Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am introducing this resolution to honor an organization committed to the Oregon ideals of leadership, self-reliance, and fortitude. For nearly 15 years the Oregon National Guard Youth Leadership Challenge Program has served the State by promoting self-confidence and fellowship among at-risk youth. More than 3,500 Oregonians likely to drop out of high school or engage in destructive behavior have entered this free and voluntary program. I'm pleased to say that the majority of these cadets have gone on to graduate the program and earn a high school degree or its equivalent.

This program has made a positive difference in countless lives and communities. This tremendous success has garnered the Oregon Program high praise, including the United Service Organizations' (USO) award for ``Best Overall Program'' in 2007, 2003, and 2001.

Oregonians have a great deal to be proud of. We are proud of these cadets, who are determined to succeed despite adversity, and of our National Guard, which draws strength from our communities and gives back so much. It is my hope that our Nation will learn from the example provided by the Youth Challenge Program and will be inspired by Oregon's success.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this rule as I rise in support of this integral part of a comprehensive approach that has been offered by the majority party to deal with the energy challenges we face today.

It is important that we think of this in a comprehensive fashion because there isn't one silver bullet that's going to solve America's energy challenges, especially when it has taken years to paint us into this corner.

It should be made clear that, first and foremost, this is not just more about increasing supply, not just more drilling. Some of my Republican friends are talking about draining America dry and turning the rest of our energy future over to large oil companies who already, as the gentlewoman from Florida points out, control 68 million acres of land that is available for exploitation. Just ExxonMobil alone had $40 billion of profit. Were they spending it on existing leases to increase supply? They spent $36 billion buying back their stock and found, what was it, $10 million to invest in alternative energy. Significant irony here, I think.

One of the items that we've been involved with in the last 18 months is to work to give Americans more choices for their energy, to beef up opportunities for wind, solar, and tidal, in addition to those 68 million acres already available.

We're working on new technology. Three times the House has passed legislation, I'm pleased to say, that has included my provision to close the Hummer loophole that actually subsidizes the purchase of the largest, most energy inefficient, expensive vehicles like the Hummer and, instead, would spend that money to encourage alternatives like hybrid technology.

We need to be serious about not wasting more oil than any country in the world. You know, it's ironic, after the Democrats seized control of Congress we had to fight with this administration and our friends on the other side of the aisle to just increase fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles a gallon, that basically remained unchanged for 35 years. Our Republican friends, when they were in control, actually made it illegal to even study increasing fuel efficiency standards. It is stunning when we think today of the price Americans are paying at $4 a gallon that they refused to allow us to even study making cars more gasoline efficient.

Well, we broke through that. The irony is now George Bush is claiming credit for something that he resisted, but even if we give George Bush credit for what we forced him to do, it took George Bush longer to get to 35 miles to a gallon than it took Jack Kennedy to get Americans to the moon.

We hear about now, all of the sudden, they're flip-flopping and interested in more offshore drilling. This is interesting. George Bush, the first, put in place an executive order that prohibited it. George Bush, the second, reaffirmed it at the insistence of his brother, Jeb Bush, as my friend from Florida well knows. The President could now overturn that executive order if he wished. The Governor of Florida, since Florida controls the first three miles of State land, could start drilling 3 miles off the Florida coast if they were really excited about doing it.

Well, it's important that we've got this legislation today about using or losing oil leases. I strongly support the part of the puzzle that deals with conservation, because with less than 3 percent of the world's oil reserves we'll never be able to drill our way out of this. The irony is that even if we started drilling more today, every expert, every expert agrees that it will take 7 to 10 years for any of this oil to trickle into the system.

In this legislation, we are putting more resources to help mass transit, putting more resources to give consumers choices.

This is part of a comprehensive approach. Democrats have been working since we returned to power to increase fuel efficiency and with other alternatives for energy.

I welcome a broad, far-ranging debate about what Republicans did when they were in control for a dozen years in the House, especially the 6 years of the Bush administration, they were in complete control, their energy bill of 2005 when they were running the show, in contrast with what we've already been able to accomplish with just the last 18 months and what we propose to do in the future.

Support the rule. Support the underlying bill. I look forward to that debate.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate his leadership.

It's interesting for us to hear from some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, my good friend from Florida, recounting sort of the history of the Bush administration leadership on energy. I have a slightly different recollection of that.

One of the first things this administration did when they came to power was to create 7 years ago a secret task force. They never really fully released what was going on or why, but we know that it was dominated by representatives of the industry. And the Secretary of Energy in March of 2005 indicated that 95 percent of the objectives of the task force were completed. And then 35 months ago, on the floor of the House, we passed their big picture energy bill when they controlled everything, House, Senate, White House, and it was going to envision great changes for all American families.

Well, all American families have had some significant changes since the Republican energy bill was passed. Most significant is that gasoline prices have gone from $2.49 a gallon to over $4 a gallon. The changes about altered conservation, for instance, have come over the objections of our friends in the Republican party. Remember, for years, they made it illegal even to study increasing CAFE standards, and lo and behold, now George Bush is claiming credit for what we forced him to do for the first time in 30 years, increasing those fuel standards. But even if we give him credit for going to 35 miles to the gallon standard, it took George Bush longer to get to that 35 miles to a gallon than it took Jack Kennedy to get Americans to the moon.

