Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my thanks and congratulations to Mr. James Arnold, environmental restoration manager for the Oregon National Guard. He was recently awarded the Secretary of the Army's FY07 Environmental Restoration Award for contributions made by an individual. This is the Army's highest honor in the field of environmental science, and Mr. Arnold is the year's only individual to be recognized.

As the Federal Government's largest property holder, the Department of Defense has a significant responsibility to ensure its lands are sustainably managed. Mr. Arnold's success proves that government can be a good partner to communities and the environment. His innovative approaches to resource management and remediation are a credit to Oregonian ingenuity and environmental stewardship.

I am particularly impressed by the large-scale range remediation at Camp Withycombe, located in my district. For years, I have advocated for increased awareness and funding for the cleanup of our ranges and legacy sites. This work in immensely challenging and I am impressed with Mr. Arnold's creative, cost-effective, and above all, successful approach to this problem.

I am proud that the Oregon Army National Guard is at the forefront of the Army's efforts to transform its environmental and business practices.

Mr. Arnold, thank you for your outstanding service to Oregon and our country. I wish you the best of luck in your future work.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate his leadership on this, and look forward to watching this legislation pass today.

It was my pleasure to be in Johannesburg in 2002 when sanitation was added to the Millennium Challenge Development Goal to create a comprehensive framework for the needs of the world's poorest. But I am saddened

that we are here today, still repeating those horrible statistics about over 1 billion who lack access to safe drinking water, more than 2 billion who lack access to sanitation.

I would only take exception to my good friend from Florida's comments a moment ago, because I have been told that a child dies needlessly every 15 seconds. But whether it is 20 seconds or 15 seconds, it is absolutely scandalous that in this day and age, when we know what to do, when for less than the price of a take-out pizza per year per family, the United States alone could be transformational on that. One reflects on what difference it would make, not just those children that wouldn't die needlessly. It would translate into over one-quarter billion additional days in school. It would save over $7 billion in unnecessary medical costs. It would allow one-third of a trillion working days for young people from age 15 to 39 worldwide. And, make no mistake about it, it makes a difference for those of us in the United States.

First of all, pollution any place in the world finds its way into the water supply and makes a difference for us. Make no mistake, that at a time when virtually no one in the world is more than 24 hours away from anybody else watching disease break forth unnecessarily, it is not just a tragedy in some remote village or some southern hemisphere megacity. It can make a difference for the health of Americans here and abroad. And when the CIA has identified urban instability and decay as one of the seven greatest causes of threats to our security, this compounds our problem with global unrest and terrorism.

I am pleased that we have been able to work together with Mr. Payne. In my prior tenure on the Foreign Affairs Committee, we passed the Water for the Poor Act in 2005 and acknowledged the late Mr. Lantos and former colleagues Leach, Hyde and Senator Frist. But we are not even fully implementing that legislation 3 years later. I commend the gentleman for his oversight hearing to help the Department of State to understand what is going to be necessary to fully implement this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we are halfway through the International Year of Sanitation. It is time for us to reflect on what we are going to do about this problem. This isn't some remote goal that is beyond our capacity. Girl Scout troops, churches, synagogues and Rotary Clubs know what to do and in fact they are acting at a grassroots level to do something about it. We in Congress need to do our job supporting Mr. Payne with the accountability of the State Department.

One of the most important things we can do is to work to transfer unnecessary military assistance. The United States is lavishing huge sums of money for military aid on countries like Egypt and Pakistan, where it is dubious in terms of the outcome of security for us or anybody else, but they have populations that are desperately in need of clean water and sanitation. We need to reorder our priorities to be able to achieve this goal.

Back in 2002 when we added sanitation, 2015 seemed like a long way away. Well, we are halfway there, in terms of time, but we are not halfway there in terms of accomplishment. I hope that this resolution will be a little nudge to us all to make sure that we do our part. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his leadership.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce a resolution to address the obesity epidemic by identifying opportunities in all of Congress's work to increase access to and promotion of nutrition, physical activity, and healthcare.

According to recent estimates, by the time the 111th Congress takes office, 73 percent of American adults could suffer from excess weight or obesity. Nearly 20 percent of our children already struggle with overweight and obesity. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates the current cost of the epidemic to be almost $120 billion annually. The impact of this reality is vast and it is clear that the time for action is now.

