Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I strongly supported H.R., 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Buried in the provisions of this bill, however, in section 3082, on page 680, is an expansion of the Gulf Opportunity Zone to two additional counties in Alabama. One of these counties is nearly 300 miles from the coast. This section doesn't have much to do with housing.

This expansion is designed to provide a subsidy for National Steel Car, a Canadian rail car manufacturer. This subsidy is unnecessary for two reasons. First, the plant is already under construction and will be operational by this time next year. Second, Alabama was under a contractual obligation to provide the subsidy itself if Congress did not.

The United States has a domestic rail car industry, with plants and facilities around the country. In fact, one borders my district, and it recently laid off over 100 employees because of the economic pressures on the industry. That company also has a facility in Alabama, but it won't benefit from this tax provision.

In Congress, we often talk about not picking winners, of letting the market make these decisions rather than the Congress, of leveling playing fields rather than tilting them. But here we picked a winner. We held a secret bidding process and a Canadian company won, despite the fact that they would have made this investment anyway. The longer we pursue this method of doling out tax breaks, the harder real reform will be.

The legislation I introduce today will ensure that these Alabama counties are able to benefit from the expanded GO Zone. The legislation also ensures, however, that taxes paid by the domestic rail car industry do not go to subsidizing their competitors and that we remove this rifleshot from the tax code.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mark Covert who, on July 23rd, harked the 40th anniversary of an unparalleled running streak. Covert, a running coach and former elite athlete, has run at least one mile every day since July 23rd 1968. Overall, he has run 140,045 miles--and counting--since the streak began. The United States Running Streak Association lists Mark Covert as the current U.S. leader for the longest continuous streak.

Although he currently lives in Lancaster, California, where he coaches the Antelope Valley College cross country and track teams, Covert's streak is actually a significant part of Oregon history. One of the most important ``daily runs'' of the streak came in 1972, when Covert ran in the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials at the University of Oregon, in Eugene. Even though he just missed making the team, he still made history by being the first athlete to cross a finish line wearing an unusual pair of shoes with rubber soles that were made on a waffle iron.

These so-called ``moon shoes'' were invented in the kitchen of an enterprising entrepreneur named Bill Bowerman. Bowerman, along with his partner Phil Knight, based an entire company and, indeed, an entire fitness movement, on these revolutionary shoes. The company, of course, is Nike, and Covert was one of the first employees in the early 1970s. He has stayed true to the legacy by running 117,028 miles in Nikes over the years.

The partnership continued at this year's Olympic Track and Field Trials--held, once again, at the University of Oregon's historic Hayward Field--where Nike sold T-shirts honoring two different athletes--legendary Oregon runner Steve Prefontaine and, you guessed it, Mark Covert.

As an important part of the U.S. running movement in its early years, Mark Covert's place in history was already secure. Now, through his current unmatched running streak, he continues to inspire and motivate thousands of runners around the country and around the world. I'd like to thank him for his commitment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting me to speak in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

It's exciting to see this landmark reauthorization come forward, and particularly given the range of advantages that are going to be given to young people around the country strengthening communities and opportunities for higher education.

Mr. Speaker, one of the major challenges we face at this point deals literally with the future of the planet dealing with global warming and sustainable development in a water-stressed, energy-short, carbon- constrained world. I have been pleased to look in my community at colleges and universities that are doing pioneering work with developments on campus for sustainability, training students, and doing research.

I am pleased that this legislation incorporates our Higher Education Sustainability Act of 2007, H.R. 3637, which provides provisions here that will help fund this research and training, sustainability practices on campus, to be able to make sure that the best practices that are being developed across the country can be incorporated into the day-to-day operations, that we can do more research, more training of students, and that we will be able to incorporate them into how campus life itself operates.

Last but not least, I am pleased that the provision that would direct the secretary of education to convene a sustainability summit to have a national showcase of these best practices has been retained. This is an important element to make sure that our colleges and universities continue to be the change, the engine of innovation for the most vital challenge of our time dealing with global warming and sustainable development.