This legislation is part of a comprehensive approach. You've seen it come to pass from our first days in Democratic control in this Congress, where we provided more incentives for new sources of energy, where we've worked to shift incentives from massive oil companies who didn't need our tax dollars. Remember, George Bush said they didn't need subsidies at $50 a barrel. Well, Big Oil didn't need it at $100 per barrel or $140, but that shift to alternative energy support was resisted by the administration and by my Republican colleagues.

We have systematically moved forward in areas to give more choices to Americans. I heard my friend from Louisiana talk about how it costs money to explore the 68 million acres already available to them. Gee, ExxonMobil spent $36 billion last year, not in alternative energy, that was $10 million, but to buy back their own stock.

Let's get a grip. It's time for us to move forward with choices that will make a difference. This legislation will make a difference for every community, rural and urban, around the country. I urge its adoption.

Madam Chairman, I thank Mr. McGovern and my friend from Virginia. This is really important for us, to be able to start equalizing the playing field. I think there is nothing at this point in the game that is more critical than giving people transportation choices. I appreciate the long-term interest and advocacy that you have had in terms of doing this. I think it is an important step to make sure that commuters across the country are treated in a fair and equitable fashion.

I am hopeful that the body will embrace this, that we will be able to deal with it in an aggressive sense, both in terms of the Ways and Means Committee, that we can work with our colleagues to find ways in the Tax Code to make the adjustments that are necessary to cushion the commuter cost of transit users, as well as people who use their vehicles; that we deal with some people who have extraordinary costs because of the long distances commute, and I think there are ways that we can adjust this.

I would beg their indulgence for one modest potential adjustment, and that is while this moves forward to make a difference for people who are commuting, I would hope there would be some way we could work together to also include equity for people who burn calories instead of fossil fuel, because as yet, the Tax Code and the policies do not provide equity for Mr. Oberstar's friendly, favorite people, the cyclists, although we have passed that three times through the House this year previously. Being able to put cycling communities along with transit and auto communities will make a big difference in the long run.

I appreciate this leadership and look forward to working with them to make progress in the future.

Madam Chairman, the reference was made by my other friend from Florida that there was a related provision that passed last week on a 429-1 vote. I confess to being the one person who voted against that. I had some concerns about how that was framed.

I went back and did some research and concluded that my ``no'' vote was ill-advised, although it wasn't determinative, and I wanted to indicate that I personally support what is being proposed here. I think it is a reasonable compromise to deal with issues that need to be taken, and I appreciate my friend's courtesy in allowing me to do my mea culpa while you wait for your other speaker.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and look forward to moving forward on this amendment. I think it balances a potential inequity.

But I would hope that as we move forward to reauthorization, that the folks on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, that we might be able to look at more Federal flexibility for the land that is used with these park-and-ride items, because in many cases they are frozen in time. We have inflexible Federal rules about what can be used for that land, and they have a habit of not being at the end of the line. So if we can in the future be able to use them as an anchor for community development and redevelopment where people can live and work at that point, rather than having to drive vast distances to get there in the first place, these facilities can leverage significant redevelopment opportunity, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and be able to reduce the operating cost for the lines.

So I have no objection to this proposal as it goes forward, but I would hope that we would be creative as we move to reauthorization that we don't freeze in arbitrarily what local communities can do with transit agencies and the Federal Government to be able to leverage them to get more out of it in the long run so we don't have to unnecessarily force people to drive to use it in the first place.

I yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate the leadership of the committee. One cannot get back to the committee often enough. And I would look forward to working with you and with the gentleman from Washington to make sure that we get the most out of these resources.

Madam Speaker, like the proverbial pig that has been swallowed by the python, the swollen surge of the Mississippi flood waters is slowly working its way down the river. The damage inflicted is not just to the homes, businesses and farms along the way, but it will have serious consequences for the environment at the mouth of the Mississippi, the so-called ``dead zone''--further erosion of topsoil along the length of the river while raising food prices across America and around the world.

The consensus of the scientific community is that extreme weather events like the heavy rainfalls are going to make episodes like this more frequent, but even if you do not agree with the scientific consensus, one thing is beyond dispute: The policies and practices of the Federal Government and of our State and local partners are not just contributing to the disaster but are themselves a disaster.

For generations now, along the riverbank, we have been increasing the amount of water in the mighty Mississippi River as we narrow its course and reduce its meandering ways, making it much shorter than it was at the time of the first European explorers. Weather events resulting from global warming and resulting from humans having put more water in the river, shortening its course or narrowing it, have a compounding effect.

In the State of Iowa, more than 90 percent of the wetlands, nature's natural sponges, have been filled. In vast sections of Iowa, there are tiles under many areas of the farmland, making it this massive plumbing project that is designed to reduce the power of the land to absorb and to retain water. By replacing native vegetation that has deep root systems, with corn and soybeans that don't, covering, some have said, as much as a third of the State, we further accelerate the runoff, and those relatively shallow root systems allow more precious topsoil to erode into the already Big Muddy, which in turn reduces the capacity of the waterways to carry water. All of these greatly enhance the impact of the flood.

