Floor Statements

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

I listened to my friend from Michigan, and in one respect I think she is right: there will be people who will be haunted by the bill that we are voting on here today, but not because it goes too far, but because it doesn't go far enough. I am confident, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the commitment that we have by the American people, that we will go back to the comprehensive energy bill that we had a few moments ago.

I find it ironic talking about the CAFE standards and the problems. Now we see the American auto industry is reluctantly accepting to do in this country what they are already doing in Europe. And, frankly, if they don't get it right in terms of fuel efficiency, there is nothing that we are going to be able to do to bail them out, and they will continue to lose market share to foreign companies that are more energy efficient.

I am pleased that this bill contains provisions I have worked on to align the interests of the natural gas companies to promote energy efficiency rather than penalizing them for conservation. I am pleased that we are going to have increased energy efficiency for light bulbs, appliances, buildings, and government agencies. All of these are starting to lay the foundation for legislation that is long overdue.

I am sad that it does not include the renewable energy portfolio standard which half American States, and the public is already represented by States that have galloped ahead of us, and it is unfortunate that the Senate could not deal with the tax provisions that would have put government subsidies for emerging renewable technologies that need that government support to turn a profit and come to scale, and instead continue to lavish subsidies on the petroleum industry that frankly doesn't need it to turn a profit. But these we will return and address.

I am pleased that this is an important step in the right direction and urge support of the rule and the legislation today.

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

We are watching fiscal chickens come home to roost with this housing bubble that is slowly working its way through the system. As my good friend from Connecticut mentioned, we are looking at perhaps 2 million foreclosures looming. There is another 2 million figure to keep in mind, and that is the number of loans that are going to reset in the next 18 months. And many of these people were not particularly sophisticated. There are a number of folks that appear to have been lured into subprime loans that actually would have qualified for conventional, fixed-rate mortgages. And this is a ripple effect that can have a very profound consequence for people.

If we see a 15-percent drop in housing values, which is projected by Goldman Sachs, we are talking about millions of families who can be in this situation of having phantom income. If it is a 20-percent drop, it is 3.7 million. And some people feel that 30 percent correction is not beyond question, and that would put almost 20 million American homeowners in this negative territory.

It is important for us to make sure that people are not paying taxes on phantom income. Frankly, I am a little disappointed that the legislation that came back to us from the Senate is only 3 years because I fear that this is going to be a longer-term problem. And, frankly, I can't foresee any circumstance where this Congress would like to apply tax rates on phantom income when anybody is under water, getting a loan forgiveness. We have put careful provisions in this to make sure that it is not unlimited, it is not for wild speculation, but for typical, average everyday homeowners.

I hope we pass this bill, but I also hope that we look at a long-term adjustment so that no one who is in this unfortunate circumstance ends up making a tax payment on phantom income when they have lost their home.

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

One of the most important things the United States did in the aftermath of World War II was to help returning veterans with housing. In my home State of Oregon, in 1945 we established a veterans home loan program which, for over 60 years, has provided over a third of a million loans, a value that is approaching $8 billion, which has changed the lives of the veterans and their families as it has helped revitalize communities.

Unfortunately, in Oregon, as in other States like Alaska, Wisconsin, California, and Texas, we are bumping up against limits in dealing with this program. We do not have the bonding capacity to be able to deal with the flood of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, who are every bit as worthy of our help and support as veterans from Korea or World War II.

The House legislation that went forward corrected this situation, adding an increase in the bond cap; and it made a modification for eligible veterans of more recent wars to be included. Unfortunately, the other body, inexplicably, following rules that Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun would recognize today, allowed a minority to strip away these important provisions.

It is important for us to repass this legislation that affirms that we are going to do right by veterans in Alaska, Oregon, Wisconsin, California and Texas, raise those limits, and extend the coverage to warriors that are returning from these conflicts.

I strongly urge my colleagues to not just pass this legislation but to make clear to our friends in the other body

that this is one of our go-home items of legislation that we are going to insist upon.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that after failing to reauthorize our Intelligence programs for the past 2 years under Republican leadership, the Democratic majority has taken the health of our Nation's intelligence community seriously. I support the critical improvements to this bill: strengthening the offices of the Inspector Generals, authorizing increased attention to climate change, and strengthening contractor oversight.

