Floor Statements

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This week, hundreds of cyclists from around America will descend on Capitol Hill to advocate on behalf of America's 100 million people who enjoy bicycling for recreation, for their livelihood, and some for basic transportation.

With 176 members of the Congressional Bicycle Caucus, I know there will be great receptivity in many offices, but it is time for everybody to take these men and women very seriously when they bring their message to Capitol Hill.

Yes, bicycling is fun. We know that from our youth. Everybody seems to have a bicycling story that they love to tell. However, there are many reasons why bicycling should be taken very seriously by policymakers. Consider the times. Remember last year when oil averaged $72 per barrel and gasoline averaged $2.81 per gallon and how people were deeply concerned about those increases over just the year before? Well, already oil is significantly over $100 a barrel and rising gasoline prices are expected to perhaps reach as much as $4 a gallon this summer.

There is also an emerging consensus on global warming that it is not just an urgent problem, but that transportation is the largest source of carbon emissions that we can manage quickly to reduce. The carbon emissions from riding a bicycle to work or to the store or for exercise are zero.

Consider the livability of our cities and neighborhoods as we are struggling with traffic congestion, air pollution, and the quality of life in every neighborhood and downtown and everywhere in between. Bicycles, obviously, make a huge difference there.

Last but not least, impacts on our health. There is great unease about soaring health care costs. There is a childhood obesity epidemic. The bicycle is the simplest, most cost-effective way to be able to enhance our health as we enhance the quality of life for our young people. Think for a moment right now how many people somewhere in America are stuck in traffic on their way to ride a stationary bike at a health club. These are all initiatives that can be dealt with by taking over 100 million bicycles that are stored in our garages and basements and locked to a back porch and putting them to use. The role for the Federal Government is not to tilt in favor of cycling, although I could certainly make that argument, but just to level the playing field.

Why do some Members of Congress think it's all right to give tax benefits to commuters that burn gasoline to help them cushion their costs, but are against providing modest tax benefits for those who burn calories instead? Three times the House of Representatives has passed a modest reform for bike commuter equity, but it has yet to be enacted into law.

Mostly it's time to set the table for the massive transportation reauthorization that will be before us next Congress. I have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 305, which would be the first comprehensive bicycling policy statement as a guide for authorization and beyond.

I urge my colleagues to look at it. It's the simplest, most cost- effective direction the Federal Government can give to make more transportation choices for Americans, to provide safer opportunities for our children to get to school, to deal with health and climate change, and to heal our communities while we strengthen our bodies and improve our spirits.

Bicyclists are an indicator species of a livable community, a place where our families are safe, healthy and economically secure. It's time for the Federal Government to step up and do its part.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution which recognizes that a national transportation system conducive to bicycling produces enriched health, reduced traffic congestion and air pollution, greenhouse gas emission reductions, economic vitality, and an overall improved quality of life which is valuable for the Nation.

Communities across the Nation are seeking to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, save energy and enhance neighborhood safety. The Federal Government can assist in those efforts by promoting increased bicycle safety, supporting policies that establish national target levels for bicycle use, increase intermodal travel, provide incentives to State and local government, provide flexibility in Federal transportation law, and encourage partnerships with employers and executive agencies. These changes will benefit all Americans whether they ride their own bikes or benefit from those neighbors who do.

I have witnessed these positive impacts in my hometown of Portland, Oregon, as bike ridership has skyrocketed as modest investments in facilities have improved access and made biking safer. I have no doubt that communities nationwide can reap the benefits of bicycling if the Federal Government provides the right incentives and works with State and local officials on a balanced transportation system.

Ever since I started the Congressional Bike Caucus over 10 years ago, I have seen broad and bipartisan support for bicycling grow with over 170 members from both sides of the aisle standing up for the role bicycles play in our transportation system. I now call on my colleagues to support this legislation that gives bicycling its proper role for our Nation's mobility and health.

Madam Speaker, President Kennedy, 47 years ago at the establishment of the Peace Corps, said that reactions to the Peace Corps are proof that we have in America ``an immense reservoir of such men and women, anxious to sacrifice their energies and time and toil to the cause of world peace and human progress.''