It's not just our agriculture and land use policies that are a disaster but how we respond to the challenges posed by the river. From levee failures in New Orleans to the upper Mississippi lock and dam project, all along the Mississippi, the Corps of Engineers and its local and state political and civic leadership, at the behest of Congress, are investing in questionable navigation projects while ignoring the problems of the integrity of the existing levees. All of a sudden, it's news now that there are problems with the ability of these levees along the river system to provide needed protection. I have said on the floor of the House when we were debating the upper Mississippi lock and dam project, that there was questionable need since there is steady or even slightly declining barge traffic in the river, this project, the most expensive navigation project in history would be at the expense of protecting public safety.

At the end of the day, a critical part of the equation is restoring some of the natural balance so the inevitable floods can be handled as nature intended, into the surrounding fields and wetlands. This is illustrated by what happened when some of the levee failures reflooded farmland, relieved the pressure and thus reduced the magnitude of flooding downstream. This, obviously, needs to be built into the system. Yet there are cries now going out to remove land--106,000 acres of conservation reserve in Iowa. Now, this is a program that pays farmers to protect the environment and to enhance wildlife habitat and to provide a safety valve, that sponge effect.

Some in Congress are making serious proposals to take this land out of protection and to plant it with the very crops that will help make this situation worse.

I have worked for 10 years to reform our flood insurance program so that, instead of repeatedly putting people in harm's way, we use the money to relocate them or to flood-proof their properties, making them less susceptible to damage. We ought to extend flood insurance coverage so that all responsible property owners will protect themselves, and it will be a signal of the costs of living and of doing business in these risky areas.

As this disaster unfolds, there are actually letters circulating in the Senate that would eliminate the requirement of reform legislation for providing flood insurance inside these levees despite further proof positive that people need it.

The Federal Government needs to get its policies straight. Some of the vast sums we spend in the bloated farm bill should be redirected to pay farmers to restore the environment rather than to make it worse.

Our long-term investments should be to make people safer and slowly reduce support for repetitive flood loss, paying to protect and relocate rather than simply put them back in harm's way. Responsibility, common sense, and sustainable economic and environmental practices can help repair our disaster policies which make the events, which have occurred for centuries, worse and more expensive.

In so doing we make our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Either way, the farmers will be paid. Doesn't it make sense to pay them to make things better?

I strongly suggest that it's time to increase the capacity of the land to absorb water, to get people out of harm's way and to do things in a way that's fair for us all.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to support H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. This legislation addresses issues within Medicare that have been too long ignored, including preventing the pending 10 percent payment reduction for, enhancing preventive and mental health benefits, improving and extending programs for low-income Medicare beneficiaries, and extending expiring provisions for rural providers.

By addressing the critical issue of physician payment under Medicare through 2009, Congress will have the time to study and develop the systemic, sustainable reforms necessary to preserve patient access to physician services under Medicare. And the 18-month delay in implementation of the flawed competitive bidding program for Durable Medical Equipment, DMEPOS, allows Congress time to evaluate and improve this policy.

I am heartened this legislation passed with such overwhelming bipartisan support, demonstrating that we can come together with thoughtful solutions that better the lives of Americans.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hard work put in by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers. For the past year we've participated in substantial and sometimes heated debate on the issue of surveillance and foreign intelligence. I appreciate the good faith efforts of our leadership, particularly Mr. Hoyer, as we try to craft legislation that keeps both our liberties and our persons safe.

For the past seven years I have been highly critical of Republican wiretapping legislation. I voted against past efforts to expand this administration's ability to intrude in the lives of unknowing and innocent Americans. I supported the expiration of the disgraceful Protect America Act. And I remain confident that the dedicated members of the intelligence community do not need to violate the rights of Americans in order to protect them.

I have heard some say that the enemies of America take on many forms. To them I say: Let us be sure one of those forms is not our own government.

Ultimately this is a compromise that falls short. Any gains in security that may be achieved are temporary and are more than outweighed by the longer-term loss of civil liberties and oversight. Although this bill is comparatively better than the Senate's version, I am troubled by the lack of robust government oversight, the absence of meaningful court review, and the risk to American liberties.

Of particular concern is the granting of de facto retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the administration. A `doctor's note' from the Attorney General cannot be allowed to circumvent the entire judicial process.

I am equally concerned with the timeline of this bill, and strongly oppose authorizing this legislation for four years. This will extend the Bush legacy throughout the next administration and the next two sessions of Congress. Frankly I see no reason to rush into a compromise that comes up this short. The American people would be better served if we continued to debate this issue and took up a bill after we have seen the last of this administration. Americans demand and deserve protection of their basic civil rights and this can be accomplished while providing the means necessary for our intelligence community to do its job.

Madam Speaker, while our hearts are touched by the

terrible flooding in Iowa, 24 lives lost already, 40,000 people who had to be evacuated, now is the time to think about how we help them in the future and prevent others from this fate.