Most importantly, I support this bill because of its torture prohibition. Torture violates not only the laws and values of our country, but all standards of decent human conduct. I have consistently spoken out against the stonewalling and equivocation surrounding this administration's ``interrogation'' of prisoners. It is clear that the American people will not get satisfactory answers from the administration, and that it is now Congress's duty to set interrogation standards worthy of our great Nation.

Extending the rules of the Army Field Manual to intelligence personnel is a significant step. I am proud that Congress will send the message to our Nation and the world at large that Americans do not approve of, and will not stand for, torture.

Madam Speaker, I listen to my friend from Washington repeating the same lame line from the talking points of my Republican friends.

They knew this was coming. Yes, President Clinton vetoed a flawed tax measure back in the previous administration. What have they been doing for the last 6 years when they controlled everything?

They decided not to deal with the alternative minimum tax. They made a cynical decision to cut taxes for those who are the most fortunate in this country and be able to use this money in the budget calculations to be able to justify these massive tax reductions. They spent this money and they count on spending this money for years to come. It is in President Bush's budget.

We reject that cynical effort. We implored them time and time again when they were having their tax reductions to deal with the alternative minimum tax, this fiscal tsunami that is going to sweep away middle and upper middle-income Americans. They refused. They bet on the other side.

Now we are coming forward not with a tax increase but with a tax adjustment. The Federal Government will get the same amount of money; it is who are you going to benefit. We are going to save 23 million Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax, making some reasonable tax adjustments and not putting the cost of this patch on the credit card of our children.

I thank the gentleman.

I appreciate we are sort of finalizing history here, and I appreciate your referring to that past.

But is it not true that for the last 6 years when you were in control, you made a decision to have other tax cuts that were financed in part by the assumption that we are going to collect this AMT?

My good friend from Washington talked past the point. Those budgets assumed the alternative minimum tax. President Bush's budget assumes the alternative minimum tax. And I want to make clear that this is something that we are simply not going to do. We do not want to continue their practice of assuming this tax to be able to finance other priorities.

Mr. Speaker, for years I have spoken out and voted against wasteful Defense spending that often serves to make us less safe and takes money from more useful programs. I am concerned that there is still too much money in this legislation for unnecessary weapons systems and other outdated holdovers from the cold war and too little to deal with the challenges of today. However, I am pleased that this bill takes some steps in the direction of reform, and I hope that it provides a platform for further progress.

I support this bill because it includes provisions from the ``Responsibility to Iraqi Refugees Act,'' which I introduced in May and which were added in the Senate as an amendment by Senator Kennedy. This bill will provide 5,000 special immigrant visas for each of the next 5 years to Iraqis at risk because they helped the United States, require the Secretary of State to establish refugee processing in Iraq and other countries in the region, and direct the Secretary of State to designate a special coordinator at the Embassy in Baghdad.

We need a wholesale change in attitude that puts the needs of Iraqis at the forefront of our Iraq policy, rather than using them as pawns in political games. It is ironic, to be generous, to hear President Bush repeatedly talk about the humanitarian crisis and massive out-flows that would follow what he called a ``precipitous'' withdrawal. This only illustrates the state of denial over the humanitarian crisis currently happening.

This is one area where our moral responsibility to these unfortunate people can be used to bring together those of disparate viewpoints in a cooperative effort that might serve as a template for how we solve greater problems associated with the war. One of the burdens of those who would be world leaders and the responsibility of those who make war is to deal with the consequences of their decisions. Innocent victims of war and civil strife are too often the invisible and forgotten casualties.

Mr. Speaker, I understand after what the gentleman just said that he would like to stop debate and move on because, with all due respect, that's turning it on its head.

He's right. When they were in charge, they did offer up a fix that President Clinton mercifully vetoed because if it had been in place in 1999, their proposal would have required almost $800 billion more in deficit spending. But when they were entirely in charge for the last 6 years, they ignored this all together. In fact, they have used every dime that was projected by CBO to fuel their massive spending increases.

