Floor Statements

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

One of the most disappointing turns in the current campaign has been the proposal of Senator Clinton and Senator McCain for the ``gas tax holiday.''

One doesn't want to be cynical, but thinking back to Senator McCain's Straight Talk Express in the year 2000, it would be hard to imagine that he thought it was a good idea back then, that he wouldn't have stooped to this political trick. It wouldn't have been consistent with what he was saying and how he represented himself.

As far as Senator Clinton is concerned, we don't have to guess about her position in 2000. We know because her opponent in 2000 when she was first running for the Senate, our former colleague, Rick Lazio, called for suspending the 18.3 cent Federal gas tax and actually repealing the 4.3 cent per gallon surcharge that had been enacted. ``What Mrs. Clinton needs to do,'' he said, ``is get out of the motorcade, get out of fantasyland and get in contact with the issues that are affecting real New Yorkers, the prices at the pump.''

It's instructive what then candidate Clinton had to say. She and her aides fired back immediately at Mr. Lazio for offering what they said was a shortsighted solution that could jeopardize money to fix highways. In fact, they handed out fliers that used quotes from Republican leaders to bolster her point that repealing the gas tax surcharge could be harmful. The Republicans discouraged such measures, the flier said, because they could diminish highway construction money.

Senator Clinton said, in debating Mr. Lazio:

``We're totally reliant on the gas tax to do things like finishing I- 86 in the Southern Tier, or the fast-ferry harbor works up in Rochester, as well as work we need to do here in the city. So you can count on me to support infrastructure,'' as she explained her opposition. And indeed she lashed out at the plan for the outright repeal of the 4.3 cent gas tax, calling it ``a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies.''

Well, the facts that Senator Clinton argued in 2000 are still true today. The timing, if anything, is worse, because for the first time in history, the Federal highway trust fund is going into deficit, and this would call for an additional reduction of $9 billion to $10 billion and 300,000 highway construction jobs. It actually is coming at a time when we should as a country be finding ways to invest more in infrastructure, not less. Virtually every independent expert acknowledges that as well as most people in the House and the Senate.

And, of course, the irony as Senator Clinton herself intimated is that this gas tax holiday is actually a holiday for the big producers, refiners and importers. They're the ones who pay the tax. The tax is charged to them. In order for any of the savings to trickle down to the pockets of motorists, the oil and gas interests would have to decide that they're going to pass their savings on to the rest of us. As Senator Clinton pointed out in 2000, it's a potential bonanza for them. There's no indication that they're looking to share. Look at what they did with record profits of $10.6 billion for ExxonMobil. Did they use that extra money to reduce prices at the pump?

The good news is that the American public is not buying this political trick. Even though they are aggravated at spiraling high gas prices and somebody is offering them, in a sense, free money, the American public sees through that. Fifty-one percent agree that it is a bad idea, even in the face of high gas prices. Even more tellingly, in the New York Times survey published yesterday, when the public was asked are politicians proposing this tax holiday because it's good for America or because it's good, they think, for the politicians, 70 percent said Clinton and McCain are doing this because it's good for the politicians, not for America.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can get past the campaign silly season, that people explain to Senator McCain and Senator Clinton that their earlier opposition is more important today. This is one area ought to be beyond sort of the partisan political warfare: It is time for us to rebuild and renew America, to deal with the first deficit in the trust fund, and not play political games.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I appreciate his continued leadership and advocacy in this bill.

I would remind my good friend from Pennsylvania that earlier in this debate, Mr. Kind and I, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Flake, we advanced proposals that would have provided more than enough money to fully fund the conservation, would have provided more than enough money to deal for the areas of agriculture that are dramatically underserved.

This does a terrific job for the large corporate enterprises, for the richest of farmers. Lowering the limits to $900,000 may in the minds of some be a draconian reform. But when we know that the average farmer makes twice what the average homeowner makes, the average citizen makes, and I was actually campaigning in Pennsylvania for a campaign in the presidential effort here a couple weeks back, and I was in some very rural parts of Pennsylvania engaged in the discussion there, and I found that Pennsylvania is much like Oregon. We are short-changed dramatically in the farm bill.

Earlier we had my good friend from North Dakota, a State that produces less agricultural value than the State of Oregon and gets one- sixth the subsidy. Pennsylvania is a massive farming effort. Twenty- seven percent of the land area is devoted to farms. But Pennsylvania farmers get one-half of their share of the subsidy nationally, 62 percent of the applications for conservation are not paid for, and the average farmer in Pennsylvania, 83 percent make less than $100,000 a year. So these are small farmers. They are hard pressed. They want conservation, and they don't have the money for the application. It is just like in my State.

