in the White House. But most, I was concerned that it was not addressing the various things that she is disparaging, like homeowners in economic free fall, people dealing with student loans. We were throwing all of that money at large financial institutions while not dealing with millions of Americans in a desperate circumstance that is, after all, fueling the problem of the economic spiral. I thought that was misguided.

I rise today to oppose the resolution which would take away one of the tools to be given to the new administration to address it properly.

I have watched, under the leadership of Chairman Frank, as we have tried to redirect, to prod and push and probe to make sure that there is greater transparency and coax greater performance out of the Bush administration while dealing with the criteria by which we will be going forward.

This is the work that the Congress should be doing, and I think we are doing it in a reasonable fashion. It's coming in the context of other tools that the new administration has sought and desperately needs. I came to the floor, leaving a markup from the Ways and Means Committee, where we will be looking at several hundred billion dollars of targeted tax relief that's going to make a difference for those American families.

There will be a significant package coming forward for economic stimulus dealing with rebuilding and renewing America, energy efficiency, with roads and bridges, transit and bikeways; things that will make a difference over the course of the next few months and next few years to re-start the economy.

We are taking stock. We are exercising not just oversight of a new administration--and I have no doubt, no doubt that the Financial Services Committee, under the chairmanship of Chairman Frank, will make sure that the directions, that the accountability, the transparency that has been promised, we will follow through.

Most important, before we get to oversight, is this notion of partnership--partnership with the new administration, partnership with Congress and the American public--as we deal with the things that make the biggest difference for Americans; their homes, their jobs, their communities.

I urge rejection of this resolution to move forward with giving the new administration the tools they need.

Mr. Chair, last fall, I opposed the initial round of financial recovery spending on the grounds that there were too many unknowns about what, and who, our federal dollars were financing. Subsequent events, which revealed that many recipients continued to hold back from making the loans necessary for economic recovery, justified my initial position.

With H.R. 384, Congress is beginning this process to recover and renew America's economic strength with a new administration. Further congressional action is necessary because the efforts to date have been off the mark. This bill is the first step to providing guidance to the new administration, which has already learned many of the lessons from the past administration's failed effort.

I have come to this juncture today with an even greater sense of urgency than even last fall. Thanks to this legislation we can provide hope to American families. This legislation puts stronger oversight mechanisms in place and requires the Treasury Department to reach enforceable and measurable agreements on the use of TARP funds. The legislation also places strong limitations on executive compensation, provides strong foreclosure relief, and includes significant incentives that will aid homebuyers struggling to refinance their loans. For these reasons, H.R. 384 deserves my support.

Madam Speaker, last week the Republican leader went on CBS to state that the American people don't want beautification projects or bike lanes in the economic stimulus program. Instead, Mr. Boehner felt American families want larger and expanded highways.

He's just wrong on the facts. A 2009 survey by the National Association of Realtors and Smart Growth America reported that three- quarters of Americans believe that smarter development and improved public transit are better long-term solutions for reducing traffic congestion, better than building new roads. An overwhelming 80 percent believe it's more important to repair existing highways and public transit rather than build new highways.

The transit, bike, pedestrian and road repair work are more labor intensive and are ready to go in all 50 States, supporting local engineering and construction firms.

The Republican leader is wrong; the American public is right. Bikes, transit, fixing-it-first projects make communities more livable, put more people to work faster, and make our families

safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Superfund Reinvestment Act,'' which would reauthorize the corporate taxes that fund the Superfund trust fund. This bill will reestablish the polluter pays principle and our commitment to cleaning up the Nation's most hazardous sites.

The Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, Superfund program was created in 1980 to provide money to clean up the nation's worst hazardous waste sites where the party responsible for polluting was out of business or could not be identified. Before they expired in 1995, the money for the Superfund trust fund came mainly from taxes on the polluters themselves. The program has contributed to the cleanup of over 1000 sites around the country. Because Congress has not reauthorized the taxes, the burden of funding cleanups of toxic waste sites now falls on the shoulders of taxpaying Americans. Reauthorizing the Superfund tax would ensure that polluters--not the American public--pay to restore public health.

Superfund sites contain toxic contaminants that have been detected in drinking water wells, creeks and rivers, backyards, playgrounds, and streets. Communities impacted by these sites can face restrictions on water use, gardening and recreational activities as well as economic losses as property values decline due to contaminated land. In the worst cases, residents of these communities can face health problems such as cardiac impacts, infertility, low birth weight, birth defects, leukemia, and respiratory difficulties.