Go back and look at the record. Your record for increased spending has been far above the rate of inflation, far above the Clinton administration. It embarrassed your fiscal conservatives. Even Mr. Ryan on the Budget Committee kind of gets embarrassed about your performance for the last 6 years.

That's why you have increased in the Bush----

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the admonition.

That's why we've had a $3.4 billion increase in the national debt in the first six years of the Bush administration as opposed to a surplus, budget surplus from the Clinton administration, which I think the majority leader will be talking about.

This is not a tax increase. The Federal Government will collect exactly the same taxation over the next 10 years under our proposal as under the Bush budget proposal right now. The difference is they're spending 23 million taxpayers' alternative minimum tax for the next 10 years. That's how they deal with the budget. We stop that.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Doesn't the Bush administration budget assume the CBO numbers that include the alternative minimum tax for the next 10 years?

Mr. Speaker, the largest humanitarian crisis in the world continues to unfold in Iraq. Over 4 million displaced people, more than the crisis in Darfur, two million or more, have fled their country; and the rest are displaced within. They have fled to Syria, to Jordan, throughout the Middle East and beyond. It is brutal, not just for the refugees themselves, and the displaced people, but it places a great strain on the host country.NOTICE

If the 110th Congress, 1st Session, adjourns sine die on or before December 21, 2007, a final issue of the Congressional Record for the 110th Congress, 1st Session, will be published on Friday, December 28, 2007, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through Thursday, December 27. The final issue will be dated Friday, December 28, 2007, and will be delivered on Wednesday, January 2, 2008. None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event that occurred after the sine die date. Senators' statements should also be formatted according to the instructions at http://webster/secretary/cong_record.pdf, and submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ``[email protected]''. Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerk.house.gov/forms. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT-60. Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by contacting the Office of Congressional Publishing Services, at the Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. ROBERT A. BRADY, Chairman.

Late last summer, Ambassador Ryan Crocker pointed out the problems that this refugee crisis is posing for the United States itself when he expressed deep concerns that if we don't do a better job of helping to protect the people whose lives are at risk because they have worked for the United States, if we turn our back on them when they flee the country, than people will be less willing to work with us, and we won't be able to rely on those who make such a difference in terms of services of interpreters and guides and others providing essential services for United States activities in Iraq.

I have been deeply concerned about this problem over the course of the last year, finding out how far we have fallen short of the mark when I was working with a group of high school students in Oregon and returning U.S. Oregon National Guard troops. They were fighting to bring to the United States their interpreter, a young woman who had been marked for death in Iraq because of her cooperation with the United States. It was frustrating over the course of the months that we worked with them because I really had no good explanation for these young people, the Guard and the high school students, about why it should be so hard for the United States to help people who helped us.

It is not just people who had helped the United States who have fled the country, it is not just those that are concerned about Sunni and Shia violence; the Mandean, an ancient people, a small Christian sect, are caught in the crossfire of this civil war in Iraq, and they are at risk of being wiped out in their entirety for all time.

Having been inspired by these young Oregonians, having been inspired, by other dedicated advocates, for example, Kirk Johnson, a former AID staff member, who chronicled the plight of over 600 people at risk, of whom less than 10 had been resettled, we introduced legislation to deal with the mismatch between the scope of the problem and the limited resources the United States Government has put into addressing it.

Indeed, after we ``won the war in Iraq,'' the situation became worse on the ground, and we witnessed the explosion of this crisis. For 2005 and 2006, the numbers of people we helped were miniscule. Out of the 4 million people who have left their homes, we allowed 198 Iraqis in the United States in 2005, and 202 last year, almost entirely people who were being reunited with their families, who had been made refugees in 1991.

There were glimmers of hope this year, with the administration promising, to allow 25,000 people into the United States, which was the same number of refugees that the Prime Minister of Sweden told me that Sweden was willing to accept. Later, the U.S. number fell to 7,000, and then ultimately we only let 1,800 Iraqis in throughout the entire last fiscal year. Even that was after a last-minute rush, because the first 6 months we had only allowed 69 Iraqi refugees.