Obesity is a complex problem and there is no single legislative action that will solve our country's growing epidemic. Instead, addressing obesity will require a wide range of policy, environmental, cultural, and personal changes to truly affect meaningful change. We are fortunate that opportunities abound to have a positive impact on reversing the current trend thru legislation as diverse as a cap on carbon dioxide emissions, Medicare reform, the tax code, transportation policy, and the reauthorization of ``No Child Left Behind.''

Congress must work in a bipartisan fashion to identify the opportunities within all major legislative actions to promote health in every policy. In doing so, we can address the obesity epidemic on multiple fronts by improving nutrition, increasing physical activity, and expanding access to care. It is my sincere hope that we can work together to enact legislation that will result in a healthy, active and vibrant society. Please join me in co-sponsoring this resolution and pledging to identify meaningful opportunities to turn the tide on America's obesity epidemic.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the 2009 Budget Resolution. This legislation strongly reflects the values of Oregonians and Americans across our country and I urge my colleagues to pass the bill.

Today I am especially proud to be a member of the Budget Committee. It is worth noting that this is the first budget passed in an election year since 1998. The new Democratic majority has shown that they are committed to passing a budget despite an uncooperative

President. Today's budget agreement is a balanced budget with balanced priorities. We have rejected the President's misguided cuts to programs that serve as a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens; cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Community Development Block Grants.

This budget also recognizes that we must strengthen our middle class, a group that has suffered tremendously over the last 7 years. The budget provides fiscally responsible, deficit-neutral middle income tax relief; including keeping 20 million middle-income households from being hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax. It also extends the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent individual income tax bracket.

However, tax relief will do little without reinvestment in the priorities which strengthen our Nation and its citizens. Building our Nation must include a strong commitment to physical infrastructure, human capital, and innovation to keep us competitive globally. This budget does all these things. Recognizing that our current crumbling infrastructure is both structurally unsafe and hindering growth of our economy, the 2009 Budget includes an Infrastructure Reinvestment Reserve Fund to accommodate legislation that would provide robust Federal investment in projects such as rail, bridges, transit, ports, and more. The budget invests in our human capital both by creating a Higher Education Reserve Fund to make college more affordable for families, and by including funding for investment in renewable and energy efficient technologies to train workers in rapidly expanding ``green collar'' jobs. These investments, along with increased funding for the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health keep our Nation on the cutting edge and maintain our position as a global leader.

Today's budget reflects America's priorities in a fiscally responsible way and brings our budget back into balance by 2012, while abiding by pay-as-you go rules. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting and passing the 2009 Budget Conference Agreement.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate his leadership and tireless effort to help keep this alive.

I understand the frustration of my friend from Oregon that just spoke. He should be frustrated, because his Republican Party was in total control for 6 years with the Presidency, with both Houses of Congress, and there is a situation that he doesn't like. I understand it. I understand his frustration. If I were in his position, I would be, too. It was the Republican Congress that did not extend this program and allowed it to expire.

There is a simple choice before us today where we have an opportunity to deal with the needs of hundreds of thousands of rural Americans, not just in Oregon, but from 40 States around the country, or the interests of a few oil companies who are making money hand over fist, and they are making some money that they shouldn't because they are not paying what they should under the leases.

We have already dealt with this canard that somehow the answer is to give the oil industy access to more land to drill. Oil companies have been granted 42 million acres of which they are only using 12 million currently, so they have 30 million acres of area that they could potentially drill and they are not drilling now. Somehow we should come up with something more to give to them, allow them to have more money, ignores the issue here today.

I would suggest that we ought to respect the work of Mr. DeFazio in bringing this forward. Frankly, I was frustrated at the negative comment about Speaker Pelosi who said that, instead of pushing these people off a cliff, that she would work to cushion the blow, to help phase it down. She was trying to help instead of cutting them off. She has been helpful in moving this forward, and taking a shot at the Speaker is unfair and if you are trying to solve the problem, it is unwise.

It is the Republicans for 6 years that had the control, who didn't exercise it. This is a constructive alternative. I suggest that we recognize the need of these hundreds of thousands of Americans, not a few oil companies.

