Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Nancy Neighbor Russell, an extraordinary Oregonian who passed away last week. More than 20 years ago, Nancy co-founded Friends of the Columbia Gorge and was the driving force behind the passage of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act in 1986. Nancy's efforts on behalf of the once-threatened Gorge have preserved it as one of the most magnificent natural and scenic landscapes in the United States, and a recreational mecca for visitors world-wide.

Nancy loved the Gorge, and thanks to her, future generations will have the same opportunities to enjoy its beauty. The Gorge Act designated more than 292,000 acres as federally regulated land, aimed at protecting and enhancing the Gorge's scenic, cultural, recreational, and natural resources. But that was just the start for Nancy. Over time, she purchased 33 parcels of property--600 acres--and sold many to the Federal Government for open space. Her vision of a network of public hiking trails, parks, and vistas is part of the Columbia River Gorge's enduring legacy.

Nancy's contributions to conservation have inspired comparisons to John Muir. Oregonians who love all that the Gorge has to offer, including hiking, scenic driving, wildflowers, and waterfalls, have Nancy Russell to thank. Her last visit to the Gorge came just 3 weeks before she passed. Her legacy of sweeping views, rugged rivers and mountains, and pristine beauty lives on.

Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the Water for the Poor Enhancement Act of 2008, with Representatives Donald Payne, Donald Manzullo, Sheila Jackson Lee, Chris Shays, George Miller, Steve LaTourette, and Walter Jones as original cosponsors. The Water for the Poor Enhancement Act complements legislation introduced today in the Senate by Senator Richard Durbin.

This bill enhances our Nation's commitment to addressing the global water crisis. Every 15 seconds, a child dies from lack of access to safe water and sanitation. Across the globe, 900 million people live without access to safe drinking water and 2.5 billion people are without access to improved sanitation. Millions of girls can't go to school because they must spend hours walking to collect water for their families. As half of the people in the developing world are sick at any given time from a water-related disease, water and sanitation access is a major barrier to fighting poverty and increasing economic productivity.

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 responded by working with Reps. Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde and Sens. Bill Frist and Harry Reid to enact the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005, which established water and sanitation as a cornerstone of United States foreign assistance efforts.

We are now halfway to the 2015 date, and we must redouble our efforts. By 2030, 4 billion people--almost half the world's projected population--will live in water-stressed areas. Three days ago the U.N. Secretary General convened a High Level Event on the Millennium Development Goals in New York, urging governments to translate their commitments into actions and aggressively work to meet these goals.

This legislation answers the call to act. The Water for the Poor Enhancement Act is a bipartisan, non-ideological approach to making our government more responsive to this crisis. This legislation would increase U.S. Government capacity to coordinate and streamline clean water and sanitation development activities and foster strategic investments in on-the-ground expertise and low cost, high impact technologies.

Through this legislation we will help U.S. Government pull together the pieces to implement a smart and efficient global water strategy and to meet our commitment to extend safe drinking water and sanitation to over a billion people in need.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act of 2008. Advances in health care have led to an aging population facing increasingly complex end-of-life health care decisions. 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.

In response to this, health organizations in Oregon came together in the early 1990s to develop what became known as the POLST form, or Physicians Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment, 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 regarding intensity of medical intervention, transfers to the hospital, use of antibiotics, artificially administered nutrition, and resuscitation.

National interest in Oregon's POLST program has blossomed and Oregon has become the national resource for states and communities interested in developing similar programs. Recently California and New York enacted orders for life sustaining treatment programs and 23 other states have adopted or are developing programs.

While Medicare currently pays for acute care services provided to beneficiaries, it does not 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 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.

Programs for orders for life-sustaining treatment 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. The Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act creates a grant program to support the development and expansion of these programs, providing necessary resources to states and local communities.

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, which will lay the groundwork so all 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 respected by health care personnel.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my friend from Utah. I am from the West, although my district is not impacted as intensively as some. The county schools program is something that I have been working with the entire Oregon delegation and others to try to remedy, to keep it alive.

Because it is so important I am sorry that our Republican friends in the prior Congress allowed the legislation to expire. It is not authorized because the Republican-controlled Congress and the Republican administration allowed it to die. We have been playing catch-up ever since. I deeply appreciate the work of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Speaker Pelosi, and others, who worked to help us with funding last year.

I want desperately to achieve funding this year. But I understand the concerns of my friend, the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, about wading into this issue.

Yesterday on the floor we had the tax extender bill, and my Republican friends attempted to attach this despite the fact it is not germane. It was a tax bill, not an authorizing bill.