There is good news, however, because due to an amendment by Senator Kennedy that was adopted in the Senate for the Defense authorization bill, largely taken from provisions in our House legislation, we are actually going to be able to make some real progress. We will be able to process some of these refugees in their own country. Until now, people had been forced to leave Iraq. Even though we have the largest embassy in the history of the planet, they had to leave Iraq before they could apply for refugee status. We have an opportunity to increase to 5,000 a year those people who are at risk because they have helped us. These are important steps, and I hope they are approved.

But much more needs to be done. First, we have to actually do what is authorized. Second, we need to put some real money into it, not just the $250 million for refugee assistance that is currently pending. That is rounding error, given the billions that we have spent in Iraq that we can't even account for.

It is important for us to scale our commitment to make sure that we meet the humanitarian crisis in the aftermath of our war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, his leadership on this bill and for yielding me this time.

Listening to the debate here on the rule, as I sat through the hearing last night in the Rules Committee, I am, frankly, more than a little disappointed in the discussion that has taken place.

First of all, this is a very large and complex bill, but the vast majority of this bill has actually already passed the House at least once, some of it twice. We have had 11 committees that have been involved in this process. It has not somehow been ``sprung'' on people. There is a large stack of paper that represents the bill, as is the case in most complex legislation. But most of it is familiar to the staff. It is familiar to the Members, if they choose to have been involved with this issue. It has been here before.

The process that has taken place is not one that we would have desired, but the Republicans in the Senate decided that there would not be a conference committee. But there has been a process that has gone on which I don't think it has been fairly characterized, frankly, where there has been extensive back-and-forth, where House and Senate staff committee members from the various jurisdictions met since September, have met in the same room going over these details. And, in fact, you can verify this is you talk to staff members on both sides. Republican staff members have been able to influence what has been going on here. Indeed I think majority staff members will acknowledge positively the technical expertise that has been provided and print out changes Republicans have influenced. But all of that is sort of swept away and ignored. That is wrong.

Fundamentally, we want to talk about what we are for. This deals with a significant increase in CAFE standards. There is lots of new energy here because we focus the alternatives on the energy sources that need tax support. And we pay for it, although it is scaled down from what has already passed the House. I think people ought to look at the Record.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the work that you and Chairman Dingell have done in bringing forth to the House for a vote today an opportunity for a comprehensive energy policy.

For too long, we've focused on energy for the past, on energy sources and products for the world as it was or as some wanted it to be. This is an opportunity for us to deal with the energy challenges of today and for the future.

The bill that comes forward will be, for the first time since 1975, an opportunity to significantly increase vehicle fuel mileage standards. It will contain a renewable portfolio standard that emulates what has happened in over half our States across the country, to be able to jump-start renewable energy. It will be financed by redirecting tax breaks from the largest oil companies who don't need taxpayer support to produce oil profitably, and it will be directed to the energy sources of the future, renewables, which do need this help to bring their opportunities to scale.

I hope my colleagues will arise to meet this challenge. Vote to pass this legislation. Our national security, economic stability, and environmental survival depends upon it.

Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his continued focus on the opportunities we face with the energy legislation that is coming before us this week, and the bigger picture, the new Apollo project.

I wanted, if I could just elaborate on one point, because I think as you were talking about the compelling opportunities for new technology that are harnessed in the car of the future, I was thinking back to the situation that we faced as some of us were growing up when the United States Department of Defense was paying $100 for a transistor when they could have spent 79

cents for a vacuum tube. But that investment in technology for the future made possible the first Apollo project, sending a person to the moon, miniaturization, the electronics that harness that power. But it also spoke, I think, to the power of having strategic Federal investment and incentives.

I heard my friend from California a moment ago talking about the power of the market. Well, we are all interested, I think, in harnessing market forces wherever possible. And your response about the issue of nuclear energy, that despite massive subsidies, there hasn't been a new plant in the last 30 years because the private sector didn't think it penciled out.

I am interested in opportunities that we can have harnessing this new technology and perhaps using it in sectors like national defense where we can jump-start new technology and we can make a difference for our national security. That, as you know, has been one of the cornerstones of the Speaker's initiative. The first hearings we had on the Global Warming Committee that we both serve on were from national security experts that talked about how our dependence on expensive foreign oil, on traditional energy sources, put us at a strategic disadvantage in terms of oil supply, and it is also having an operational disadvantage for our national defense.