I would suggest that we look hard, because I agree with my friend from Pennsylvania and my friend from Oklahoma. This is not necessarily partisan. There are areas that agriculture policy divides, not necessarily partisan, but sometimes it is urban and rural. Sometimes it is east, west, south, midwest. It is more likely the type of agriculture that is practiced, because the vast majority of farmers in this country would have been well served by the reforms that we advocated from here, limiting the payments to $250,000, for instance, like have been advocated by the Bush administration and by many people here.

But we don't even have to get to that point. My friend Mr. Kind's motion to recommit should bring us together, because farmers all across the country, in States large and small, east and west, are for environmental protection. This is the most important environmental bill that the 110th Congress will address. We should not miss this golden opportunity.

It is frustrating to me that the conferees are talking about cutting what we approved at $5.7 to as low as $4 billion. And who knows what it might end up? There are lots of missing pieces. We need to go on record here strongly supporting maintaining at least a $5 billion level.

I will tell you, farmers in my State regularly identify conservation programs as their top need. They have to comply with all sorts of difficult environmental regulations, and we need to ensure that they get the payments they deserve for environmental protection that they provide.

It is the farm community, the ranchers, that are the source of the cheapest, most cost-effective water quality and water quantity improvement. This money supports programs that protect our most sensitive and ecologically important lands. It keeps pollution out of the lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands. It represents the largest Federal investment in private land, and it should be an investment that our farmers and ranchers can count upon year after year.

It is not just the clean water. It is maintaining abundant wildlife populations. It is storing carbon. Agriculture is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, the largest internationally. With the increased pressure on lands from biofuel mandates and high food prices, these programs matter more now than ever before.

Thank you.

Too often I have watched in the farm legislation that I have seen work through here that conservation ends up being the piggy bank for the farm bill. This is an area that is shortchanged to deal with more powerful political interests.

Well, if the American public knew what was at stake, there would be no more powerful interest than protecting the environment. Two-thirds of the farmers who apply are turned down. This is not right. Increased conservation programs help balance out some of the inequities in the farm program and provide benefits to everybody.

I urge you to support family farmers, the environment and sportsmen, and support a good farm bill by supporting Mr. Kind's motion to instruct.

Following up on my good friend, I'm glad he mentioned bicycles, because there are some people in America that are doing something to provide more choices to Americans, to burn calories instead of fossil fuels. I am pleased that my community, Portland, Oregon, was just designated a ``platinum level bicycle-friendly city,'' the highest rating granted by the League of American Bicyclists.

Portland celebrates three decades of consistently applying policies that promote cycling, and the third consecutive year of double digit growth in bicycle ridership. This makes a big difference for real life people. It's why Portlanders are nine times more likely to ride a bicycle that the average American, and part of the rich choice menu for Portlanders with cars and transit and bicycles that ends up having them drive 20 percent less than the average American family. That translates into a savings of $2,500 a year per family that they can spend on education, on housing, on entertainment, on investing back into the community.

I would suggest that it's time to celebrate choices, and I'm proud that Portland, Oregon, has decided to give cyclists the choices they deserve and is being honored for that effort.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During this election season, we've seen some pretty painful moments. It has been embarrassing, for instance, to watch the flip-flopping of Senator McCain on tax cuts that he is now for before he was against them. But there is no idea that is as bad as his most recent suggestion that we just have a gas tax holiday, to suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon Federal gas tax from Memorial Day through Labor Day.

This is a really unfortunate suggestion. It's unfortunate to me that Senator Clinton appears to be embracing it. I would hope that Senator Clinton's staff will help her remember her own words when this proposal was launched by one of her opponents in 2000 when she was running for the United States Senate, where Senator Clinton pointed out that it would be a ``bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies,'' which is why she opposed it back then. Her words were true in 2000 and they are true today. In fact, it's even more important.

First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that States that have suspended the gas tax have ended up putting any more money in the pockets of consumers. The research suggests that it's more likely that they have simply increased the amount of money that goes to the oil companies who are not reducing their prices to compensate for the reduction. At a time when ExxonMobil's profits set a new record of $40.6 billion, we don't have to give them even more money at the expense of our infrastructure, because this proposal comes at a time when for the first time in history the highway trust fund is going into deficit. And this proposal would add more than $10 billion to that deficit, money that will not go to State and local governments to deal with badly needed transportation infrastructure. It comes at a time when we recognize that our infrastructure is falling apart. The Society of Civil Engineers has graded it D-minus, and they're grading on a curve.