Until they expired in 1995, the superfund taxes generated around $1.7 billion a year to clean up these hazardous areas. The ``Superfund Reinvestment Act'' would simply reinstate the taxes as they were before they expired. This will provide a stable source of funding to continue cleaning up sites around the country as well as give the EPA the tools it needs to clean up sites and then recover the costs from liable parties who do not undertake the work themselves.

I urge my colleagues to join me in working to strengthen the Superfund program and ensure that it continues to help keep our communities and our families safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the rule and of the underlying bill.

This is the first step in this Congress that sends a signal of hope to people around the country. It is not just going to make a difference for 70,000 children in my State of Oregon and for 11 million children across America who will get health insurance. It was important in the last Congress that we had passed this bipartisan legislation, but unfortunately, the roadblocks in the White House and Republican Congress made that impossible to be enacted into law. If it were important in the last session, it is critical in this session with the economy in a free-fall, with families in desperate conditions and with health care fraying at the edges.

This action today is showing the difference of the new leadership in the House, in the Senate and in the White House. Beyond the 70,000 children in Oregon and 11 million children across the country, this is a signal to America about where our Nation is going. This signal of hope can come none too soon.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to support two important workplace civil rights bills addressing pay discrimination-- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. In the years since the 1963 Equal Pay Act, women have made enormous advances toward economic equality. However, the goal of ``equal pay for equal work'' is not yet reality.

Today, the average full-time working woman earns only 78 cents for every $1 a man makes. Women of color are worse off. African-American women make 69 cents on the dollar, while Hispanic women make only 56 cents. A recent study of college graduates showed that in their first year after graduation, women earned only 80 percent as much as male graduates, demonstrating the gender pay disparities only compound over time.

These pay disparities equal a significant loss of income--anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime--which has a tremendous impact on lives of women and their families, especially as so many are struggling with the economic turndown.

In 2007, the Supreme Court made it virtually impossible for victims of pay discrimination to go to court to vindicate their rights, holding that any challenges to pay discrimination must be filed within 180 days of an employer's initial decision to discriminate. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Fire & Rubber Co., and restore the long-standing interpretation of civil rights laws that employees can file pay discrimination claims within 180 clays of each discriminatory paycheck they receive.

The Paycheck Fairness Act strengthens the Equal Pay Act to ensure that it provides effective protection against sex-based pay discrimination by closing loopholes and barring retaliation against workers who disclose their wages. Additionally, it also allows women to receive the same remedies for sex-based pay discrimination that are currently available to those subject to discrimination based on race and national origin.

This meaningful legislation will help further advance American women and families' economic security and I am proud to support both.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the widespread concern for the crisis unfolding in Gaza since December 27. The recent conflict in between Palestinians and Israelis is as tragic as it was predictable. The fundamental lesson in the Middle East is clear: without political processes that strive continuously for peace, events and the acts of extremists can overpower the desire of people across the region to reject violence.

I voted ``present'' because words matter and this resolution did not express adequately the scope of the humanitarian crisis. To that end I am joining other colleagues in urging the administration to work to meet the immediate humanitarian needs while we work for a cease-fire.

Any country facing such attacks would wish to respond firmly and decisively, yet it is frustrating to witness the region locked into a downward spiral of conflict. This path will give neither side what it wants, but will continue to destabilize the situation and further impede efforts at a resolution.

This cycle of violence must be broken. Yet, nearly a decade of failed Bush policies has left America in a weakened position at the table, less able to help deliver peace or improve the humanitarian situation on the ground. At least the administration declined to vote against a January 8 United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza.

Forceful U.S. diplomatic reengagement now is critical. Though a secure Israel and an independent Palestinian state living side by side seems remote today, I have high hopes that the new Obama administration will exhibit a strong reversal of course and reengage the region. Our efforts here today are inadequate to this task. We must not only work for a cease-fire that halts this backslide into chaos, but move forward toward an ultimate solution that recognizes the legitimate needs of both Israelis and Palestinians. We know where we need to go, we must have the will to achieve it.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to prohibit interstate commerce in nonhuman primates as pets. The Captive Primate Safety Act, CPSA, would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to treat nonhuman primates as prohibited wildlife species under that Act and to make corrections in the provisions relating to captive wildlife offenses under that Act.