The current war in Iraq is the most intense, most energy-intense military operation in the history of the world. It is four times more energy intense than the first Iraq war. We are delivering gasoline to the front that we are heavily dependent on in great big tankers that might as well have bull's eyes on them at a cost of over $100 a gallon.

What you're outlining here in terms of fuel-efficient vehicles, in terms of new techniques for generating electricity, has the potential of revitalizing American defense posture to make our troops safer and more efficient as well as making battles in areas to secure oil supply less likely.

I just wanted to commend you for dealing with us today in terms of the big picture and what a difference that can make for the lives of everyday Americans in terms of where they shop, how they move, where they work and live, as well as the international arena as well where we are going to be spending $1 trillion in Iraq. This type of technology could be harnessed to make a big difference in terms of national security and technology.

I just wanted to express my appreciation for what you're doing. I have the Rules Committee meeting now for the Energy package. I need to go represent Ways and Means. I depart, hanging on your every word.

Mr. Speaker, I have consistently voted against funding for this ill-conceived and miserably run war, but I reluctantly support this additional funding because it will require the beginning of a withdrawal from Iraq. It also contains important provisions to prevent torture and ensure that our troops are fully equipped and trained.

Because President Bush has done nothing to earn the trust of Congress or the American people, this funding is only for a few months, giving Congress the chance to exercise oversight and hold the President accountable to ensure that the withdrawal is actually occurring at a responsible pace.

With a veto likely, we must tell the President that Congress will not provide this $50 billion, and certainly not the entire $200 billion he's asked for, as a blank check. But I am pleased that, in this legislation, Congress is saying that we will only fund an end to this war, not its continuation. Bringing this nightmare to a quick and responsible close is my highest priority.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate watching the legislative process work here. Too seldom in the last 12 years have we watched this unfold in the way that it has, and I congratulate Mr. Frank, Mr. Watt, Mr. Miller, the Ranking Member Bachus, this is how the legislative process should work.

I will tell you, this is not a Sarbanes-Oxley moment, where Congress stalled and stalled and stalled until the problems got so great they exploded. Then Congress rushed to act; actually didn't know in many instances what people were voting on.

This bill has been a deliberate process. It has not been rushed. It has been bipartisan. And I must say that I feel better than at any point in the last 4 or 5 years, as I have been alarmed as Congress has been missing in action on this issue where the regulatory structures have looked the other way.

The big question for me, though, is where we go from here. I am pleased in the Ways and Means Committee we have been able to make some tax adjustments so that people will not be taxed on phantom ``profits'' if they end up having a loan foreclosed upon.

I am eager to find out if the gentleman, Mr. Miller from North Carolina, can move forward dealing with fundamental bankruptcy reform so that people who are homeowners get the same protection that would be given to a speculator in an identical home in a subdivision or identical units in a condominium tower. This is extremely critical.

We are talking now not just about the hundreds of thousands of people that will be affected by this legislation. Ultimately, there will be ripple effects throughout the economy, a shaken industry, and millions of innocent homeowners who are going to have their property values drop because regulators were asleep at the switch, because Congress was missing in action, and because abusive practices took place.

H.R. 3915 is a good start. I commend the committee and look forward to working with you as it works its way through for the refinement of this legislation and the next step.

Mr. Speaker, as a chamber, we have come a long way since August when the disgraceful ``Protect America Act'' was strong- armed into law. The RESTORE Act, a comprehensive and thoughtful overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, could not cut a more striking contrast.

Over the past 7 years I have been highly critical of Republican wiretapping legislation. I have voted against every effort to expand the ability of this administration to intrude in the lives and privacy of innocent citizens.

But this is a Democratic Congress and a Democratic bill. The RESTORE Act strikes an unprecedented balance between civil defense and civil liberties. I deeply appreciate the hard-won progress we've made on this issue and I am heartened by our leadership's determination to end a Republican legacy that so blatantly disregards the rights of ordinary Americans.