This is the second 500-year flood in the last 15 years. There is a thought-provoking article on the front page of today's Washington Post that I would commend to all of my colleagues. It recalls something that I saw when I last visited Iowa, that the whole State has been dramatically replumbed. Ninety percent of the wetlands have been filled and farmed. Last year alone, 106,000 acres in the Conservation Reserve Program were taken out and farmed, acres that would have served as a great big sponge to capture the water instead of making flooding worse.

Because the effects of global warming and planting one-third of the State in corn and soybeans, we should reflect on the human role in the unfolding disaster. Now is the time to review our disastrous farm and water resource policies so that we can protect people in the future from this fate.

Mr. Speaker, as we take up the final war supplemental of the Bush administration, the Bush legacy in Iraq is clear: a President who misled America, needlessly put our troops in harm's way, and threw billion of dollars of good money after bad.

Five years ago, I spoke out and voted against the invasion of lraq. From that time I have opposed the open-ended funding and escalation of this terrible conflict, while the President has committed us to a growing military tragedy, foreign policy nightmare, and, increasingly, humanitarian crisis. I continue to believe that the best way to honor those whose lives have been lost in this tragic war is to end it quickly and responsibly.

It is a constant source of frustration that Congress has been unable to substantially curb our involvement in Iraq. Though this bellicose President may be content to wage a war and then leave the aftermath to his successor, Congress should know better. It is the men and women from our districts--whose names and faces we know--that are wounded and dying in Iraq. I cannot support the war funding amendment. It is fundamentally flawed, providing no requirements for withdrawal.

However, I am pleased that the second amendment provides almost $700 million in refugee assistance. Iraq has claimed the lives of thousands of Americans, and the Iraqi civilian death toll is several times that. George Bush famously proclaimed he would be no ``nation-builder.'' This has been sadly true for the 4.5 million Iraqis forced from their homes since the U.S. invasion. Tomorrow, June 20, is World Refugee Day, and I am pleased to see that this second amendment does more for Iraq's 2.5 million refugees and 2 million internally displaced persons.

I am also pleased that the amendment includes responsible domestic items such as the significant expansion of ``GI Bill'' education benefits, the protection of Medicaid from harmful cuts, an extension of unemployment benefits, and funding for domestic disaster relief, all necessary in our unsteady economy.

I am proud today to cast votes in support of our troops--by voting against unconditional war funding and this President's reckless war, and by voting for educational benefits and responsible international and domestic priorities.

Thank you, Congressman Inslee. It's a pleasure to join with my colleagues from Illinois and Kansas for this conversation this evening.

This is serious business, and in a time when energy impacts are devastating our airline industry and when there is no part of the costs for the Air Force going up faster than fuel efficiency, I think we could spend the rest of the evening talking about the relative merits there and the advantage that this means in terms of operation and in terms of budget.

But I really wanted, if I could, just to circle back here for a moment because

I appreciate the focus that we're hearing from my colleagues about the merits of the issue.

Now, I come from a little sliver of the northwest. We're not the epicenter of that, but there's 1,000 high paying, family wage jobs just in my little district that are involved with this and is going to make a difference. But candidly, the way that the other proposal was structured, there would be a little residual benefit. It was sort of politically engineered, and there was a little bit, not nearly as much as the Boeing proposal, and Congress can and should consider that. It has huge impacts in some parts of the northwest, in the Midwest, and it has ripple effects throughout the economy.

And at the end of the day, this is something I think policy-makers have an obligation to be aware of and comment, and I appreciate my friend from Illinois talking about pending disputes with the WTO. There are serious allegations about unjustified subsidy for Airbus that really do need to be resolved, because we are in an anomalous situation where if we rush ahead with this and grant the award, perhaps on a basis that wasn't justified, we could end up further undermining the position of American industry by somebody who's not playing by the rules and further undercut us, which is something that, going back to the drawing table, allowing that challenge to work its way out, I think has great merit.

But I appreciate what my colleague from Kansas was talking about in terms of the end of the day we're talking about a critical component of our defense establishment. And while there's lots of complaints, and some that I think are merited that we need to review our military approach to make sure that we're not spending too much money fighting the Cold War, clearly there is no argument, no argument that we can afford to not have a robust and effective exercise of our air power, and the air refueling is essential to warfare today, things that are going on today and are going to go on tomorrow.

And when we're looking at a strategic, critical component of our ability to supply our troops, that is already averaging almost half a century, and before anybody could move forward it will pass that critical 50-year mark, this raises I think to a critical level.

And I hope that every single Member of Congress in the House and the Senate takes the time to review this GAO report because I think it's going to raise serious questions in their mind, as it did with GAO. We want to make sure that that evaluation is done in the most cost- effective manner--big questions about whether the bid does that--and we want to make sure we are treating, given the troubled history of this project--and some of us, Congressman Inslee, we've been around a little bit. We've watched the bumpy ride to get to this point. This has got to be done letter perfect. We can't afford to have any questions or errors. And boy, any objective reasoning suggests that what we've heard, the way the Air Force handled it doesn't meet the bill.

I appreciate you zeroing in on this, Congressman Inslee, because you, as much as anybody in Congress, have been spending the time looking at the consequences of our current use of energy. I think the evidence is not only in terms of the percentage that you referenced, almost a quarter less over a 40-year period, the evidence would suggest that the trend line for energy costs are likely to be understated.