I strongly urge support of this legislation and that each and every one of my colleagues look at these sustainability provisions and look at how they can be applied to their colleges and universities back home.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.

This is a critical piece of legislation that speaks to the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. One of the consequences of having the most effective, powerful military force in the world is that we have a great deal of activity that takes place training and operating military facilities across the country. And, sadly, Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that we have not been quite as good as we should is dealing with the consequences of those military operations. The American landscape are littered with the residue of past military operations, base operations, and training exercises. There are bombs, explosives, military toxins and environmental hazards in every State of the union, over 3,000 sites across America.

One of the things I have worked on since I came to Congress was to have the Department of Defense and, most important, we in Congress do a better job of helping the military clean up after itself. I have come to this floor repeatedly with examples where bombs have turned up in people's backyards. I see the former chairman of the committee from California on the floor and am reminded of the three young children in San Diego who discovered bombs in a subdivision, and two of them were killed. Over 60 more people have been killed according to my research here in the United States.

It is time for us to take responsibility to clean up that explosive and toxic legacy, in part because it's not going to get any cheaper. Over the years it's going to cost more and more. Failure to do this right puts innocent children's lives at risk. Remember when we came to the floor with a coloring book that told children what they should do when they found unexploded ordinances near their schools. The Pentagon had Larry the Lizard trying to tell them what to do, when they found a shell . . . rather than spending money to clean it up and remove that hazard.

I am pleased that this year we are fully funding the--the 2005 BRAC account. I am pleased with the leadership from Chairman Edwards, Ranking Member Wamp and my good friend Mr. Farr from California, who has been struggling with this issue for years in his district, they were able to put an

additional $80 million to clean up the legacy of BRAC sites.

I appreciate that this is a difficult budget year but it's always a difficult budget year, and we never seem to quite have enough to deal with the environmental problems that face our Department of Defense. I hope that this is a start in the right direction for a renewed commitment to clean up this toxic legacy that risks American lives here in this country and will develop new technology that will actually save American lives overseas in places like Iraq and Afghanistan if we do it right. I hope it makes possible more progress in the future, and I urge support.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this measure and for the hard work that the chairman and the ranking member have done. This is truly a landmark reauthorization. We're all pleased to see it come forward.

The major challenge of this century is literally the future of the planet, global warming, sustainable development in a water-stressed, energy short, carbon-constrained world.

To help us cope, this higher education reauthorization incorporates the provision of our Higher Education Sustainability Act. Inspired by the late Debbie Murdock from Portland State University, it will fund programs in our colleges and universities for research, for training of students, for sustainability practices on campus.

It also does direct the Secretary of Education to convene a sustainability summit to be able to showcase all these best practices.

One of the things that I am pleased about as I travel around the country, is looking at the environmental progress on our campuses. This legislation will help accelerate that vital process, and I deeply appreciate what the committee has done.

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

I rise in strong opposition to my friend from Arizona's assessment and in strong support for this legislation adjustment. The United States does have more and better infrastructure than any country in the world. The problem is that much of that infrastructure is fraying. It is being worn out. And it's not equal to the challenges that we have today for our own communities, much less to the international competition that we're facing around the world. We are facing a situation today with a highway trust fund that is going into deficit and it's going to be more serious over time.

It would be the height of irresponsibility for this Congress to fail to keep pace with the needs of those programs. As my friend, Mr. Oberstar, who knows more about this than anybody in Congress, provided the context for the trust fund, and he could go on at great length about how the general fund, for years, was robbing the highway trust fund, using that to prop up and to disguise the nature of our true deficit.

The fact is that uncertainty today with significant projects around the country in virtually every one of our States is going to have significant consequences in those communities if they're not cleared and move ahead. Many of these have complex funding projects. I was in southern Ohio and Kentucky this weekend where they're looking at a multi-State, multiyear project. If we have a cloud over our ability to keep these commitments, it slows and it confuses. It is going to cost jobs. It is going to cost economic activity. I think you can make an argument that it actually will end up costing the general fund money over time because of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that will be in limbo.