The bill before us will not solve every potential abuse of FISA, but it does greatly strengthen legal protections for Americans and introduces robust congressional 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.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. As we are concluding our activities wrapping up on the floor, preparing for the Thanksgiving recess, as people go back to work in their districts, and hopefully spend a little time with their families, it is appropriate for us to reflect on the important work that has been done here in Congress under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, working with our House Chief Administrative Officer Dan Beard, to develop a Green the Capitol initiative.

We have made it clear under the new Democratic leadership in the House that it is not appropriate to ask the American people to address the challenges of global warming and climate change without first carefully examining the ways that we reduce our own work energy consumption and sustainable practices here in the workspace.

Mr. Speaker, I have spent most of my career working with environmental issues at the State, the local, and now the Federal level, working in partnership with people in the private sector to be able to make our communities more liveable, to make families safer, healthier, and more economically secure by virtue of our environmental initiatives, how we put the pieces together.

Over the years, I have had lots of ideas myself. I have heard them from others. We have looked at policies and practices, rules and regulations. I will tell you that the one thing, if I were empowered for a day to be able to set the rules and regulations, it wouldn't be any new regulation, any new tax, any new environmental law. It would simply be to make sure that the Federal Government practiced what we ask the rest of America to do in terms of our behavior regarding the environment.

The Federal Government is the largest manager of infrastructure in the world. It is the largest consumer of energy. We have facilities from coast to coast. We are the largest employer in the United States. And the extent to which we are able to put in practice the best practices, it will have a transformational effect, not only in terms of the Federal operations themselves, but in terms of what difference it will make as we are setting trends and move forward.

I am extraordinarily impressed with what has happened already. I can't say enough about this initiative. The goals that were adopted were to operate the House in a carbon neutral manner by the end of the 110th Congress; to reduce the carbon footprint of the House by cutting energy consumption 50 percent in 10 years; and, to make House operations a model of sustainability.

There are a number of steps that the Chief Administrative Officer has already done to implement these goals. They purchased renewable energy power for electricity, funding that was approved in the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. We have switched the Capitol power plant, which provides heating and cooling to the House, to natural gas. It will improve the air quality on Capitol Hill for the residents. This was also already approved. I personally have been appalled at looking at the belching gas coal-fired plant that powers many of the energy needs for Capitol Hill. That is being changed.

To improve energy efficiency, the House will use metering, commissioning, and tracking to improve operations, install energy- efficient lighting, adopt new technologies and operation practices, other office equipment, update heating and ventilation. We are looking for sustainability in all House operations. Purchased carbon offsets from the Chicago Climate Exchange. These are initiatives, Mr. Speaker, that are extraordinarily exciting as they are spreading out across Capitol Hill.

Before turning to some of my colleagues this evening, I however must note that our friends in the minority office have decided to somehow try and politicize this effort issuing a broadside, and I am willing to talk about this further if we have time with my colleagues, but issuing a broadside against this initiative, claiming that it is somehow, the term the House Minority Leader Boehner used, green pork. It is sort of disappointing, I guess, to see that the minority leader doesn't see the value in leading by example and reducing the House energy costs and modeling the behavior we expect from citizens. I am disappointed he would prefer to have the Capitol continue to waste energy, limit transportation options for House employees, and continue to force Capitol Hill residents to experience the pollution of the Capitol Power Plant.

The green pork update has taken issue with a number of initiatives that the CAO has undertaken, taking to task the notion of working with the Chicago Climate Exchange.

I wish that the House could offset all our emissions on premise, but it is not possible at this point. But the Chicago Climate Exchange is a credible mechanism, the world's first and North America's only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction registry and training program.

The minority leader attacks initiative here on Capitol Hill for car- sharing. It is kind of ironic, we actually have higher per capita use of auto commuting on Capitol Hill with our 7,000 employees than in Washington, D.C. as a whole. One of the initiatives to help solve the problem of forcing people to drive their cars is to use car-sharing, something my colleague from the Seattle area can speak to.

We've had Flex Car and Zip Cars. The average car is only used 2 hours, less than 2 hours a day. Car-sharing is something that's moving across the country. It's been pioneered in a number of European cities.

The minority leader dismisses this as a ``hybrid loaner car for staffers wishing to run errands or catch a movie during work hours.''