Who would have thought, frankly, 6 months ago that we'd be bumping up against $140 a barrel oil and with the likelihood that it could go to $200 before it gets down below $100?

So the costs are magnified over time.

And given the fact that these planes have actually stayed in service far beyond their design life, that that is further--what if these are going to be operational for another 50 years? I think that projection just pales; it makes it all the more important that we do that.

I appreciate your focus. And I appreciate having a chance to join you in this discussion.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I have enjoyed listening to the last hour from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle give their version of what we should do to deal with the energy problems that we face.

You know, I found it amusing what we didn't hear in the course of their discussion. They were able to talk for one solid hour, and there was no mention of conservation. The fact that the United States has less than 3 percent of the world's proven reserves of oil, that we consume almost 25 percent of it, that we waste more than any country in the world, that it has taken George Bush longer to get to 35-miles-per- gallon fuel efficiency than it took Jack Kennedy to get to the moon, not one word about something that was going to make a difference.

We didn't hear one word about how long it would take if they got everything they wanted, if they surrendered America's energy future in toto by giving all of the remaining oil and gas leases going to some of our most precious and sensitive areas that was highly speculative, and is in fact opposed by some Republican governors like Governor Schwarzenegger of California. If you just turned all of that over, they didn't talk about how long it would take to produce. And our friends at home can do a little bit of research from independent analysts, and they'll find that that's 7 to 10 years into the future. They didn't talk about how long that would take.

You didn't hear one word about popping the speculative bubble. If they had been attending the hearings that we have had here in Congress in the course of the last couple months, we would find that experts, including people from the oil industry, have testified that up to $50 of this increase in the price of a barrel of oil is due to speculation. And we haven't heard one word about what they would do to pop the speculative bubble, which much faster than anything you can talk about draining all our resources and turning available land over to the oil companies, this would make a difference immediately.

We haven't heard from them about all of the flip-flopping that's going on. You know, we heard this land is off-limits. George Bush I issued an executive order that declared areas off limits to drilling. George Bush II and the Republican Congress for the previous 6 years didn't do anything about this. But George Bush, by a stroke of the pen, could reverse what his father put in place. Yet our friends didn't have anything to say about that.

It's interesting watching the flip-flopping that's going on in the Republican party. John McCain was against drilling in these sensitive areas when he was a candidate for President in 2000. In fact, he's maintained a position against drilling in the sensitive offshore areas until a few days ago when he's decided to change. Of course, he does not agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle that we should go into the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Maybe he understands that that's the last place we should drill instead of the next.

We're finding that it is fascinating watching the jujitsu here where people are flipping around changing positions and there is no consistency, there is no honesty in terms of how long it would take, there is no effort to deal with some of the things that are actually running up the prices.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats in Congress have been passing initiatives since we regained control to improve fuel efficiency that was approved over the objection of the Republicans and over the objection of George Bush and was delayed. We have had initiatives to improve efficiency to give people more tools, to shift from lavish subsidies to the most profitable corporations in the history of the planet, the oil companies that really don't need extra subsidies, and give it to alternative sources of energy like wind and solar that do need it now.

We are very concerned that we use the resources that are available now. It is absolutely facetious to suggest that we have locked up all of America's energy resources. What you didn't hear from my friends that have been talking for an hour is the fact that there are 68 million acres already under control of the oil and gas industry that they have chosen not to explore. They're not in production. 68 million acres. Indeed, the majority of the land that is available right now they have chosen not to use.

We have legislation from a number of my colleagues that I am proud to cosponsor that would simply require that the oil companies use it or they lose it. If they are going to have these leases, they're going to have to explore it. And if they don't, then they will lose the opportunity to tie up even more land. That simple expedient of using it or losing it would spark far more exploration than anything my colleagues talked about for an hour and would do it much sooner.

Second, we need to pop the speculative bubble. They haven't said anything about that. Not one word, other than one of my colleagues, to acknowledge that the speculators are at work. But no focus about what we're going to do about it.

As I mentioned, we have heard, including a top executive from ExxonMobil that testified before our Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, that speculation, along with weakening of the dollar and geopolitical risk, is responsible for driving oil prices up to $50 a barrel.

Now, I don't know whether the speculative bubble is $5 a barrel or $50 a barrel, but that is something that this Congress should do something about. It's something the administration has turned a blind eye to, and it's something my Republican colleagues have nothing to say about.

We have legislation to deal with that.

Congressman Larson from Connecticut has legislation that is pretty straightforward that if you are going to speculate in oil futures, you have to be willing to take delivery. Now, this is supported by people who are in the oil--it wouldn't affect anybody who is in the oil and gas business who's producing or delivering, but the people who are simply there to profit from speculation would have their wings clipped a little bit.

The Enron loophole which excluded this speculative activity in energy which was approved under the watch of

this administration and the Republicans of Congress, excluded it from supervision from the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. We think it's time to close the Enron loophole. We think it's time to have more oversight rather than less.

Let's deal, for instance, with the amount of margin, the leverage that people who are doing something that's perfectly appropriate trying to make a buck, but we want to make sure that we don't have yet another speculative bubble that is hammering the American economy like we've seen with the housing bubble, what we saw in the stock market bubble. People turn a blind eye to it. We suggest we shouldn't do that.