I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the bill, the work that is done by the Rules Committee in bringing this legislation before us. I am enthusiastically supportive of the rule and the underlying bill.

An opportunity to integrate sustainability into the neighborhood school, the building block of communities, is a double win. In the long run, this is going to save significant amounts of money at a time of skyrocketing energy prices. And the evidence is that at the green schools I've seen in my community, there's actually better performance. There's better performance on the part of the students, higher job satisfaction with the staff, and as I have seen in communities around the country where these principles are integrated into the school construction, it is a valuable learning experience for the children themselves.

I am particularly pleased in elements dealing with the transportation, allowing some of the facilities work to be done to help our children get to school safely on foot or cycling.

In 1969, so long ago that I was still in school, over half of America's children were able to get to school on their own walking or biking. By 2001, that percentage had fallen to 15 percent, and I routinely do work in other parts of the country where that percentage is under 10 percent where children can safely get to school on their own.

This poses an inordinate problem in terms of the costs for transportation for school districts. We're all familiar in our own communities with schools that have a rush hour around the start of school, and then there's the rush hour to commuting. It complicates lives for families, it's a problem of congestion and pollution, and with energy prices projected to continue to remain high, it costs money.

But with the provisions of this legislation, we're going to have resources available that compliment our Safe Routes to School legislation in the last transportation reauthorization to be able to help, once again, children to be able to walk and bike safely to school.

At a time when we are looking at 10 million young people of school age who are overweight, and when the projection is that by 2010, 20 percent of the school-age population will be obese, this is an opportunity to help children, particularly when one of the failures of No Child Left Behind is that there isn't a provision for physical education in our schools.

This is a triple win. I strongly urge support.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

I rise today in asking my colleagues to join me in this legislation to designate the facility of the postal service on Northeast Killingsworth in Portland as the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Post Office.

Dr. King, as a powerful symbol of racial justice and social equality in our country, is a fitting designation for this facility. I have had some experience in the community dealing with recognition for Dr. King. Some 20 years ago as Portland's Commissioner of Public Works that I worked with the community, notably of my friend Bernie Foster, the publisher of The Scanner newspaper, and others, to designate Union Avenue after Dr. King. It was an eye opening experience for me, a reminder of the troubled racial past of our community and our State. While Oregon has a rich cultural heritage for black Americans, it had a rocky path towards racial equality.

While slavery was declared illegal early in Oregon's history, in 1848, the provisional government had exclusionary laws surrounding land ownership. And when Oregon was admitted to the Constitution, it had exclusionary laws then. It was only after a long and aggressive struggle that progress was made.

In 1914, the NAACP opened a chapter in Portland, and continues to be the oldest continually chartered chapter west of the Mississippi. This movement was bolstered by the independent black owned weekly newspaper, The Advocate, that dated back 105 years in Portland that tirelessly featured articles and editorials dealing with the evils of segregation, lynching, employment opportunities, and other issues that kept the reality of Jim Crow and the pressing need for civil rights in the State, local, and national agenda in the forefront. Sadly, it wasn't until 1927 that the Oregon State Constitution was finally amended to remove the clause denying blacks the right to vote, even though Oregon had ratified the 14th amendment in 1868.

We have been, in our community, trying to come to grips with that past. And, as I mentioned, it was a tumultuous experience we had 20 years ago in the renaming of Union Avenue after Dr. King. But it did come to pass. In the course of the 20 years, we have watched steady progress as we have dealt with our past and as we look forward to the future.

I find the renaming of this post office after Dr. King to be significant on so many different levels. First of all, it came about as the result of a grassroots community effort led by local letter carriers, Jamie Partridge and Isham Harris, that epitomized the service from that particular post office, something that people in the community remark to me as sort of an island, one of these 37 outposts of the post office where half the world's mail is delivered every day. But this is a linkage to people, and it is a very special office signified by the leadership of letter carriers themselves.

Starting with their fellow workers, moving out through the Piedmont and Concordia Neighborhood Associations, the Sabin Neighborhood Association, showing deep community pride in its heritage.

I find today, Mr. Speaker, that it is particularly noteworthy because we are going to make history, in all likelihood, tonight or tomorrow, where there will be enough votes for the nomination of the first African American nominee of a major party for President of the United States, and one who I sincerely hope is elected.