It would be far more logical and effective to help poor citizens and people in rural districts that have to drive a great deal directly as a part of the economic stimulus, or a rebate that actually gets into their hands, not to the oil companies. It would make more sense to invest in renewable futures and green jobs, like not allowing the production tax credit to expire at the end of the year, costing thousands of jobs in the wind energy business.

It makes sense to rebuild and renew America with a vision for the future, attaching a budget priority, and be honest with the American public, not cheap political tricks that may sound good for a moment but will end up hurting us in the long run.

Madam Speaker, John McCain has famously said that he doesn't know much about economic issues. But it's paradoxical that the Republican presidential candidate's idea for helping a troubled economy is to put people out of work and make traffic congestion worse and freight movement harder.

His proposal to stop collecting the gas tax will cut critical funding that keeps commuters, freight and our economy running. And when the trust fund is moving into deficit for the first time in our history he will only make that problem worse.

It will also lead to the loss of over 300,000 highway-related jobs, while there's no evidence that huge oil companies will cut their prices when they get this gas tax ``Holiday''. It is the

worst kind of pandering to mortgage the future to serve current political needs.

Instead, it's time for our presidential candidates to talk about their vision, their plan to support our economy and our infrastructure needs.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor for me to recognize the National Florence Crittenton Foundation on its 125th year anniversary. As the first charitable organization created under a congressional charter, the Crittenton Foundation continues to perform good works for communities across the country.

The city of Portland, Oregon, was just over 40 years old when the Portland Crittenton Refuge Home was founded there in 1893, resulting from a donation made by the organization's founder. Charles Crittenton. Today, the headquarters of the National Crittenton Foundation is still located in the heart of Portland.

The work of the Crittenton foundation in reaching out to welcome and care for girls and young women seeking support during their unplanned pregnancy is well known. However many are less familiar with the extensive work of the national network of affiliated Crittenton agencies and how they have shaped the way social services are offered and the mentality of self-empowering the girls and young women they serve.

The unique relationship between the National Crittenton Foundation and the family of affiliated agencies continues to be based on

the beliefs of co-founders Charles Crittenton and Dr. Kate Waller Barrett. They believed that the best way to address compelling social issues in the United States was through a network of independent, local agencies supported by a national body. This belief grew into a national movement encompassing, at one point, 76 agencies in 5 countries, and continues to guide thc organization today.

There are now over 23 Crittenton agencies across the country, which have provided valuable support and services to 5 million vulnerable girls, young women, and their families. Their success has come from over a century of providing forward-thinking and innovative services grounded in research, compassion, and a belief that change comes through empowerment. Crittenton programs address complex social issues, including teen pregnancy, mental health, substance abuse, and interpersonal violence, and they do so in ways that are gender and culturally specific.

Most importantly, Crittenton services build upon the individuality, resiliency and strength of this country's young women.

Please join me in wishing another successful 125 years to the National Crittenton Foundation and its family of agencies across the country.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

I find no small amount of irony listening to our friends from the other side of the aisle talk about complexity on Tax Day because for the 12 years that they were in charge there was an explosion, hundreds of thousands of additional words added to the IRS code; loopholes and complexity, not simplification.

It is absolute hogwash that there are areas that the IRS won't go after to collect and we have to use private collection agencies. They are the people who decided to underfund the IRS. Testimony before our committee was conclusive: The IRS-trained employees collect eight times as much per person as these bounty hunters that they contract out. With the minimum of a $70 million investment, we will raise over $1.4 billion.

Equally specious is the argument here that we're hearing about HSAs. There are millions of Americans who have benefits, as my good friend from North Dakota pointed out, flexible savings accounts. We have them for our Federal employees. And all they have to do, however, is there is some minimal verification. What they're proposing is that we just ignore it and allow people to use it for car washes and country club memberships and rely on an occasional audit, which is much more difficult because they have cut back on the IRS. That's foolish. It works for millions of Americans with flexible benefit accounts, there's no problem doing it with HSAs.

It is time for us to move forward with these simple, commonsense efforts, steps that make the IRS more effective. More money for the taxpayers prevents inappropriate use of tax exempt money.

The economic disaster continues to unwind. Of course, there was reckless lending, bad investment, cheating and, yes, bad borrowing. But the major failure was of this administration and Congress over the last 7 years. I commend Chairman Frank for his understanding and resisting the rush to less regulation and oversight, while there was far more risk taken on in our economic system.