It is important to ramp up efforts at conservation. As I mentioned, it's taken George Bush, who sat in before us speaking from the podium immediately in front of me and declared that we were addicted to oil, the same George Bush who said at $50 a barrel the oil companies didn't need subsidies to be encouraged to develop oil resources but yet has consistently fought our efforts to shift unnecessary subsidies when oil prices were twice that.

It's taken this administration longer to get to 35 miles per gallon than it took Jack Kennedy to get to the moon.

We need to help provide consumers with more choices. We need to accelerate our efforts dealing with alternative fuels.

I see my colleague, Jay Inslee, has joined us here in the Chamber. Congressman Inslee serves with me on the Speaker's Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming who's done a great deal of work and research and has listened to the testimony that I have heard that there are a vast array of entrepreneurs ready to go right now with plug-in hybrids, with electric cars, that we should be accelerating this effort.

And before I turn to my colleague to elaborate on that, somebody who speaks with great passion, authority, and conviction, I would mention that the Federal Government itself, under the Republican administration, continues to have a vast fleet of gas-hungry SUVs. We're spending $3\1/2\ billion through GSA for hundreds of thousands of vehicles and millions of gallons of gasoline. Wouldn't it be nice for this administration to get serious about not competing with the rest of American consumers by moving to more fuel-efficient cars ourselves, more biodiesel, alternative energy sources, plug-in hybrids, to be a leader rather than making the problem worse?

Congressman Inslee, I appreciate your taking time late at night to join me. I appreciate your leadership and advocacy, and I wonder if you might want to talk a little bit about some of the choices, based on your research and work, that should be made available to the American consumer.

I appreciate, Mr. Inslee, your continued advocacy, being on message, moving legislative initiatives, and helping educate the American public about the potential of the New Apollo Project, the potential for our economy, the potential for a new era.

I want to conclude because I guess we only have half an hour, so I've got a few minutes left. So I'm going to conclude by just running through what we didn't hear this evening. I want to be very, very focused on this because what we didn't hear was an honest explanation of what the problem is and where we're going to go. If for some reason we have a few more moments, I'll be happy to flip back to my friend, but let me just finish my thoughts here.

The notion that we are going to somehow surrender our energy future to the Big Oil companies, allow them to lease everything else, and have it their will to take some of our most precious, sensitive places and run roughshod over the will of the people in California or Florida or elsewhere, New Jersey, I mean, a whole host of places that would be affected by this and somehow get $2 a gallon gasoline is poppycock. And I think my good friend from Washington said hooey.

But you look at any independent, honest, objective expert, and they will say, you may be able to affect things 7 to 10 years from now a penny or two below what the price otherwise would be because we're caught up in a global initiative.

It is as phony as Senator McCain's proposal for a gas tax holiday which would only give the holiday to the Big Oil companies, and we'd rely on their magnificent generosity to trickle a little of that down. No indication that that would happen.

We didn't hear one word about global warming, which even Senator McCain and Senator Obama agree on and we are going to be dealing with a carbon-constrained economy.

Not one word about conservation. We can't afford to continue to waste more oil than any country in the world.

We heard an attack on cap-and-trade, which is where the United States and every other developed economy is going. We're going to have a carbon-constrained economy. We're not going to enable people to continue to pollute the environment with massive amounts of carbon, slowly cook the planet, raise sea levels and temperatures with extreme weather. That's not going to happen. The American public understands that. The evangelical community, the environmental community, organized labor and business are moving in this direction.

It was George Bush the first's decision to issue many of these protections via executive order, and George Bush the second--if he had been serious about this, would have done it years ago. He would have changed his father's decision if he was serious about it before he was running in Florida and California. He hasn't.

It will take 7 to 10 years for this to get to market. We will, as Mr. Inslee has mentioned, we will deal with closing the Enron loophole and squeezing the speculators.

We need to use what we have now, the use-it-or-lose-it. Sixty-eight million acres are now open to the large oil companies right now, an area the size of Georgia and Illinois combined. We're going to advance legislation that says they we're going to use that before we mortgage the rest of our energy future for them, or we'll give it to somebody who will.

I'm amazed that my friends continue to come to the floor and attack bicycles. I find that somewhat amusing because I've been working for a dozen years on bike partisanship. I know there are many Members on the Republican side of the aisle that don't believe the rhetoric of their extreme Members and their leadership who belittle the role that new technologies can play or the application of old technologies.

You know, today, if you go down to the G2 entrance in the Rayburn building, you can't find a place to park a bike. Members and staff are coming here in droves. At $4 or $5 a gallon, you bet it makes sense. Making an opportunity for our children to walk or bike to school safely, you bet it makes sense. Would we be talking about morbidly obese, 300-pound sixth graders if more kids could do that? Yet somehow the Republican leadership has chosen to try and belittle the most effective form of urban transportation ever designed and, in fact, is supported by many of the Republicans themselves.

At the Republican convention and the Democratic convention, Mr. Speaker, we're going to have 1,000 bicycles, and you watch these people who try and belittle cycling. You watch delegates line up to use it, to travel around Minneapolis and Denver, to actually see the community at 10 miles an hour, to get through security and parking hassles, to be able to get a little exercise and save some energy.