Nonhuman primates kept as pets pose serious risks to public health and safety. They can transmit diseases and inflict serious physical harm. These risks are increased by interstate transport of the animals. Currently, twenty states prohibit keeping primates as pets, and many others require a permit. Even in states where it is legal to keep primates, most people cannot provide the special care, housing, and social structure these animals require.

Although the importation of nonhuman primates into the United States for the pet trade has been banned by Federal regulation since 1975, these animals are bred in the United States and are readily available for purchase from exotic animal dealers and even over the Internet. Because of the importation laws, there remains an active domestic trade in these animals.

The CPSA would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to add nonhuman primates to the list of animals that cannot be transported across state lines. It would prohibit the import, export, transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce of nonhuman primates in order to safeguard public health and safety and protect the welfare of monkeys, apes (which include chimpanzees and orangutans), marmosets and lemurs. The bill is similar to the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, CWSA, which Congress passed in 2003 to ban interstate commerce in lions, tigers, and other big cats for the pet trade.

The CPSA would not affect trade or transportation of animals for zoos, research facilities, or other federally licensed and regulated entities. In the 110th Congress, the CPSA received strong support in the 110th Congress from Dr. Jane Goodall, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, and The Humane Society of the United States. It easily passed the House of Representatives.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this bi- partisan legislation.

Madam Speaker, I was introduced about 40 years ago to Ned Look. I was a college student at the time and we were organizing a campaign on this goofy idea to allow young people to vote. Very quickly, a number of the arrows pointed to Ned Look as somebody I should sit down and talk with in order to understand how the community worked. Even then, Ned was an institution. He was well known in the Portland City Club and a leading member of the Portland Development Commission, spearheading redevelopment and the Civic Auditorium. He was a tireless volunteer, somebody who drew strength from civic activities. He was a busy guy. At that time he was still a banker, but he had the time to sit down and talk through whatever was on your mind, giving you a sense of the community's vitality. It was a marvelous experience for me, learning not just about a campaign, but about the community I grew up in. I found I didn't really know much about my community until I had a chance to interact with Ned.

At that point, Portland had two big banks, several corporate headquarters, a couple of timber companies and utilities. and a single phone company. ``Tech'' meant Tektronix. There was a core of community members who made contributions, who moved with civic and political activities; Portland even had two political parties at that point. Ned was conversant and connected with them all.

A reformer, Ned was obsessed with the notion of coaxing more value out of government investment. At that point, city-county consolidation was all the rage. It had happened in other parts of the country-- Indianapolis, Nashville, Davis--and Ned was part of the civic drumbeat that was going to bring city-county consolidation to Oregon. We were going to take the largest city and the largest county in Oregon and merge them to create all this extra efficiency. It was a brilliant plan supported by all the powers that be and the newspapers--and it lost two-to-one at the polls. But typical of Ned, he was convinced that something else was at work here, that we could do better. and he wasn't going to give up. He was part of the effort coming out of the City Club and other hopeless do-good organizations that envisioned and ultimately led to the creation of Metro, the only directly elected regional government in the country--a one-of-a-kind idea that is so good that no one else in the United States has seen to replicate it in the last 30 years. This was typical of Ned and his energy and his involvement.

Ned was always in the vanguard of the community foundation movement around the country. I had vaguely heard about community foundations from a friend of mine in Cleveland, Barbara Rossin, who helped set up the Cleveland Foundation. But it was Ned who made it happen in Oregon; it wasn't just his profession. it became part of the expression of who he was. It became larger than life.

When I think about the changes that have taken place in our community in the last 40 years. I recall that we didn't have any organizing principles then; we didn't have large companies. But we were able to establish a framework in the community that encouraged people to get things done. We organized around a community foundation, but it went far beyond that. Today, you see the evidence of these efforts from the caliber of people are much more connected and reaching out and making things happen in a more entrepreneurial way. Just as we're the only city in the United States with a directly elected regional government, we are unique in the way we go out and solve problems. And much of this unique quality is due to people like Ned Look. There simply are not a lot of people like Ned in any city, nor have there ever been.