There is a seriously flawed Senate package moving its way forward. We must remember the people who need help the most, by reforming bankruptcy laws so that we do not favor the speculator over the homeowner. Above all, we must not reward the people who got us into this mess and profited overwhelmingly along the way. American people deserve better; not just the almost 8,000 per day facing foreclosure, but the tens of millions whose neighborhoods will be harmed as a result.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to rise dealing with the underlying legislation that contains an important section to address barriers that might limit the start of and adherence to treatment services. This section also encourages direct linkages between the efforts to treat HIV/AIDS, nutrition and income security programs.

I applaud the chairman and ranking member for the work that they have done bringing this together, and the recognition that dealing with HIV- AIDS must be done in a holistic fashion that treats the entire person and their environment, not just the disease.

I have a very personal connection to this legislation now that was not present when I first started working on issues of water for the poor now that I have a daughter working in Mozambique in the Peace Corps who is dealing with these problems on a day-to-day basis.

This direct amendment would add safe drinking water to nutrition and income security on the list of programs for which direct linkages are encouraged. This is an important tribute to our late colleagues, Chairman Lantos and Chairman Hyde, who were so instrumental in the enactment of our Water for the Poor Act, and their insights that are bringing safe drinking is an important component of developmental sectors from health to the environment. To include safe drinking water in legislation through which we honor their memories is a small testament to their lasting legacies.

Including safe drinking water is critical because we cannot treat HIV/AIDS without safe drinking water. USAID has recognized in its guidance for missions carrying out these programs that people with HIV/ AIDS are at increased risk for diarrheal diseases and far more likely to suffer severe and chronic complications if infected.

There is terrible irony in providing patients with advanced antiretroviral agents, and then asking them to use the water in a glass that may infect them with a life-threatening illness to wash down the life-saving pills.

To add irony, one of the complications of diarrheal illnesses is HIV- infected patients have a reduced ability to absorb antiretroviral and other medications from the gut. This poor absorption can contribute to the development of HIV strains that are resistant. In addition to the negative impact on life expectancy and quality of life, they also add significantly to the burdens on caregivers in clinics and at home and put them and other family members at risk for infection.

We are all a part of this in the global community. This legislation is important to tie these challenges together, not deal with it piecemeal, and to help with advancing the overall objective of this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to express my deep appreciation to Chairman Payne. I appreciate the ranking member yielding time to him. I was prepared to do so, but she was able to give him more time, and that is important.

Congressman Payne, your laser-like focus on this with the subcommittee, your long-term advocacy, your work on the continent, is something that I find inspirational. I look forward to working with you and partnering on these issues as we move forward.

To the Chair and ranking member, your willingness to include this is important, and our work together to be able to focus on the whole person and to be able to deal with waterborne disease, the number one preventible cause of death and disease around the world. Half the people who are sick today anywhere in the world are sick needlessly from water-borne disease. Adding this critical amendment to your important legislation is an important step forward. I hope it is just one step that we can work on together to bring people around the world to support this critical priority.

As I say, I can think of no more fitting tribute to your previous predecessors as Chair of the committee, Congressman Hyde and Congressman Lantos, who worked so hard to advance this cause. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week we commended on the floor of the House the 200th anniversary of the Gallatin Plan that guided the infrastructure for this country for the first century of our existence. It's timely because we are today losing that battle. We have an infrastructure crisis. The Society of Civil Engineers gives us a D minus for condition of transportation and water facilities and we are fast running out of money to fix it.

Now is the time for an infrastructure plan for this century. Yes, we do need adequate resources; but more than money, we need a new vision for all our infrastructure needs: roads, rail, air, energy transmission. Most important, we need to squeeze out more value. We need to find a way to do this critical work better. Congress and Federal agencies can help by changing how they do business.

I urge my colleagues to join me in a new plan for infrastructure for this century for livable communities where our families are safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, over the past few months, we've had a lot of back and forth on this issue. For those who have been at the table, I want to express my appreciation for your hard work and the quality of your debate. I am proud of the fortitude displayed by the Speaker and the Intelligence Committee during this process: There will be no blanket immunity for telecom companies, there will be a two-year sunset, and there will be a commission to thoroughly investigate this administration's shameful wiretapping program.

For the past seven years I have been highly critical of Republican wiretapping legislation. I have voted against past efforts to expand the ability of this administration to intrude in the lives and privacy of innocent citizens. Most recently, I supported the expiration of the Protect America Act because I am confident that the dedicated members of the intelligence community do not need to violate the rights of Americans in order to protect them.