Yet during that debate, we heard the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee say that he would work with us in conference because he understands it is important if it came back from the Senate in the bill. Mr. Rangel said he would accept it in conference where the germaneness would not apply. We heard the majority leader sympathize and say he would work with us.

I would suggest that rather than go down a path that is a dead end and unfairly attack people for things that aren't in their control, that people get over the fact that they failed in the last Congress and killed the program. Instead work with us to take ``yes'' for an answer. Work with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, get that proposal coming back from the other body, and hopefully we can have the funding that we are all concerned about restoring.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time to speak on this, and his leadership in bringing this measure to the floor.

This is an important element to bring together to finally wrap up and end a game of political ping-pong. We have passed four times through the House of Representatives these critical energy provisions, along with the tax extenders.

We have a proposal before us today that is something that our friends on the other side of the Capitol ought to be able to accept. It meets all of the needs of things that we all agree should be part of this legislation, and it is paid for by using provisions all of which have already passed the other body. These are not controversial. These are things on which there is agreement.

We can meld these together and be able to have the provisions that are so critical for research and development, for solar, for wind. There are others obviously that deal with important parts of our economy and items that relate to individual families in terms of tax extenders.

There is something in this legislation for virtually everybody on the floor of the House, for the people that we represent, and in terms that do not have to be controversial. Indeed, our chairman of Ways and Means took out a provision that is near and dear to his heart, a proposal that was a recommendation from the President of the United States, to keep the American commitment at Ground Zero; not that it's not important, but it's not there in order to make this a clean tax bill and to minimize controversy.

There have been some concerns about the rural schools provision. I come from the State of Oregon. I have been here working in a bipartisan basis, to atone for what the last Republican-controlled Congress did, where they allowed this provision to expire. The Republicans chose not to renew it, so we started from scratch. We had to scramble to find a budget home.

I see my colleague, Peter DeFazio from Oregon here, who's been a champion trying at every turn to move this forward. And we've actually got it through in several provisions through the House of Representatives.

It's ironic that there are some who would come to the floor, and sadly, as we heard them, attack the Speaker, the Rules Committee Chair in the past and others who are trying to help us and whose leadership is critical.

I've talked to the majority leader a few minutes ago. You just heard his words on the floor as he told me privately that he would continue to work with us. We're not done yet. Let's look for a provision in which we could get help for rural school. The best way to do it is to take people at their word, yes, try and work with them, and yes, not to insult the people who we're relying on to help us guide it through. I would hope we are people of goodwill.

The rural schools funding is not a tax provision and not germane. I hope we can find an opportunity in an economic stimulus bill or something else, that is appropriate. I want to deal with the problem at Ground Zero.

But let's not muddy the waters on this bill. Let's not vote against the rule. Let's not disparage people whose help we need at a time when there are all sorts of things going on here and we're going to need to work together cooperatively.

I would be honored to.

And I continue to yield.

I want to thank the chairman for his expression of support. I just would conclude by saying that we want to make sure that this bill goes forward for the things the American people need, and we can work on the long term for these other solutions. And I appreciate the gentleman's clarification----

And your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, today we take up the final Defense Authorization bill of the Bush administration. Those who know me and know my record will understand why, although I support the progress we've made at rolling back some of the most egregious Bush defense priorities, I cannot vote for this Defense policy bill.

In this time of extreme economic uncertainty, we cannot afford to prop up a bloated Department of Defense. Defense Authorization bills outline priorities and benchmarks for spending, and I believe this bill proposes levels that are too high and for the wrong priorities.

For eight years we have seen the Defense budget balloon under President Bush and today we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. I have long pointed out that programs like the Future Combat System's fighting vehicles and the National Missile Defense system would be justifiable if the major threat to our security was a modern version of the Soviet Union. It is not. I applaud the Democratic cuts to the funding levels requested by the President, though we must do better.

As with other programs, the quantity of money spent says little about the quality of return. Indeed, investing in outdated systems makes us less secure and comes at the expense of smarter, modern defense tools. We must invest in systems that confront the real and looming threats of terrorists and rogue states. We must cultivate our personnel into a smart and agile force with a range of tools to engage the world. We must create a security strategy that recognizes the equal importance of diplomacy, development, and defense and understands the linkages between poverty, environmental health, and economic security.

In particular, I would like to see the Pentagon institute strong safeguards regarding the interrogation of prisoners and fully invest in the environmental restoration of past defense sites. I thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for the progress we've made so far on these issues, and for supporting my unexploded ordnance amendment which made detection technology a priority for the Pentagon.