What was true in 1961 as it is true today. Peace Corps volunteers are an outstanding group of men and women serving the cause of humanity across the globe.

This year, those words have even more meaning for me as my daughter Anne is serving in the Peace Corps in Mozambique.

During this National Peace Corps Week, I want to commend the service and commitment of the Peace Corps volunteers from my community and express our pride in fellow Oregonians who have chosen to devote 2 years or more of their lives in service to others.

In addition to Anne Blumenauer, I would like to recognize John Bento, serving in Georgia; Amanda Bickle-Eldridge, serving in Nicaragua; Stuart Chidester, serving in Paraguay; Melanie Edwards, serving in Azerbaijan; Ashley Hollenbeck, serving in Morocco; Andrea Lawrence, serving in Bolivia; James Lensen-Callas, serving in Peru; Erik Nelson, serving in Georgia; Sami Oeser, serving in Botswana; Sandra Stevens, serving in Jamaica; Paul Sylvester, serving in Samoa; Normand Tremblay, serving in Cameroon; and Natalie Wilson, serving in Botswana.

They are the foundation for creating a safer and more prosperous world, establishing a better future for people everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying desperately to change the subject. There could be a FISA extension in a heartbeat. They turned that down. If they cared truly about national security, they would be embarrassed about the bankrupt energy policy that puts our Nation at risk. We wouldn't have a third of a million American soldiers and civilian contractors in Iraq today spending 1 trillion American tax dollars if Iraq didn't have the second largest oil reserves and that we have an energy policy that doesn't meet the needs of America today, much less for the future.

The bill that we have before you that this rule enables us to consider will be passed. It will be passed through the House today. It will pass the Senate, it is only a question of when. It may take an election for the American people to be clear that they're tired of investing in energy policies from the past, for the past.

This isn't a tax increase. Our bill has exactly the same amount of money

coming in as going out. But instead of subsidizing the purchase of the largest gas guzzling SUVs, we are going to subsidize hybrid plug-ins. Instead of giving $14 billion of unneeded subsidies to the five largest oil companies who made over half a trillion dollars in profit, we are going to help avoid the starving of the wind energy business.

Approve the rule. Vote for the bill.

Would the gentleman from California be kind enough to specify specifically what the carveout he thinks is in this bill for Hugo Chavez.

So there is no carveout for Hugo Chavez.

Reclaiming my time, it is very clear that the gentleman does not know of any ``carveout'' for Hugo Chavez. He is just talking about the largest five oil companies that under this bill would get an unnecessary tax subsidy and instead would go to emerging technologies that do need the help.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce a resolution expressing support for the designation of April 2008 as ``Public Radio Recognition Month.'' This legislation celebrates the contributions of public radio to America's communities and enduring civic spirit.

Today, more than 33 million Americans listen to and appreciate public radio through more than 800 locally controlled stations, spanning every State and congressional district. Public radio is committed to community-

based and fact-based journalism, as well as preserving and enhancing the archetypal musical genres of American music history, such as classical, Celtic, jazz, the blues, and bluegrass. This source for local, national, and international news, as well as informative, cultural, and musical programming, is a unique and valued service to our communities.

I invite my colleagues to recognize these achievements and cosponsor this important resolution.

Well, it's a new year and again the Bush budget targets public broadcasting. Year after year, they've attempted to chop away at that investment. Year after year Congress rejects it.

This year it is a $420 million reduction, including $200 million that's already been allocated for this year. This assault on public broadcasting is not just undermining the digital conversion, the education and public affairs that we have grown to rely on, it's a direct assault at small-town and rural America where it's more expensive to reach and they don't have the donor base to provide it for themselves.

The irony is that San Francisco, New York, Washington and, dare I say, Portland, Oregon will always have public broadcasting. But if this Bush budget is adopted, it's going to decimate public broadcasting in rural and small-town America.

Please join the over 110 members of the bipartisan Public Broadcasting Caucus to again reject this assault on public broadcasting.