Having the opportunity to reflect on that great national achievement, while we have the recognition locally for Dr. King and his achievements and the progress that has been made in our community gives me great pride. I'm pleased that we take a small step forward with the designation of this Post Office in the honor of Dr. King, and hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting it.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

We take great pride in the United States, being the best fighting force the world. However, as a result of the training, bombs and shells that have failed to explode during exercises are located in every State of the Union on millions of acres of land. The cleanup of the 3,500 military Munitions Response Program sites alone is going to cost over $20 billion, and at the current rate, take 200 to 300 years.

Unexploded ordnance technologies and levels of funding are clearly inadequate. Refining detection technologies will significantly reduce cleanup costs and allow for more rapid cleanup. This amendment moves us in the direction by making research and development of UXO detection a priority, facilitates the deployment of this in the field where it's needed through partnership with outside entities and training of skilled operators. It requires the Department of Defense to provide a detailed review of its activities in this area by February, 2009.

I deeply appreciate the cooperation of the committee in leveraging scarce funding for environmental remediation and the focus of the Department's efforts to clean up the millions of unexploded ordnance in our lands and waters. We will save money, protect the environment, and make our soldiers safer.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

There have been some stark differences in the debate here today, but there is one thing that is clear: There is a clear record of failed fiscal discipline on the part of our friends on the Republican side of the aisle; 12 years of failure to deal with the alternative minimum tax, including 6 years of that time when they controlled the entire process, their failure to cut spending while they borrowed money on our children's credit card to give tax benefits to those who need it the least, and for 12 years they refused to fix the AMT.

There is going to be a new era in Washington in 242 days where we will be able to deal comprehensively with tax reform, and I look forward to it. But, in the meantime, it is critical to give Americans more energy choices, and this legislation does precisely that.

In particular, it would extend the investment tax credit that deals with renewable energy. When the PTC for wind energy expired at the end of 2003, the installation of new wind capacity dropped 77 percent in the next year. A recent analysis by our friends in the wind and solar industries suggest that we are looking at $19 billion of lost investment and 116,000 lost job opportunities if we fail to act on the extension. This will set us back not just in terms of the challenge of wind and solar energy today, but we are going to lose ground to our competitors overseas.

I strongly urge that we focus on the need to provide more energy choices for Americans today. Extending these credits is a way to make a difference this year. Failure to do so is going to cause unnecessary disruption, not just in terms of energy, but economically as well.

I would hope that this is one area where we ought to be able to work together, agree with these responsible provisions, and enact it into law.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate his leadership. It is a pleasure to be here with my friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake) as we are going back to review some of what we said was going to happen when we were here a week ago. Remember, we talked about what would happen: As the light of day shone on this bill, there would be more things that would come up that would give pause.

Now I have had my differences with President Bush from time to time, but he did the right thing by putting the spotlight on this bill by vetoing it. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, we found out just in the course of the last couple of days something that wasn't clearly explained on the floor, how as the high commodity prices declined to more typical levels, we could end up paying an additional $16 billion of subsidy.

This bill simply is a missed opportunity for real reform. It is not turning your back on America's farmers and ranchers to suggest, as some of us have and the President argues, that you are limited to $200,000 a year of income before subsidies kick in. At a time of record commodity food prices, farm couples earning up to $1.5 million a year with an additional up to $1 million outside income simply don't need to receive government subsidy. Meanwhile, the majority of farmers who don't grow the commodity crops are going to continue to get little or no money.

It hurts a State like mine, the State of Oregon, where we are proud of what our ranchers and farmers do. But the majority of them get nothing under the existing farm bill and they will continue to get nothing under this proposal.

It troubles me that we are creating a new permanent disaster program, an additional layer of subsidy, which doesn't make sense. If a region is representing repeat disaster year after year after year, it is not really a disaster. It is growing the wrong things using the wrong techniques in the wrong places. We shouldn't turn it into an entitlement.

This bill is a missed opportunity for conservation. The National Wildlife Federation has called the farm bill a disaster for wildlife that ``fans the flames of global warming.'' The funding for conservation is not nearly enough to meet the needs. They are not met today. The majority will not be met under this bill. And, sadly, it makes cuts to important programs like the conservation reserve program, the wetland reserve program. I am disappointed that it also guts the sod saver program that protects important prairie and grassland habitat.