There are the beginnings of a major shift in this Defense Authorization bill. I believe that

after the upcoming election, when the nation has time to evaluate just how out-of-touch the Pentagon is, we will be able to have a more thoughtful assessment of what our Defense Department should look like and what activities it should be engaged in. I look forward to this thoughtful discussion.

Mr. Speaker, while there are some positive steps taken in this legislation to help those hurt by recent disasters, additional funding for cleaning up unexploded ordnance around the country, and some important funding for our veterans, I am extremely disappointed that this bill does not include an extension of the Secure Rural Schools program. The expiration of this program would be a true disaster for my state of Oregon. While the Pacific Northwest states may be the hardest hit by expiration of the program, more than 40 other states from California to Louisiana to Texas will also feel significant impacts.

Clackamas County, in my district, could lose nearly $12.5 million in funding that is crucial to its public and ecological health. In addition to having to lay off teachers and other school employees, other important county programs will be curtailed. Clackamas has already discontinued their road maintenance program this year. The county is also planning to close community health clinics because it is unable to continue the necessary level of funding.

I hope that the House leadership will figure out some way to extend this safety net for rural counties before the end of the year.

I also oppose this bill because it is letting our decades-long moratorium on drilling offshore expire. This means that, starting next week, the Interior Department can prepare leases for oil rigs as close as 3 miles off our coasts.

While I may disagree with my Republican colleagues about the environmental and economic impact of drilling on our nation's coasts, there is little disagreement about how this will impact gas prices-- because it won't.

Even the Bush administration's own Department of Energy agrees that more drilling will make no difference for at least a decade, and even then any impact on the price at the pump would be insignificant.

I had hoped that we would at least be able to include provisions of the House-passed energy bill that extended the moratorium to 50 miles off shore, but it appears that even that reasonable compromise is not enough for those who want to keep America addicted to oil.

I don't think this is the end of the story, and I hope the new Congress and new administration will move quickly to enact sensible protections for our coastal communities.

Lastly, I feel that holding funding to fiscal year 2008 levels for many important domestic programs from education to health to transportation will further hurt families at a time when they are already being squeezed by higher food and energy prices and a slumping economy.

Madam Speaker, the alternative minimum tax was introduced to the tax code in 1969 to capture a small number of millionaires who had escaped tax liability. Since that laudable beginning, however, the tax has morphed from a millionaire's tax to a middle class tax.

In fact, a failure to pass an alternative minimum tax patch this year will result in millions of additional families being subject to that tax. In my district alone, H.R. 7005 will prevent over 40,000 additional taxpayers from facing the AMT.

Nationally, the alternative minimum tax would, but for this bill, affect over 50 percent of taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 this year. This is a tax on nearly every middle class family-- and it falls hardest on those raising a family. A 1-year patch is necessary to protect those families.

It is for those reasons that I reluctantly voted in favor of this legislation. However, a piecemeal, year-by-year approach that places the burden on our children's credit cards is insufficient for a challenge of this magnitude. When Congress returns to this issue, I am looking forward to permanently reforming the alternative minimum tax in a way that does not add to our national deficit.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a painful experience for all of us watching this slow-motion economic train wreck get worse and worse.

One of the lessons over the last dozen years that I have been in Congress is that it matters deeply who is in the White House. One can just look at the bankruptcy legislation, the so-called ``reform,'' as it worked its way through Congress getting actually worse in various iterations. When Bill Clinton was no longer there to veto it, it was embraced by the Bush administration and enacted into law to the detriment of the vast majority of American citizens.

One looks at how for 13 years when the Fed Chairman refused to use the authority to reign in the subprime mortgage madness, the ``froth'' that Mr. Greenspan referred to. We went from the firm leadership of the Clinton White House Treasury Team of Rubin and Summers to the drift of the Bush Treasury with O'Neill and Snow.

I appreciate the efforts by Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Frank to protect the taxpayers, to rein in the people who have driven these companies over the edge and our economy into the ditch, to assure that they don't profit from any Federal bailout, to stop the golden parachutes. This may seem to some to be relatively small potatoes given the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being tossed around, but it is incredibly important in terms of the signals we are going to send to people who are going to behave recklessly in the management of corporations. It is critical that we don't rub the nose of the public in this failure by rewarding people who have helped create this disaster.

It's important that we take the time to craft this properly, to have a shorter leash for the Treasury, particularly because there is such a dramatic difference that we are hearing on the campaign trail between a Senator McCain, who has repeatedly said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong even as he has advocated policies and has been counseled by people like Phil Gramm who helped make those fundamentals weaker. Senator Obama has appropriately highlighted the problems, proposing reasonable solutions, while convening groups of people who understand the problem, who have credibility, and the reasonable principles and solution.