But that is symptomatic of their approach to try and score political points, to make fun of things that make a difference, and ultimately, it's why their approach is doomed to fail.

Democrats, since we assumed control, have been working on initiatives to give the American consumer more choices, to protect the environment, to encourage conservation, to give them more fuel-efficient cars, to give them mass transit, to give people in rural and small town America and our urban centers more opportunities about how they move, where they live, to get more out of the energy that we've got and develop new technologies that are more sustainable, that will lead to the revitalization not just of the environment but to our economy.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Thank you. And I appreciate your pulling these pieces together, Congressman Inslee. I think you hit the nail on the head.

I am hopeful that throughout all of this, that we can conduct this debate from this point forward by being honest with the American public. There is no one single cause for what we've seen happen with oil prices--speculation, world market, increased demand, hiccup here, there are a whole host of things that we see. Likewise, there is no one single solution. We need a comprehensive array.

We do want to restrain speculation, whether it's $1 a barrel or $50 a barrel. It's unfair to the American consumer. It's unfair to the industries and small business people, and homeowners that rely on fairly priced petroleum products.

We need to encourage using the energy leases that are out there right now before we consider surrendering our energy future by turning over even more leases. Use the 68 million acres that are available now.

We have to stop wasting more oil than anybody else on the planet. Three times I've had an amendment that has passed in our legislation to close the Hummer loophole, but with our tax code, we're still subsidizing, with your tax dollars, the purchase of the largest, most fuel-inefficient, expensive vehicles, costing the Treasury hundreds of millions of dollars and working against ourselves. We need to change that; something that we have been unable to do with the current configuration, but it has passed the House.

We need to develop new energy sources, not just drain petroleum dry. But we need to be serious about solar, wind, tidal. We need to be serious about new technologies, as you point forward. We need to work on how the land use system is in place. In too much of America it's illegal for somebody who works in a drugstore to live in an apartment above that drugstore. We artificially separate uses.

We have too many long commutes. Too many people have to burn a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk. We need to have a more rational and thoughtful approach to a land use system that will make transportation work better.

And last, but not least, we need more transportation choices for Americans, whether it's Amtrak revitalized, streetcars, buses, light rail, heavy rail--God forbid bicycles and pedestrian. They're all part of a mix. And every American ought to have a wider range of choice, and the Federal Government ought to be working to do this.

Mr. Inslee, I appreciate your joining me this evening. I appreciate your

analysis and your leadership. And if you have any concluding thoughts, I would turn to you at this point before yielding back.

Well said.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, June 20, 2008, at 9 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my Oregon colleagues in introducing the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2008.''

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

Today, this legislation designates over 132,000 acres of Wilderness, almost 80 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 34,000 acres of National Recreation Areas in the Mt. Hood National Forest. It would create a long term transportation plan to address the challenges of getting to and from the mountain, establish a special watershed protection area for the Crystal Springs Watershed, focus on a forest-wide vegetation management strategy which includes biomass utilization, establish a working group to advise the Forest Service on recreation enhancements, respect Native Americans' treaty reserved gathering rights and honor the United States' cultural foods obligations to those Tribes. Lastly, the bill directs the Forest Service to participate in three land conveyances. These exchanges will provide additional protection for the North side of Mt. Hood, the Pacific Crest Trail, and a parcel of land that is critical to the community in Clackamas County.

In keeping with the spirit of our well-established and participatory process, I look forward to working with our stakeholders as the legislative process moves forward. I hope that this bill is not the last word when it comes to protecting Oregon's most beautiful, scenic and at-risk places. I hope that the Natural Resources Committee will quickly schedule a hearing on it so that we can pass and implement it and begin working towards protection for other ``Oregon Treasures'' in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on that. I rise in support of this resolution and think that it is appropriate and timely for it to come forward and agree with the representation that I have heard from my colleagues.

As a long-time public radio listener and Chair of the Public Broadcasting Caucus, I was proud to sponsor the resolution recognizing Public Radio Recognition Month.

Too often we take for granted the rich and diverse contributions of public radio to America's communities, and this was an opportunity on the floor of the House to reflect on its contributions and show our appreciation for public radio as a genuine national treasure.

The future of radio depends on programming and content, first and foremost, and in the area of high-quality radio content, public radio has no peer. Public radio offers an unmatched commitment to using the airwaves to create a more informed public, a public that craves and is challenged by an examination of ideas, events and culture.

Each week, over 33 million Americans listen to NPR, an audience that exceeds the top 35 U.S. daily newspapers combined. When we consider this figure, along with the 100 million people who watch public television each week, we can see the profound reach of Public Broadcasting. It connects people with their local community, their Nation and their world in a way that no other outlet can or does.

Distinctive, award-winning programs such as This American Life, A Prairie Home Companion, and Speaking of Faith tell the story of our shared American experience, and the vibrant, enduring programs of Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and Marketplace draw on reporting from correspondents based in bureaus around the world and from producers and reporters in 19 locations in the United States.