I mentioned last time that I was on the floor that this bill nullifies a Federal appeals court decision under the Freedom of Information Act that ordered USDA to make public data that is critical to monitoring the economic and environmental impacts of these subsidies.

Nobody talked about this on the floor, drawing the veil over this information. It was inserted without public hearings, without debate, and will have serious oversight ramifications on how we manage these programs. Nineteen congressional districts in the country will get about half the money. They make out grandly. But States with strong agricultural communities will continue to be shortchanged.

Congress could have done a better job for the environment, could have concentrated the help on the majority of farmers who are shortchanged to help them and their communities. Small- and medium-sized farmers will continue to be squeezed away. If we pass this bill, do not sustain the veto, we will continue to have large operations squeezing out small and medium-sized operations. If we can't muster reform with these record high prices, we probably never will. The President was right to veto it. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support him and go back and do it right.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 305, the National Bike Bill. This resolution recognizes the bicycle as an important part of our transportation system. Investing in infrastructure that allows for bicycling produces enriched health, reduced traffic congestion and air pollution, greenhouse gas emission reductions, economic vitality, and an overall improved quality of life.

As the earth continues to warm and gas prices hover around $4 per gallon, more and more Americans are discovering that bicycling is a smart, healthy, and environmentally sound transportation option. Across the globe--from D.C. to Portland to Paris and beyond--bicycles are being used as a means for people to reduce congestion and pollution and improve both health and quality of life. Locally, communities are seeing that investment in bike lanes and bike boulevards, as well as education on how to ride, are resulting in dramatic increases in ridership. It's time that the Federal Government steps up and becomes a better partner to the States and local governments, giving them the tools and incentives they need to create of complete and healthy communities.

The Federal Government can assist in those efforts by promoting increased bicycle safety, supporting policies that establish national target levels for bicycle use, supporting increased intermodal travel, providing incentives to State and local government, providing flexibility in Federal transportation laws, and encouraging partnerships with employers and executive agencies.

I am pleased that this legislation has over 30 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Increased transportation options and a higher quality of life are ideas that everyone can agree on. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 305.

Mr. Speaker, after five years, thousands of lives lost, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent and trillions to go, the amendments adopted today are the beginning of a solution in Iraq. These amendments mandate the beginning of withdrawal, setting us on a path out of Iraq, and support critical domestic and international priorities.

The language offers some of the same prescriptions in my own Iraq legislation, including a ban on permanent bases and an increase in contractor oversight. All too often we hear reports of billions of dollars our contractors can't account for, or the hiring of individuals our troops can't rely on. This war will cost over $3 trillion, and I am pleased to see some funding shifted to cover more of our international obligations. I authored legislation to help the 4 million displaced Iraqis and I support the funding in this bill for migration and refugee assistance and international disaster assistance. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people, and as we have an obligation to provide for our own.

Part of remedying this tragedy will be rebuilding the health and readiness of our armed forces. In my state, the Oregon National Guard's 41st Combat Brigade Team has served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11, and is scheduled to deploy again in 2009. When they return, these brave men and women deserve the best care this country can provide and the least we can do is make sure education and retraining is available and affordable. I am proud to support an expansion of the GI Bill education benefits that proved so successful in transitioning our troops after W orId War II and in mobilizing our economy for succeeding generations. Frankly I find it unconscionable that President Bush, as Commander in Chief of our armed forces, would threaten to veto this legislation on account of this basic and historic investment in our troops.

This country is ready for change, and these amendments are an important step forward. As this issue develops over the coming weeks, I remain committed to getting our troops out of Iraq now and providing our veterans with the best care available.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

The committee has taken this bill as far as they can. There are some modest reforms, as they nibbled around the edges. But the fact is, with the passage of this bill, most farmers will still get no help. Most conservation needs will be unmet. And we are going to continue to give money to people who don't need it, up to $2.5 million of farm and unrelated farm income and as over the last 12 years, 75 percent of the direct payments went to just 10 percent of the largest farmers. We don't need to that.