Madam Speaker, for the first time in American history, the highway trust fund is running a deficit this year. What is the solution from this administration? Well, instead of having a comprehensive approach to dealing with the shortfall, they just want to steal some money from the mass transit administration account and walk away. This will only delay the problem for 1 year, and it will push mass transit into deficit the next year, instead of a practical solution to fix the looming transportation trust fund crisis.

This is consistent with their consistent underinvestment in our Nation's infrastructure. It is why the American Society of Civil Engineers has rated our infrastructure a D minus, and estimates it will cost us $1.6 trillion over the next 5 years to repair water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure, a crisis not just for the Federal Government but even worse for State and local governments.

A hundred years ago, Teddy Roosevelt had a vision for a national conference to develop a plan to deal with the Nation's infrastructure. It is time for this Congress to revisit that concept, maybe have a transportation vision for this century.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this; and I particularly appreciate the chairman, Mr. Miller, and the Ranking Member, Mr. McKeon having incorporated into this legislation the committee work that we have been doing for the last several years dealing with sustainability in higher education.

I would like this provision to be named after the late Debbie Murdock. She was a leader at Portland State University with whom I worked who tragically left us far too soon, to make sure that we have equipped, to have strong sustainability programs. This is the wave of the future. This is where the jobs are to be found.

This is what our companies need to be competitive in a world of global warming and climate change. Only 30 percent of these companies say, they have the people with the skills and information and personnel to meet the environmental, sustainability challenge. This provision will enable colleges to develop sustainability programs, and to implement those sustainability programs, to have the appropriate evaluation to know what works.

I hope this is the tip of the iceberg for programs we can work on in the future. I look forward to working with the chairman, looking forward to working with my friend, the subcommittee Chair and our friends on the otherside of the aisle like Mr. McKeon and Mr. Ehlers on this critical bipartisan legislation.

I thank the gentleman for his kind words and for his leadership on this issue.

I rise in support of this legislation, but, frankly, we've waited too long to get to this point. We have watched as this administration has exploded the national debt. We have watched the growth in the gross domestic product slow 35 percent in this administration over the previous one. Median incomes declined. The savings rates have gone negative, and the trade deficit has doubled.

Most important, they ignored the symptoms of the subprime mortgage markets, a failure to exercise reasonable oversight. This legislation is an important first step towards rebalancing the equity.

I commend the Speaker for targeting aid for those who need it most. I appreciate what my friend from Massachusetts Mr. Frank has focused on, to make it easier for hard-pressed families to refinance their loans. I hope before we get through this process that we'll be able to add to it unemployment and food stamp benefits, which will have even more stimulative effect.

After this bill, we need to deal with issues of infrastructure, making sure that we don't shut down our wind energy production tax credit, and deal with bankruptcy equity so that homeowners get the same protections as people who speculated in property.

Last but not least, I hope that this is the beginning of real progress in Congress that becomes a critical issue of accountability on the campaign trail so that next year we won't have to make compromises that compromise what we need to do for the American family.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing, along with Mr. Oberstar, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Petri, and Mr. Farr, a resolution to commemorate the bicentennial of the Gallatin plan for infrastructure investment. This plan built on George Washington's vision of connecting the interior settlements with the markets and ports of the East Coast through a network of roads and canals. As Congress looks at major infrastructure investments for this century, it is worthwhile to remember that the achievements of the past were based on sound planning, and important to note that the value of infrastructure investments is dependent on national planning efforts. As we embark on efforts to improve our Nation's civil infrastructure, we should acknowledge and honor the plans that laid the groundwork for our Nation's greatness.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing, along with Mr. Oberstar, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Petri, and Mr. Farr, a resolution to commemorate the centennial of President Theodore Roosevelt's Conference of Governors. That conference, which included many State Governors, the members of President Roosevelt's Cabinet, Members of Congress, professional organizations, and Government bureaus--and which served as the first meeting of what today has become the National Governors Association--resulted in a report that incorporated the growing interest in conservation as well as articulated the need for future investments in civil infrastructure. The conference laid the groundwork for many of the critical investments of the 20th century and serves as an important reminder that the value of infrastructure investments is dependent on national planning efforts. In the past few decades, our critical infrastructure has fallen into disrepair. As we embark on efforts to improve our Nation's civil infrastructure, we should acknowledge and honor the plans that laid the groundwork for our Nation's greatness.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy and her leadership on this.