The Harvard University sociologist Robert Putnam wrote ``Bowling Alone'' a few years ago, exploring changes in our society by asking why, if there were more people bowling, there were fewer bowling leagues. His book got a lot of attention, and appropriately so. But his second book. ``Better Together,'' which focused on the resurgence of citizen participation, didn't get quite the attention it deserved. He has a whole chapter about Portland; he called it ``The City that Meets.'' Now, I know that all this ``meeting'' drives many of you crazy--especially those of you who try to do business here or get anything done in civic organizations--but we are inclusive, we reach out to one another, even as we work in different patterns. These are the qualities Ned Look expressed better than anybody I've ever met.

For years. we've had a parade of people who come to Portland looking at what we do and how we do it: Portland State University, streetcars, land use, even bicycles. They see the development patterns that have strengthened our neighborhoods and restored vitality to our community. We can show them our plans and talk about our government structures; we can talk about how we have constructed light rail and street car--but the single ingredient that is hard to express, the one that is more essential to that success than anything else, is our people. Ned was always there, front and center at the City Club, ready to give me advice, whether I was speaking or not. His antenna was always out; he was always gravitating toward conversation, eager to be involved. Ned was the personification of why, in the words of Professor Putnam, we're ``better together.''

Thank you, Ned.

Mr. Speaker, I voted to support H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, having determined that it was the best compromise given the current circumstances. I supported the restructuring because it meets the standards that I used in voting on previous bailout proposals. First, this is a relatively small sum compared to the trillions that have been devoted to stabilizing the financial industry. Second, the taxpayer is protected by the smaller sums and stricter controls employed in these loans. Finally, unlike the financial services industry, this legislation offers a lifeline to people making a real product.

Unfortunately, that real product is not of the nature and quality that Americans need and demand. The auto industry leadership is ultimately responsible for their failure. New management should be put into place, along with a new direction. It is paramount that Congress takes this opportunity to move the domestic auto industry towards greater environmental sustainability. Providing resources and direction to the automakers to accelerate the development of fuel efficient vehicles and other environmental technologies will improve the position of those companies to meet future market demands.

There is no doubt that a serious change in direction and downsizing is necessary. There will be significant management and labor concessions. This proposal will allow the United States to see the automakers' survival is possible. If the industry cannot follow through on their promises to rebuild and restructure, it is very unlikely that I will be supportive of subsequent efforts. This is their chance to demonstrate that they can and will make significant changes in a new and better direction.

Finally, I am pleased that the legislation includes a provision that protects transit agencies from the consequences of the collapse of insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG), which guaranteed many lease agreements that transit agencies entered into to pay for buses, trains and other equipment in the 1990s. During a year of record ridership, our transit agencies need these resources. For example, the transit provider in my district, Tri-Met, is reporting a 5.47 percent year to date growth in ridership--a substantial figure for such a mature transit agency. Without this provision, Tri-Met could face the loss of $200 million in FTA-approved financing.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his leadership. And thanks to the leadership of Mr. Frank, Speaker Pelosi and the House Republicans, we have part of this bill before us today that is somewhat better, but it sadly adds $150 billion of largely unpaid for tax breaks, frustrating for me because many of these provisions like alternative energy too credits and secure rural schools are provisions I fought for for years and are very important.

Madam Speaker, as members of the public and Congress learn more about these problems and the solutions, I must say I have never seen more diametrically opposed opinions, and even people explaining about the facts in their business. But if this bill passes, which it appears that it will today, it ignores the underlying problem of a housing market in free-fall, and it ignores the plight of six million homeowners who are facing foreclosure in the next 2 years.

If there was ever a time to give the same bankruptcy protection to American homeowners that Donald Trump will get the next time he takes bankruptcy for his casinos and for his fourth vacation home, that time is now. It needs to be in this legislation, and I'm sadly disappointed that it is not. In makes long term recovery harder and more painful.

Madam Speaker, I do not support this economic recovery bill. While it is imperative that Congress act to address this financial crisis, this mixed bag of legislation is not the appropriate immediate or long-term solution. The hard work done by the Democratic leadership over the past week has made it better, but it's still not good enough. It doesn't go far enough to protect taxpayers or to help homeowners stay in their homes. I have been very vocal on the floor of the House of Representatives about my concerns that this proposal won't help our financial situation and may be beside the point.