I hope to continue to work with the Ways and Means Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to have a sustainable path to meet our transportation objectives in the future. Indeed, I hope to introduce legislation this summer for a water trust fund to be able to help some of those other responsibilities.

It is important for us not to back away from our commitment to State and local partners. Time does not permit to talk about the potential byplay where ultimately it's not going to make any difference in terms of the deficit. It's just going to unravel projects and create problems down the line.

Last but not least, the notion that somehow those Member-requested projects, God forbid, for street cars, for hiking paths, for bike trails that are among the most requested, the most popular, the most important, and I would daresay in a time of $4.50 a gallon gasoline and morbidly obese fourth graders, having bike and pedestrian activities not only saves energy, it's good for health. It's good for the economy of this country.

I would strongly urge that each and every Member support this important legislation. And, more important, that they commit themselves to work with the Ways and Means Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to deal with the long-term financial and the long-term vision of how we're going to renew and rebuild America at a time of energy shortage, at a time of water stress and at a time of economic uncertainty. This is a way to make this system work better. I strongly urge its support.

Thank you, Mr. Neal, for your leadership and your courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this package as it brings much- needed reforms to the industry, supports homeowners around the country and is much needed. I think it represents a lot of good, hard work. But I must make one point, because buried in the provisions of this bill in section 3082 on page 680 is an expansion of the Gulf Opportunity Zone to two counties in Alabama.

One of those counties is 300 miles from the coast and doesn't have much to do with housing and has nothing to do with damage for Katrina.

The reason I'm speaking to it is because it is an expansion designed to provide a subsidy for National Steel Car, a Canadian rail manufacturer. A subsidy unnecessary for two reasons: because the plant in question is already under construction, and that Alabama was already under a contractual obligation to provide this subsidy if Congress did not.

The United States has a domestic railcar industry, with plants and facilities around the country. I put in the Record a list of the 18 factories around the United States and the four American corporate headquarters.

U.S. Rail Car Facilities

American Railcar Industries (2095 Employees as of 12/31/07)

Corporate Headquarters, 10 Clark Street, St. Charles, MO

63301, 636-940-6000.

Marmaduke Plant, 7755 Highway 34 E, Marmaduke, AR, 870-597-

2224.

Milton Plant, 417 North Arch St., Milton, PA.

Paragould Plant, 901 Jones Rd., Paragould, AR, 870-236-

6600.

Trinity Industries (Rail Group: 7470 employees as of 12/31/07)

Corporate Headquarters, 2525 Stemmons Freeway, Dallas, TX

75702, 800-631-4420.

Longview Plant, 607 Fisher Rd., Longview, TX.

Oklahoma City Plant, 2033 SW 22nd St., Oklahoma City, OK,

405-632-6631.

Saginaw Plant #1, 104 E Bailey Boswell Rd., Saginaw, TX

817-232-3650.

Saginaw Plant #2, 2850 Peden Rd., Saginaw, TX, 817-236-

7141.

Ft. Worth Plant #1, 2548 NE 28th St., Fort Worth, TX, 817-

665-1400.

Ft. Worth Plant #2, 1901 Brennan Ave., Fort Worth, TX, 817-

625-6225.

Springfield Plant, 1849 North Park Avenue, Springfield, MO

65803-1985, 417-831-6797.

Cartersville Plant, 190 Old Grassdale Road Northwest,

Cartersville, GA 30121-5097, 770-382-9400.

Winder Plant, 880 Airport Road, Winder, GA 30680.

Freightcar America (576 employees as of 12/31/07)

Corporate Headquarters, Two North Riverside Plaza, Suite

1250, Chicago, IL 60606, 312-928-0850.

Danville, IL Plant, 2313 Cannon Street, Danville, Illinois

61832, 217-443-4106, Fax: 217-443-0750.