I find that offensive in the extreme. The 7,000 men and women who work for us on Capitol Hill are amazing.

Now I don't know what happens in the minority leader's office, maybe he has employees that go off in the middle of the day to catch movies. I don't know of anybody, Republican or Democrat, who experiences that. And it's a slander against the outstanding primarily young men and women who work with us. It's illegal in the first instance to do this. But I think it really is demeaning for the people that we work with.

Car-sharing, if that's what they're trying to get at, is a very successful business around the country. It's recently on the GSA schedule. I'm pleased to have a small part in encouraging that to happen here on Capitol Hill. We now have over 100 employees that have signed up for it. There are cars that are parked here that people can use before or after hours for business or after hours on their own time and avoid having to drive a vehicle.

I will return to this in a moment. I am obviously quite disappointed in the

minority leader slandering our employees and demeaning this effort, even picking out, claiming that he's concerned about the notion of using Segways. The Segway personal transporter is not in the initiative. It's nothing that we have done in bringing forward this program. They were part of a green products fair that was conducted here 2 weeks ago on Capitol Hill, fabulously successful. But it's an example of the fuzzy thinking and sloppy research that I think typifies the Republican approach to trying to green the Capitol and their dismissive nature of it now.

I would, however, if I could, recognize my colleague from the State of Washington, Jay Inslee, a gentleman who is deeply involved with the environmental issue, who's just published a book, I think it's entitled ``Apollo's Fire,'' where he has spent, with a co-author, over a year researching these issues, has tremendous insights and is using the work that he has done to help implement a sense of vision here on the House floor. It informs his work on the Commerce Committee, and I am privileged to serve with him on the Speaker's Special Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence where he has made invaluable contributions, and would recognize him at this point.

Would the gentleman just yield on this point?

Just in referencing the work that's already under way, now we are implementing in our cafeteria products that will add less than a nickel to the overall price of a meal that are fully biodegradable, items here that will turn to dirt within 90 days, unlike the typical foam clam shell and plastic cup that will be here thousands of years. These are being implemented on Capitol Hill, something that will be responding to the desires of the outstanding young men and women who work here who've been agitating about this. Having biodegradable products that are completely compostable will reduce the problems of land fill and pollution for centuries to come.

I appreciate, Congressman Farr, both your being here and the work that you have done for years, dating back to your tenure as a local official and as a legislator in the State of California, continuing a fine family tradition of sensitivity to the environment.

The point you just made about the difference between having an energy policy that our friends on the other side of the aisle that would be perfect for the 1950s, maybe, but not where business is going, not where local government is going, not where any of our three State governments are going, is unfortunate. And people are turning to change these practices not just because they are fuzzy-headed tree huggers, but because it makes good, solid business sense.

The initiatives that have been undertaken in the House to this point are anticipated to reduce our energy bill by more than $5 million a year at the end of the 10-year period. We invest a little money at the outset, like businesses are doing across the country,

like some families are doing, with energy-efficient appliances or more energy-efficient vehicles, but it pays for itself.

I was particularly put off when they were taking to task the environmentally sensitive adhesives and materials that we're putting on Capitol Hill. One of the problems right now in our households is that people use building products, use materials that are not environmentally sensitive, that actually put people at risk, put people at risk in terms of the health of their family, that we have in business. When they use environmentally sensitive adhesives, for instance, it not only enables a little shoe company in my State, Nike, to meet U.S. EPA air quality standards in Thailand by using these water-based solvents, it's a better product, it's a safer product, and it's safer for the producer and for the user.

It seems to me that this is the type of thinking that I commend Chief Administrative Officer Beard for bringing into play here in the House.

I would turn to my colleague to maybe elaborate based on his experience.

Thank you, Congressman Miller. Thank you for your decades of leadership.

And I appreciate what you said a moment ago about our responsibility as a neighbor. I have been privileged to be a Member of Congress for 12 years. And 3 of those 12 years on Earth Day, we went down and had press conferences using that coal smoke belching out of the Capitol power plant as an example of what we would like to change. And it's interesting, I remember, Congressman Farr, when I first came here, we were concerned about the whole House of Representatives, with gazillions of tons of paper. Sam, help me. I think it was something like $21.17 for a year.