The bill before us will not solve every potential abuse of FISA, but it does provide stronger legal protections for Americans and introduces a measure of oversight. As this issue continues to play out into the future, it is my hope that our next steps will include even stronger protections for innocent Americans, clearer legal standards for FISA to judge surveillance procedures, and explicit requirements for the destruction of unnecessary data.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite; they go hand in hand.

The FISA Amendments Act recognizes this reality. This legislation is a balanced compromise that protects our country and ensures that our basic American freedoms remain intact.

Our great country is founded on civil liberties, and secured by our intelligence community.

Much of what keeps us safe is our commitment to upholding the values of freedom and liberty.

All the security in the world is meaningless if we fail to protect the values that make our country worth defending in the first place.

If we surrender the basic principles that make us who we are, we will forever change what it means to be American.

Mr. Speaker, I know what can happen when we abandon our core American values. I was born in an internment camp, and my own family suffered the consequences when our country succumbed to the rhetoric of fear.

That was a dark time in our Nation's history--one we cannot afford to repeat.

That is why the legislation before us today is so important.

It protects the liberties that we cherish, liberties that are the birthright of every American citizen.

At the same time, it recognizes the need for the surveillance of our enemies.

It gives our intelligence agencies the tools necessary to keep us safe, and provides strong legal clarity for the intelligence community.

The compromise solution we have negotiated also allows telecommunications companies to defend themselves in a court of law.

It takes Congress out of the equation and puts legal decisions back where they belong: in the court system.

I am confident that this process will result in a fair solution to the civil cases that have been brought against these companies.

That is why this balanced legislation deserves the support of every Member of this House.

This bill will keep us safe, and it will keep us free.

I urge passage of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008,

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Democratic majority's commitment to ethics reform. In the first 100 hours of this Congress, we adopted vital new rules ushering in a new era of openness and fiscal responsibility. We then reformed lobbying practices, and this year many of us voluntarily will reduce and disclose our earmark requests. To continue this commitment to transparency in government, I am pleased to support H. Res. 895 and the creation of an independent, bipartisan Office of Congressional Ethics.

A smooth functioning and credible ethics process is critical for both the reputations of individual members of Congress and for the future of the institution itself. I have consistently supported reform of the existing process. At the beginning of 2007, my colleague Greg Walden and I reintroduced legislation, the ``Ethics Reform Act,'' which abolishes the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and establishes a fully independent ethics review process. This plan gives oversight authority to a panel of former Members, and empowers the independent office to oversee the actions and filings of lobbyists and offices.

While the measure we consider today differs significantly from my bill, the spirit behind it is the same. If the intent of having members of Congress sit in judgment of their colleagues is to provide both a Constitutional check on impropiety and maintain public confidence in the institution, then I believe the present system has failed both the test of timely justice and of public opinion. Vesting the power of preliminary investigation with an independent board can lift the day- to-day work above partisanship and still keep any punishment of violators safely within the purview of the Congress. I believe a more independent process will provide greater fairness for both Members under review and for the public that demands greater accountability.

The bill before us today initiates the changes that many of us seek and our constituents demand. Ultimately, I would like to see reform that fully removes sitting Members from the task of investigating their peers, and that instead gives that authority to independent individuals with a firsthand understanding of Congress. However I remain profoundly encouraged with the progress we have made on the issue of Congressional accountability. Instituting the independent ethics mechanism as outlined in this bill will benefit Congress, and ultimately, the American people.

Thank you. I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy.

It is a little frustrating to listen to our friends repudiate the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Dick Darman who believed in the PAYGO philosophy. These people feel that they cannot balance revenue and spending, and they don't even want to try. We heard them in our committee propose adjustments that would have added over $1 trillion to the deficit.

This budget demonstrates the Democratic commitment to the environment, public health and livable communities in a fiscally sustainable fashion. This budget addresses the 7 years of cutting environmental programs and failing to address our energy needs and challenges of this country.

We reject the President's cuts to these programs and begin to reinvest in our public lands and domestic economy. This President's budget severely cuts important core environmental programs at a time when a third of our Nation's waters don't meet water quality standards and 150 million people live in areas that exceed EPA's air pollution standards. And the President's budget would provide some of the lowest levels of funding for clean water and drinking water revolving funds in their history, hurting communities' ability to meet their water infrastructure needs, which the EPA of the administration has estimated to be over a quarter of a billion dollars.