Roanoke Plant, 830 Campbell Avenue SE, Roanoke, VA 24013,

540-853-3221, Fax: 540-853-3254.

Johnstown, PA Facilities--JUST CLOSED, 17 Johns Street,

Johnstown, PA 15901, 800-458-2235, Fax: 814-533-5010.

The Greenbrier Companies, Inc. (Gunderson: 1036 employees as of 7/21/

08)

Corporate Headquarters, One Centerpointe Drive, Suite 200,

Lake Oswego, OR 97035, 503-684-7000.

Portland, OR Plant (Gunderson), 4350 NW Front Avenue,

Portland, OR 97210, 503-224-1973.

Progress Rail

Corporate Headquarters, 1600 Progress Drive, Albertville,

Mr. Speaker, we are soon going to be greeted by a photo-op in the Arctic with some of our Republican friends doing a little flyover. It is an example of their ``drillusion.''

We have been fighting the Republican energy policy that is trapped in the 1950s. For the first 12 years I was in Congress they made it impossible, indeed, sometimes even illegal to even study improving fuel efficiency standards for cars.

For the last 7\1/2\ years, we have had two Texas oilmen in the White House, their secret energy task force, their disastrous 2005 Energy Act and, by the way, their Dept. of Energy which missed all 34 deadlines to improve appliance efficiency.

And what do we get from years of Republican control and their energy policy? $4.35 cent a gallon gasoline.

Democrats, from the beginning, have provided new energy incentives. We have improved auto fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 30 years. And today we are going to have the Drill Responsibly on Leased Lands Act, the DRILL Act, to use the millions of acres they already have to be able to provide oil for this country. Together we can solve this gas price crisis which is the result of the President's failed energy policy and our addiction to foreign oil.

I was sort of shocked to hear my friend from New Mexico complaining about rules and regulations that fetter the oil- extraction industry as restrictions that make us Third World. Well, you know, think for a moment about the abuses we see worldwide in terms of corruption and environmental abuse, and we have those for a reason.

But even if you're going to ignore that, if you think environmental protection and administrative controls are infringements on freedom and unnecessary, gee, as my friend from West Virginia points out, you passed an energy bill in 2005 that was supposed to streamline it. The Republicans and two oilmen have been in charge for the last 7\1/2\ years. If it doesn't work right, whose fault is that administratively?

I would suggest the gentleman look in the mirror and then vote for our legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Democratic majority has taken a thoughtful and bipartisan approach to this year's Intelligence Authorization bill. I have expressed my concerns about the health of our intelligence community and appreciate the work that has been done to strengthen the Inspector General, increase contractor oversight, and invest in the training of our operatives.

However, I am deeply troubled that this bill does not contain a prohibition on torture, which I believe is absolutely critical. Torture violates not only the laws and values of our country, but all standards of decent human conduct. I have consistently spoken out against the stonewalling and equivocation surrounding this administration's ``interrogation'' of detainees. I find it appalling that it has fallen solely to the legislative and judicial branches to set interrogation and detention standards worthy of our Nation.

Yet I remain hopeful that the abuses of this administration will be checked by wise and thoughtful policy. I applauded the recent ``Boumediene v. Bush'' Supreme Court ruling that guarantees Guantanamo Bay detainees the right of habeas corpus. Further, I believe that extending the rules of the Army Field Manual to U.S. intelligence personnel sends a clear signal that we have broken with and are rolling back the abuses of this administration.

I support a great deal of what this bill includes, yet my greatest concern is with what this bill omits. It is my hope that Congress will

come together in conference to send a message to this administration and the world at large that Americans do not approve of, and will not stand for, torture.

Madam Speaker, the rapid rise in the price of oil is threatening American families, our economy, and our national security. Gas prices have more than tripled since 2001, taking an ever-larger bite out of the family budget. On average, transportation costs are now Americans' second largest expense after housing. Most economists as well as most American citizens believe that this is a long-term trend, rather than a temporary situation. We've seen the last of the cheap oil on which we've built our economy and our daily lives.