To add insult to injury, section 1619 will hide information under the Freedom of Information Act so the American public won't even know the facts. This is wrong. We can do better. We can stop giving assistance to the richest of farmers. We can redirect it to further strengthen nutrition and the environment.

I strongly urge a rejection of the rule and the bill. And if the President has the fortitude to veto it, I hope people will join us in bipartisan support to sustain the veto.

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

I heard my friend from Missouri talk about the lack of connection to rural America. And I think that is, in fact, the case. And we are missing an opportunity with this farm bill to try to strengthen it because this farm bill continues to shortchange most farmers. It will fail to fund the majority of the environmental programs that go lacking. And most farmers will continue to get nothing, nothing from this bill. The richest 10 percent will get two-thirds to three-quarters of the total direct farm payments.

There are a number of things in this bill that I like, that I have been working for since the last farm bill to help provide some support for people who grow food, not just the five big commodities. I am glad that there is an increase in nutrition. But the reason the President should, and I think will, veto this bill has nothing to do with the good stuff. It is time to reform the farm bill, to reduce to $200,000 limit on AGI to qualify for subsidy. That is what the President is arguing for. That is the right thing to do. It is something that we ought to be able to have a bipartisan majority to support.

It will save the taxpayers money. It will enable us to fully fund the environmental programs that are so critical, particularly for small and medium-sized farmers and ranchers. We don't have to shortchange nutrition. The nutrition provisions ought to be strengthened with money we save from unneeded payments to the rich.

We have lots of money that is flowing to the richest farmers in America who don't need it. That's wrong. In fact, they have assumed that this bill is so egregious, I invite any of my colleagues to look at section 1619. The authors of the bill carve out an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act so that the recent Circuit Court ruling that would open this up to a spotlight is off limits.

We should not drop a veil of secrecy over this bill. We should open it up. Let the American public know what is in it. If for no other reason, the notion that we are going to play a game of ``hide-the-marble'' with them, and not be honest about the true cost and the true benefits is another illustration of what is wrong with this bill, why the President should veto it, and why each and every Member should sustain that veto.

We can do a lot better for less money to help more farmers and ranchers. And I urge my colleagues to do so.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the United States Commission on Rebuilding America for the 21st Century Act. The challenges of the 21st century require a renewed national focus on the infrastructure that is essential to our cities, our rural communities, our economy, and the health of our planet. We have neglected the foundations of America's communities, threatening our environment and our future economic prosperity.

This Act will provide a mechanism for Congress to reach out to the American people and develop a national vision to guide infrastructure investment for the twenty-first century. The legislation creates a commission of 17 members appointed by Congress, the Administration, and State and local governments, to synthesize existing reports to identify challenges and needs; to commence a thorough set of public hearings on infrastructure conducted in not fewer than 50 Congressional districts across the United States to ensure geographic and demographic representation; and to articulate a national vision for infrastructure investments.

Those challenges are both myriad and significant. Consider:

To avoid the worst effects of climate change, we must greatly reduce our carbon emissions. Transportation is the second largest--and fastest growing--source of U.S. CO2 emissions. Personal vehicle use accounts for nearly 60 percent of these emissions.

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission recently calculated that maintaining our existing transportation system over the next 50 years will require $225 billion annually.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has given our nation's public infrastructure--water, sewer, and transportation systems--a grade of D- minus, estimating that it will cost $1.6 trillion over the next 5 years merely to repair our existing infrastructure.

More than 72,000 miles of municipal water and sewer pipe are more than 80 years old, threatening the health, environment, and economy of communities large and small.

From 1999 to 2009, the Nation's electricity demand rose nearly 20 percent while our transmission capacity grew only 3.5 percent.

By 2050, we will build 89 million new or replaced homes as well as 190 billion square feet of new offices and other non-residential buildings. Strategic development choices could reduce total transportation-related CO2 emissions by 7 to 10 percent.

The American people, it should be noted, have met similar challenges in the past. This year marks the bicentennial of the Gallatin Plan, crafted by President Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, to develop the infrastructure needed by our new nation. One hundred years later, President Theodore Roosevelt invited every state and territorial governor to join members of his Cabinet and Congress, professional organizations, and government bureaus in a National Conference at the White House to plan for the infrastructure needs for the 20th century. Today, a new national vision and plan is necessary to meet the challenges of the 21st century.