But the strength of the NPR and the member station news network goes far beyond this corps of international and national NPR reporters; it reaches into communities across America. Through community-based journalism, such as the Diane Rehm Show right here in Washington, DC on WAMU and Think Out Loud on OPB back home in Oregon, we see a dedication to bringing people together at the local level for thoughtful conversations about complex and sometimes contentious issues.

These strong, news-oriented programs exist today in most of the top markets across the country, and when the strength of these stations is combined with NPR's strength in national and international reporting, the result is one of the largest, most capable and most trusted news network organizations anywhere in the world.

Public radio reliably provides a careful, balanced and thoughtful approach to news and culture. This feature is unique to public broadcasting, and it is a breath of fresh air in our often shrill and argumentative mass media environment.

We hear a lot about commercial broadcasting's becoming little more than 30-second, sound-bite news. That's one of the reasons I believe NPR's audience has grown so significantly in recent years, doubling in the last 15 years and increasing by 70 percent in the last decade.

Americans are thirsty for thoughtful and intelligent programming, and at a time when our media is controlled by fewer and fewer entities, we can have confidence that public radio which is owned by the public is committed to public interests, not to special interests.

In every congressional district across the country, through over 800 locally controlled and managed stations, Americans can turn to a public radio station as their single source for local, national and international news as well as for informative, cultural and musical programming.

There is nowhere else you can find such unique and valued service for all of our communities, and I hope that resolution was a reminder that we in Congress, as individuals and policymakers, must continue to provide critical support for local, publicly owned radio stations, the heart of public radio.

I invite my colleagues to recognize this achievement as they reflect on public broadcasting. It's part of the framework that makes the country so great and part of why we revere our flag and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support today's legislation to extend unemployment benefits at a time of economic hardship for families in Oregon and across the country. There are currently over 106,000 unemployed workers in Oregon and as many as 3.8 million nationally who are struggling with the rising cost of food and fuel.

Today's legislation will immediately provide up to 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits in every state to workers exhausting their 26 weeks of regular unemployment benefits. In states with levels of unemployment at 6 percent or higher, an additional 13 weeks would be available for a total of 26 weeks of extended benefits.

In my home state of Oregon, our economy has weakened but remained at the relative national average of 5.5 percent. However, that is an unemployment rate 0.5 percent higher than this time last year. Although Oregonians would not qualify at this time for the second extension of benefits, it gives me peace of mind to know that safety nets are in place if the Oregon economy gets bleaker. Many in Oregon well remember the downturn in 2003 when during the summer the unemployment exceeded 8.5 percent, the highest in the country.

During major economic slowdowns, unemployed workers are the hardest hit. Not only do they suffer a loss of wages, but they face a tighter job market in which to return. Extending these workers' benefits is not only morally correct; it is also good for our ailing economy. The Congressional Budget office estimates that every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.64 in new economic demand.

I am pleased that Democrats have moved quickly to pass this benefits extension for the workers who need it most. I hope that the Senate will move quickly and the President will refrain from vetoing this legislation so that American families can get the help they need.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the reauthorization of Amtrak. This bipartisan bill authorizes $14.4 billion over five years and is Amtrak's first full reauthorization since 1997. The bill includes $4.2 billion for capital grants, $3 billion for operations, and $1.75 billion over five years for grants for high-speed rail corridors. This marks a major step in the right direction at a time when consumers around the country are struggling with high gasoline prices and limited transportation options.

At the same time, I am sobered by Chairman Oberstar's remarks highlighting a European initiative to spend $350 billion on their rail system. Over the past decade, the United States, by contrast, has barely doled out enough resources to allow Amtrak to limp along. Our Nation must invest in our infrastructure if we expect to remain competitive. This bill takes the first steps in that direction. I would support further action to expand and improve intercity passenger service in the United States.

In Oregon, the state transportation department partners with Amtrak to provide service along the Eugene-Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, BC corridor, a federally-designated high speed rail corridor, known as the Cascades line. While Oregon and Washington pay for the Cascades service, Amtrak operates the train, and this arrangement has proven to be a very successful partnership.

Ridership on the Oregon segment of the line, which has two daily roundtrip trains, has nearly quadrupled since it was initiated in 1994, rising to over 130,000 passengers in 2006. Total ridership on the Cascades service rose over 7 percent last year, reaching 674,000 passengers, making the Northwest high speed rail corridor the seventh most heavily traveled in the country. With gas prices high, ridership on the corridor for the first quarter of 2008 is up 14.4 percent compared to the first quarter of 2007. This train service is an important part of the region's transportation system on the congested 1-5 corridor.

As successful as the Cascades service is, however, reaching its full potential will require additional investments in the rail line to allow Oregon and Amtrak to increase the frequency and reliability of service. The authorization of capital grants for this purpose will provide needed system upgrades and will strengthen this successful partnership.

I am also supportive of Congressman Oberstar's manager's amendment, which allows for grants to create bike storage on Amtrak trains. Much of the increased ridership in Oregon and around the country is a result of people changing their work commutes to include public transportation. Many commuters, however, still need their bikes to get to and from the train stations, or for transportation at their destination. By equipping our trains with bike storage we offer people more choices and we do so in a way that is efficient, economical, and good for the environment.