There is no single solution to the complex energy situation we are facing, but we can equip every member of the American family to live better with less oil. The Federal Government can help give families and communities more choices, level the playing field for people who want to be less auto-dependent, and encourage the Federal Government to become a better partner and to lead by example in these efforts.

This is why I am introducing the ``Transportation and Housing Choices for Gas Price Relief Act,'' which will provide consumers with, and educate them about, choices in how they get around and where they live that will reduce their dependence on gasoline. The bill will increase commuter choices and support less oil-dependent forms of transportation, help transit agencies cope with rising fuel prices and improve service to deal with increased demand, assist communities in providing transportation options for their residents, increase the availability of affordable housing near public transportation, and ensure that the Federal Government leads by example on these issues.

At $4.00 a gallon gasoline, most Americans are already changing their daily behaviors to decrease fuel costs: taking fewer trips, keeping their cars tuned, even trading in their gas guzzlers for more fuel- efficient models. More needs to be done to ensure that consumers have transportation and housing options that reduce their reliance on single-occupancy vehicle trips. These transportation options can include public transit, carpooling, biking, walking, and other alternatives. For example, at $4 a gallon gasoline, American families can save $5.6 billion each year on gasoline costs by using transit. Bicycle commuters annually save an average of $1,825 in auto-related costs,

conserve 145 gallons of gasoline, and avoid 50 hours of gridlock traffic. Congress should be a better partner by supporting community efforts to provide these alternatives.

While our options to lower gas prices are limited, this bill recognizes that we can provide immediate relief from high gas prices by providing them choices.

Mr. Speaker, people are right to be concerned about the impact of high gas prices, diesel fuel, and even though it is summer, soon we'll have to be concerned about home heating oil prices as well. This is hurting everyone from truck drivers to nonprofits, like Meals on Wheels, who are seeing fewer volunteers because they can't afford the gasoline. It is clear that American families are struggling after years of this administration's failed energy policies. They need help from their political leaders, but most of all, they deserve to be treated honestly.

While it may test well with some focus groups to talk about opening up some of our most fragile and sensitive areas, like the Arctic, for drilling, it fails the more fundamental test of making a difference for our families today or for at least this year. It will take 10 to 20 years before the oil begins to flow from a place like the Arctic, and the benefits will not necessarily be noticed by families even then as we are in a vast global oil market. We hear now that there is a lack of equipment, materials and workers that compounds the problem of getting that oil to flow even if we move forward.

Expanding oil drilling as an answer to the current problems is a hoax because it will not make any difference for years, and even then, it will have so small an impact as to not even be noticed by most people. A difference of 2 cents a gallon in 20 years is little solace for people who are seeing gas prices rise 10 cents in a couple of days and oil prices shooting up $10 a barrel in a single day. It is a cruel hoax because there are things that can be done now.

An example of something we can do tomorrow which will make a difference immediately would be to release even a small fraction of the oil stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This would squeeze dollars out of the speculative part of the price of oil today. The money from the proceeds of selling this oil could be used to finance badly needed energy and transportation alternatives, and we would still have money left over with which we could continue to fill the Reserve with less expensive oil over time.

There are a series of initiatives that are being examined by the House this week that would rein in oil speculators. I don't know whether it's $5 or $50 a barrel. The experts we hear from conflict, but it's clear that there is some impact. If we stopped wasting taxpayer dollars and eliminated the Hummer tax loophole, which subsidizes the purchase of the largest, heaviest, most expensive gas guzzlers on the road, and instead used that money to make investments, that would help families now.

We can also help immediately by leveling the tax and policy playing field to give American families more choices about how they get around and about how they spend their money on their transportation needs. That's why I've introduced legislation, the Transportation and Housing Choices for Gas Price Relief Act, that recognizes, while there is no single solution to the complex energy situation we are facing, we can immediately reduce the impact of high gas prices on consumers by providing them with real options.

The bill would expand the successful Safe Routes to Schools program, and it would make high schools eligible so children could get to school on their own, burning calories instead of fossil fuel.