Some of the key elements that should be pursued from my perspective are, first and foremost, to not put the taxpayer on the hook for any more than is absolutely necessary. That sounds simple, but we see proposals coming forward that would have us not simply mark to market, to just buy the value of the damaged items but things that are going to actually accelerate the amount of loss. It is important that we get something in return, get back equity. This is not unprecedented. This is just what happened a few days ago with insurance giant AIG, and it should be a principle that is applied to any other institutions that are going to receive Federal assistance.

It is absolutely critical that we focus on two groups that we need to be more sensitive to than the reckless and the greedy: homeowners and retirees. It is important to stabilize the middle class housing market on which so much of not just our economy but the stability of our communities relies. Today's retirees are in danger of paying the greatest price of all. Many are already losing what they thought were lifetime guarantees of health care and pensions as corporations they retired from rewrite the rules. Too many have less saved, they have longer lives in retirement, and they are going to be forced to deal with more risk than ever before.

All of this suggests, while I think we are moving in the right direction changing some of these proposals, just because the Secretary of the Treasury and the Fed Chair made some rash comments about urgency, Congress should not rush it; it needs the time to get this right.

Madam Speaker, I opposed the 2005 Bankruptcy Act in part because of its egregious support for abusive credit card practices. H.R. 5244 works to

knock down some of those supports. This bill represents one step toward fixing some of the worst aspects of that bankruptcy bill and one step towards resolving the challenges facing our nation's consumers and I support it.

It is outrageous that as the financial crisis has spread, credit card companies have imposed higher delinquency fees. Double-cycle billing, unfair penalties, and arbitrary rate increases likely are also part of the credit card industry's response.

This bill would put a stop to many of the most egregious practices by credit card companies. This bill ends ``double-cycle billing,'' where consumers pay interest and fees even where they have paid their obligation fully and on time. This bill also requires that cards allocate consumer payments proportionally to debt carrying different interest rates--rather than allocating the payment to the debt carrying the lowest interest rate.

In short, I support this bill because it provides added protections for consumers, and I will continue to work to end abusive credit card and bankruptcy practices.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3036, the No Child Left Inside Act of 2008. This bipartisan legislation extends the National Environmental Education Act through 2009 and strengthens the Environment Education Training Program. It also establishes a capacity building grant program to help States and school districts expand environmental education.

Today's students are our future workforce and they must be quipped to face the myriad of challenges that threaten our Nation. Our country faces an energy crisis, air quality concerns, climate change, and diminishing natural resources. It is vitally important that environmental education become an integrated part of the curriculum, and that our students be trained in the tools necessary for future careers in green technology.

In my home State of Oregon, Portland State University has a renowned sustainability program that has just been boosted by a $25 million foundation challenge grant. PSU already partners with schools throughout the community to teach children about environmental sustainability. Because of today's legislation, schools across the country will have similar opportunities as those students in Oregon to learn the value of our resources and gain the skills necessary to be key players in America's future green economy.

Mr. Chairman, the Childers amendment to the National Capital Security and Safety Act is deeply flawed. We continue to treat the residents of the District of Columbia as members of a colony, hampering their ability to govern themselves. We ought not to have Congress be the State legislature or city council for 580,000 people.

For the tens of thousands of Oregonians who visit our Nation's capital each year, traveling with their children to experience America's history and culture, and as someone who lives in DC for 30 percent of the year and has worked with victims of gun violence, this legislation is neither comforting nor sound policy. The imposition on local government would throw out all locally approved gun safety measures, including handgun registration and the semiautomatic ban, and even go as far as removing all age restrictions on gun purchase, permitting a 6-year-old to purchase a deadly weapon.

It is best for Congress not to do the National Rifle Association's bidding, forcing DC to be their showcase for eliminating all boundaries of gun safety. I urge my colleagues to respect home rule and common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ``Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act.'' It looks like the Republican mantra of ``drill, baby, drill!'' and their threat to hold the entire operation of government hostage in order to eliminate the decades-old ban on drilling off our coasts may actually end up doing a favor to those of us who want a comprehensive and sustainable approach to energy policy.

Ironically, there is not much controversy about the impact of more drilling on gas prices. Even the Bush administration's own Department of Energy agrees that more drilling will make no difference for two up to decades, and even then any impact on the price at the pump would be insignificant.

When it comes to drilling, the real issue is about surrendering more of our energy future to a handful of large oil companies to develop when they want to, according to their terms, and whether or not we are going to get full value for the taxpayer dollar. The American citizens, after all, own our oil and the evidence is that other countries drive a stronger bargain for their oil than we do.