There are some extremely important provisions in the bill for which I have fought during the past 2 years. For example, the bill extends the production tax credit for wind energy and investment tax credit for solar energy. It includes legislation I drafted to provide a tax credit for the purchase of small wind turbines. And it provides tax fairness so employers can offer the same transportation fringe benefits for bicyclists that they offer to employees who commute by car and public transit.

I'm pleased that this bill will reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools program, which is so important to Oregon. I'm pleased that it will prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from impacting millions of hard- working, middle class families.

The bad news is that, at a time when our national debt is at its highest point in over 50 years as a percentage of GDP, Senate Republicans chose not pay for most of the good things in this bill. I'm disappointed that the Senate also added a number of provisions to the bill that will provide incentives for coal-to-liquids and oil-shale fuels, which take us in the wrong direction in our battle against climate change.

I hope this bill works to protect our commercial system, but I fear that it won't. I will continue to fight to deal with the consequences of added debt and poor energy investment choices. I look forward to closely scrutinizing the choices that the Treasury Department makes as a result of this legislation and working to improve the position of ordinary homeowners, American taxpayers, and our environment.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6867, the ``Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008.'' We have seen the United States economy lose jobs every single month of 2008. Today we were greeted with the news that 159,000 more American jobs were lost in the month of September, the worst job loss in 5 years. In my home State of Oregon, the unemployment rate is up over 6 percent, and families are hurting.

Extending unemployment benefits for those who are looking for jobs in an increasingly contracting economy is the right thing to do. It is not only the moral thing to do, it's a good stimulator for our economy. Most families have exhausted their benefits and still need help paying their bills and putting food on the table. Moody's Economy.com estimates that every dollar of unemployment benefits provides $1.64 in economic stimulus by being put directly back into the economy.

We have just voted to pass an enormous financial rescue package which lends a helping hand to the financial services industry. I voted against that legislation because it didn't do enough to help consumers and taxpayers. Our unemployment rate is at a 5-year high, and claims for benefits have just hit a 7-year high. It's time to lend a helping hand to the more than 65,000 Oregonians who would benefit from extended benefits under this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation to help get our economy back on its feet.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that I oppose this bill. I am concerned that this bill is a continuation of the lopsided ``sanctions-only'' approach to Iran that only undermines the potential for constructive engagement through diplomacy.

Iran poses a particular challenge because as much as we are horrified by the regime's support for terrorism, threatened by its nuclear adventurism, and troubled by the lack of democracy and human rights, we also know that the Iranian people are as opposed to foreign manipulation as they are to authoritarian rule and that both the Iranian and American people want to avoid war.

The steps that the Iranian regime should take are clear. They should stop their support for terrorism, end their development of nuclear weapons capability, and begin the process of free, fair, and open elections. But it is naive to think that the United States can merely tell them what to do, sanction them for not doing it, and expect success. We need, instead, to develop a smart, strong and constructive plan to deny Iran nuclear weapons and halt its support for terrorists, to help keep us and our allies secure.

The first place to look for lessons is our success with Libya, where a unified international front convinced one of the world's most dangerous state-sponsors of terror to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for the benefits of membership in the international community. Iran must be given a similar choice and we must provide both credible incentives for negotiations to work and muscular sanctions if they fail.

This bill offers a piecemeal approach: sanctions without credible negotiations. I oppose it and other short-sighted efforts in our approach to Iran.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I credit his mastery for bringing this bill before us today. Thanks to his leadership, the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, and the cooperation of the Republicans, it is a far better bill.

But, unfortunately, this is not likely to be the end of the bubbles. We must with our actions be extraordinarily careful if we don't want to compromise the next rescue. Remember Long-Term Capital Management, the hedge fund? What happens if the hedge fund industry is next? The article in today's New York Times wasn't very comforting. Any real rescue must include bankruptcy equality for homeowners. This is not just a moral issue. Fairness to our Nation's homeowners is the key to stabilizing home values currently in free fall.

We cannot continue to bail out failing industries with borrowed money. No bill should be enacted without a payback from the financial services sector to be rescued, not merely a hint of a promise to pay back in 5 years. At the core, we are ignoring the fundamental question about the size and scale of the financial services industry in trouble not just because of a lack of regulation, but because we had too many people pursuing unsustainable business practices.

We have seen change from an irresponsible White House proposal into a responsible bill. But it's not as good as it should be. And sadly, may be besides the point if more bubbles explode.

I will vote ``no,'' reluctantly hoping I am wrong, but fearing that I am right.