It would allow self-employed small businesspeople to get for the first time transit commuting benefits currently enjoyed by other employees of larger businesses. This legislation wouldn't force commuters into a one-size-fits-all solution for their transportation benefits. Instead, it would level the playing field so they could access what works for them.

The bill recognizes that the housing choices that reduce commuting costs sometimes may be a little more expensive, but it results in a legitimate increase in terms of their capacity to purchase a house, and that should be reflected in policy. It promotes telecommuting as well.

It uses current resources better to give people more choices designed to make lives better for Americans today,

this year, in 2008, not waiting until 2028. Congress should not spin an energy fantasy, but should deal with things that we can do today to deal with today's energy realities, and I urge my colleagues to look at the options like those in my legislation.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Recreational Performance Outerwear Apparel Act of 2008. This bill eliminates import duties on recreational-use performance outerwear apparel while simultaneously enhancing an established, U.S.-based training and education program for American textile and apparel workers. The legislation is the result of a successful partnership between importers of performance outerwear and the U.S. domestic textile and apparel industry.

In a recent report, the U.S. International Trade Commission recently found that there was no commercially viable U.S. production of performance outerwear used for skiing and snowboarding, hunting and other outdoor activities. This legislation reflects the findings of that report, while also investing in U.S. jobs. It provides duty free treatment for qualifying recreational-use performance outerwear and it establishes the Sustainable Textile and Apparel Research, STAR, fund.

The STAR fund invests in a training program that specializes in lean manufacturing technologies and supply chain analysis, including helping companies work towards minimizing energy and water use, reducing waste and carbon emissions and incorporating sustainable practices into a product's entire life cycle.

By reducing tariffs, my legislation reduces costs for American consumers and for American companies importing these goods; by investing in the textile industry, my legislation supports American jobs and competitiveness; and by researching environmental aspects of textile manufacture and supply, my legislation improves environmental outcomes.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Trade and Environment Enforcement Act, also known as the Green 301 Act. This bill expands the Section 301 provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 to encompass environmental effects.

Under the Trade and Environment Enforcement Act, the Trade Representative must identify those foreign country trade practices causing negative environmental impacts to human, animal, or plant life or health, or the conservation of exhaustible natural resources in the United States, the foreign country, a third country, or internationally. Once those practices have been identified, the Trade Representative must issue a report to Ways and Means and to Senate Finance with its findings.

After the Trade Representative issues its report, it must engage in consultations with foreign governments to resolve the negative practices it identifies with in the report and seek to negotiate an agreement between the United States and the foreign country providing for the mitigation, reduction, or elimination of the identified negative environmental impacts. If no agreement is reached, then the trade representative is authorized to take all appropriate and feasible action authorized under Section 301.

Additionally, the Trade and Environment Enforcement Act permits petitions and consultations under this process from interested parties, including environmental organizations and the business community, to expand the types and scope of the Trade Representative's environmental review.

Mr. Speaker, it's amusing to listen to my friends on

the other side of the aisle decrying Democrats as somehow responsible for the problem of the current high energy prices.

The fact is our friends on the Republican side controlled everything, by and large, for the last 7 years. They passed an energy bill in 2005 which was a perfect energy bill for the 1950s.

Nothing that they are proposing in terms of draining America dry by opening up more drilling is going to make any difference for 8 to 20 years, according to all the experts, and oil companies already have 68 million acres available for exploration now that we're encouraging them to use.

It's interesting that after the Republicans blocked even a study of improved fuel efficiency standards for our vehicles, the Democrats for the first time in 30 years have improved those efficiency standards. We're stopping Government competition with the oil companies by suspending Federal purchase of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We had to pass legislation to force the administration to do that.

Now, we're looking at squeezing speculators a little bit, and there are a range of choices to help commuters compete now.

It is time for us to talk honestly about the options and what's going to make a difference, not pretending that turning our energy future over to oil companies will make any difference in price or supply for years to come.