Madam Chairman, I come from a community that took almost 500 units of World War II-era public housing and replaced it with almost 1,000 units, including 230 that were unrestricted market rate. It was an anchor for revitalizing the community. It leveraged three-to-one investment from the private sector, and it was built according to environmentally sustainable standards.

I cannot say how strongly I support this legislation to be a blueprint for how HOPE VI can make a difference for public housing and community revitalization around America. I strongly urge support for this legislation and rejection of efforts to water it down. Use this model. Make it work. You will be proud.

Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy, as I appreciate her leadership on this, and that of my friend, Mr. Olver.

There is a difference between flexibility in green building standards and gutting the provision altogether. Having green building standards should not be merely one factor that is considered, as will be proposed by the gentlewoman's amendment later in the game. The manager's amendment provides flexibility and allows the Secretary to deal with compliance. It does not have strict LEED certification, but still retains that environmental green building standard. Frankly, the notion that we just dismiss this as merely one factor to be considered is going to be regarded in the years to come as an embarrassingly shortsighted proposal.

As I mentioned earlier in the debate we in Portland used HOPE VI to create an environmentally-sensitive community that actually provided twice as many housing units as had been on the site before, using HOPE VI as an anchor for more investment and as a development model. The provisions that are in the underlying bill and the manager's amendment will provide more environmentally-sensitive construction and, frankly, the costs are going to be recovered in relatively short order, as my friend from Massachusetts pointed out, in savings, not just from energy, but also water and sewer as well.

These costs are going up exponentially over time. Having this wired into the HOPE VI provision means that it is a better investment for the community and a better investment for the Federal Government. It's going to save the Federal Government and the tenants money over the long haul. There is absolutely no reason to water it down.

I strongly urge approval of the manager's amendment and rejection of the subsequent amendment.

Madam Speaker, there's a certain irony: As the country is slipping towards recession, the Bush administration is backing away from its own study on infrastructure finance. The answer is simple. It's not a gimmick. Think of the subprime mess that got us into this situation in the first place. The solution is more money to invest. There are examples of where money may be available. For example, the carbon-constrained economy that we are moving into will create a great deal of value, some of which could be captured to help pay for infrastructure.

It is critical, however, that we have a new vision of cleaning up the environment, rebuilding America, and making it more energy efficient, because people are not, nor should they put a lot of money into yesterday's plan. A new vision for investing in America in this century is a key, not just to fighting this temporary recession but making our communities more livable and making our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate his leadership.

I voted against the last mining reform on the floor of the House, even though it represented some progress, because, frankly, it didn't go far enough and it didn't do it quickly enough. The treatment of our miners compared to what is going on in other developed countries who take mine safety seriously is a national disgrace. I am pleased to see a comprehensive piece moving forward. This is going to help reverse that course.

I heard some say that this administration would veto the legislation. I would consider a veto of mining legislation by this administration a badge of honor, an administration that has put the wrong people in charge, has been not zealous in dealing with the problems that have come forward, that have taken tragedies to at least seemingly get their attention.

I hope that each Member of the House spends a little time looking at this legislation comparing it to what's going on in the rest of the world. I'm confident that they will then support the legislation, and if by some reason the administration chooses to override it, I'm confident that people of good conscience can override it to give the miners the safety they deserve.

Mr Chairman, today I will vote in favor of H.R. 2768, the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act. This comprehensive legislation addresses the many short-comings of the MINER Act of 2006, which Congress passed in the wake of several fatal coal mining accidents.

I voted against the 2006 legislation because it did not go far enough to prevent these tragic, avoidable accidents, instead focusing exclusively on emergency response and rescue. It is a national disgrace that S-MINER is the first legislation in over 30 years that addresses preventing mining accidents and illness. We have witnessed far too many needless disasters and I am proud to support this comprehensive legislation which will not only further improve emergency response, but also reduce health risks to workers and enhance prevention efforts.