Finally, the President's budget cuts the USDA farm bill conservation programs which provide farmers with critical technical and financial assistance to reduce erosion, protect wildlife habitat and limit adverse impacts from agriculture on land and water.

Our budget rejects those cuts to natural resources environmental program. This provides 10 percent more to discretionary funding than the President's budget.

On the environment, over 5 years the chairman's mark is more than $26 billion higher than the President's budget.

This budget accommodates the legislation that the House has passed three times to increase tax incentives for renewable energy and conservation. It rejects the President's cuts to research as well as weatherization assistance for low-income families to cut down on energy bills. Instead, this bill increases funding for energy efficient and renewable energy programs and vehicle technologies that move our economies forward.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

In a couple of hours, the House of Representatives will be dealing on the suspension calendar with House Resolution 936, a commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the Gallatin plan. This historic effort was a plan commissioned by President Thomas Jefferson, led by his Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, to design a system to knit together a ragtag group of 13 colonies into a transcontinental nation. It focused on transportation, on waterways, it planted the seeds for what would ultimately become the transcontinental railroad, and actually unleashed a pattern that carried through to the national park system, the hydro system and, indeed, the national interstate highway system signed into law by President Eisenhower.

Today's commemoration comes at a critical time, for just as Albert Gallatin did something important for the founding of our Nation, today America's infrastructure is falling apart. The American Society of Civil Engineers rates our infrastructure at a D-minus. It's one of the reasons our economy is in decline. We're losing the competition to Europe, to Asia. China is investing nine times as much of their national output as we are in infrastructure. And at a time of $110 a barrel oil, will $4 a gallon gasoline be far behind?

We live in a carbon-constrained, water-stressed environment with an imperative need to rebuild and renew America. It is time to celebrate this historic vision which helped build America for much of the first two centuries of our existence. It is critical that we remain true to that tradition, but today infrastructure means more than just roads, bridges, waterways and canals. We're talking about railroads, aviation, power transmission lines, pipelines, indeed the green infrastructure, the network of environmental, park and open space that means so much to the protection of the environment and clean air.

It is time for us to craft a new plan, a vision for this century, one that takes into account global warming, rising energy prices, the change in demographics and the knowledge that we know today about how to put the pieces together. Renewing and rebuilding America ought to be something that people on both sides of the aisle can agree with, that we can unite behind a vast coalition that includes the Garden Club, the Sierra Club, organized labor and business, the professions, local government and environmental activists to make sure that we're putting the pieces together appropriately today, that we have the resources, the vision, the partnership that will make livable communities for all of our families, where they will all be safer, healthier and more economically secure.

I look forward to the debate today on the Gallatin plan and the commitment of an infrastructure vision for this century.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate the leadership from my friend from Oregon on this legislation; likewise, my friend and colleague from Tennessee, with whom I'd served on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee so many years. They have adequately, I think, framed what we have here. This is not merely the commemoration of some obscure historical event. As was mentioned by the Speaker, this is the framework upon which America was built for over 200 years; the vision of President Jefferson and Albert Gallatin, the work of President Roosevelt, having a framework for taking a ragtag group of 13 colonies and making it into a transcontinental powerhouse. This farsighted leadership and Federal action helped make America what it is today.

But right now, on Capitol Hill today, there are literally thousands of people who are here urging that we deal with the infrastructure crisis in this country, people dealing with mass transit, firefighters, engineers. There are thousands of people who are concerned, right now, that it is time for us to take this resolution as a clarion call for a wake up.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has rated our infrastructure at D minus. We are being outcompeted internationally by the European Union and the Chinese.

This is history that is worth reviewing; how we built the partnerships that created the infrastructure, how we were able to tie communities together, to be able to enhance new technologies. When it was time for the transcontinental railroad, the framework was in place.

It is time for us to have a clear-eyed assessment of what the infrastructure needs are of today. My colleague, Mr. DeFazio, talked a little bit about this in his statement because, frankly, we've got the evidence at hand of what

the condition is. We know that there is time for us to move forward with a new plan for this century. It is time to build the constituency and the public awareness going from the Sierra Club to the Garden Club, the AFL-CIO to the Chamber of Commerce, the bicyclists and the truckers.

In 314 days, we start a new era here on Capitol Hill. There are people out and about who are starting work on this, the America 2050 program, a nonpartisan assessment under the leadership of the RPA, headquartered in New York, to other assemblage of professional and academic and business.

I hope this resolution helps focus the attention of people on this Chamber for what we all need to do to help our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to move forward with an assessment of our needs now, a plan for this century, so that all of our communities can be more livable and our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.