Indeed, the comic, yet tragic Inspector General's report about mismanagement, collusion, conflict of interest, partying, and even sexual liaisons between the Three Stooges operation that is the Minerals Management Service and the industry they are supposed to regulate, is an example of the failure of the Republican oil administration. It is also the fault of the Republicans, who ran Congress until recently, and who are even less concerned about providing adult supervision.

I am proud that the Democrats have responded today with a wide- ranging proposal that offers opportunities for some responsible drilling for gas and oil, but goes far beyond just drilling This bill ensures that taxpayers get fair value for the oil from public lands and waters and provides additional incentives for renewable energy and conservation. It presents another opportunity to extend the production tax credits so essential to the emerging new sustainable green energy sources like wind and solar which, despite having passed the House five times, is still resisted by Republicans in the Senate and the President.

I am also pleased that this bill recognizes that giving Americans transportation choices will help reduce the pain at the pump by expanding service and reducing transit fares for commuter rail and buses.

This legislation puts all the pieces together in a comprehensive, thoughtful way that answers the legitimate concerns of the American public with more than a bumper sticker solution. As is always the case in the legislative process in a democracy, this bill is not everything that anyone person would want. For example, I would prefer to extend the moratorium on drilling off our shores for more than just 50 miles.

However, compared to the Republicans' one-dimensional, disingenuous approach to energy policy, in which they seek to obscure their 7\1/2\ years of mismanagement and misdirection, this bill is certainly light- years ahead. It will also provide a framework to look at the big picture between now and November and an important point of departure for a new administration and Congress to follow through.

We are not going to reverse years of myopia and mismanagement overnight; certainly not in one bill in the few remaining weeks of this Congress. Today, we do have an opportunity to tie the pieces together in a way that will move us further along to solving the problem rather than dueling sound bites.

Madam Speaker, on the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I join every American in honoring the innocent men, women, and children who lost their lives to those attacks. I pay tribute to their memory, and extend my deepest sympathies to the loved ones they left behind.

I also honor the brave first responders--the firefighters, policemen, and ordinary citizens--who so courageously risked and, in many cases, gave their lives for others.

Over the past seven years, Americans have worked tirelessly to prevent further attacks and protect the American people. The 110th Congress joined them by focusing on keeping our country safe and has wisely implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We now have vastly improved security on our rail and public transit systems, more robust screening of aircraft and seaborne cargo, and strengthened law enforcement capabilities.

Those who perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001 must be brought to justice. I am determined to see the next administration rectify the grave mismanagement that has allowed many of these terrorists to go unpunished.

We must also acknowledge that today's threats--terrorism, global economic upheaval, worldwide epidemics, and environmental devastation-- are nuanced and interconnected and cannot be addressed by military force alone. Protecting our security demands that we cooperate with our neighbors and promote wise governance. We must address global poverty, promote wise stewardship of natural resources, and provide aid to developing and devastated peoples.

It is the first-order duty of Congress to keep Americans safe. As we commemorate the seventh anniversary of 9/11, I join Americans across our Nation in grieving for loved ones lost, and in honoring the heroes among us. I resolve to do all in my power to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate this coming forward.

It's somewhat ironic to listen to our friends on the other side of the aisle dust off the old canard about earmarks. It's a bit awkward for them, as we're finding out that Governor Palin was not just for them but aggressively lobbying for them before she was against them. And all the earmarks the gentleman talks about were under the Republican watch. They controlled the last transportation bill.

But I am pleased that the administration has had a change of heart. It's withdrawing its veto threat to ensure the fulfillment of the highway trust fund.

This is serious business, and I hope it would be one of the areas where we Republicans and Democrats could come together. Making sure that we don't lose the over $14 billion of highway, bridge and other transportation funding and hundreds of thousands of construction, engineering and design jobs that are at risk right now is absolutely essential.

I'm pleased that Congress is taking this step to make sure that we do not move in the wrong direction because communities, large and small, urban and rural, are suffering from failing infrastructure. I spent last week with my friend, Mike Simpson, in Idaho, dealing with those issues in his State, and it's nothing partisan or ideological about it. It's time for us to come forward and make this initiative.

It's so bad that the American Society of Civil Engineers has given our Nation's infrastructure overall a grade of D minus. Today the Federal Government is investing less than we have as a percent of our Gross Domestic Product than we have for 50 years. And we're falling behind our competitors around the world.

I'm hopeful that we can move forward today with this as a first step towards a comprehensive approach to deal with rebuilding and renewing America dealing with its energy needs, its water, transportation and infrastructure, so that we can make sure that all our communities are livable and our families safer, healthier and more economically secure.