I must note, Mr. Speaker, that that first year when we were trying to get the House under the Republican leadership to change their policies, the entire House of Representatives, with all this paper, with the staff, they recovered what I think was less than a Boy Scout troop would do in my neighborhood in Portland, Oregon. It was embarrassing. We've turned the corner. It is a significant change.

And I deeply appreciate, Sam, the work that you've done personally to sort of pound that drum and make it happen.

I must confess, and you and I have endured some fascinating hearings on our global warming committee having these new technologies explained that are not, as you say, some far distant point in the future. They are available today for people to implement. I must, however, as the Chair of the congressional bicycle caucus, make a mention of proven technology that we have available now, where people can burn calories instead of electricity or fossil fuel.

One of the things that I really appreciate Dan Beard working with us on is to make the cycling choice more readily available to employees on Capitol Hill. As I mentioned a moment ago, we have about 14,000 car trips a day to Capitol Hill. The majority of the trips to the Capitol by our employees are made by car, higher, at a higher percentage than the rest of D.C., where fewer than half of the residents drive to work.

Mr. Beard has been working with us to be able to deal with making this Capitol more cycle friendly, working with the Washington Area Bicycling Association, the League of Bikers, to have more bike racks here on Capitol Hill, more secure facilities, lockers perhaps inside the garages. When I first came here, there are showers that are available for the staff, but people didn't want to let it on, I guess, because they wanted to be able to sort of use it on their own. But we have made some real progress. We have got maps now where the showers are available. We have added employee locker and gym facilities in Rayburn. But we have more work to do in terms of improving the choices for cyclists.

Part of it, and I would defer to any of my esteemed colleagues here who are more senior, if there is something we do with the Capitol police so they don't have different standards for cyclists than people in cars or pedestrians, allowing the bikers to have the ramps, barriers that are lower for people who are cycling. So like I am cycling to Capitol Hill to vote, I don't have to choose to go on the sidewalk and harass pedestrians. In all seriousness, cycling is the most efficient form of urban transportation ever invented. It is something that helps promote health. It does not have any impact in terms of the environment, wear and tear on the roads, congestion, and in 13 years on Capitol Hill, almost 12 years now on Capitol Hill, I have never had to look for a parking place or be stuck in traffic. And I hope there is more we can continue to do with Mr. Beard working on this program for cycling promotion.

You are almost caught up to Portland.

Thank you for joining us and for your work.

Do you want to borrow one?

Do they play them to scare them?

Thank you, Sam. Thank you for your efforts and your kind words. I want to just elaborate for a moment on a point that Congressman Inslee said in terms of providing choices.

What we are talking about here today is to provide Americans with better choices that meet their needs, giving them options, because too many people are trapped in a car, too many people don't have environmentally-sensitive opportunities available to them. Every day, Americans make billions of decisions about where to shop, what to buy, how to move, where to go. The extent to which we get it right, to give them a range of choices about where they live, how they can move that are available to them that meet their needs, we find that people inevitably gravitate toward things that are better for them and better for the community.

We are seeing it now coast to coast in terms of opportunities of livable communities where, if they can walk safely, they will; if they can bike safely, they will. They will take transit if it's available to them.

I think, Congressman Inslee, your point a moment ago about choice, about choice and leveling the playing field, is really what this battle is about. If we are able to squeeze out the incentives for things that really aren't environmentally sensitive, because we tend to subsidize a lot of things that are actually environmentally destructive. If we even out the economics, if we give people those choices, it's going to make a difference. We are seeing it here on Capitol Hill, greening the Capitol in a way that will save us money while we give people better choices.

I know you have a lot of thoughts about ways to give people more choices in areas of energy conservation and production. I wonder as we are wrapping up if you have some thoughts that you would like to share in that direction.

Thank you, Congressman Inslee. I appreciate your being here, I appreciate your explanations, and I appreciate your continued work on our various committees that we serve on.

One final point that I would say in conclusion that we haven't talked about is that this is not just an issue of greening the Capitol in terms of providing examples. This is also fundamentally that the same principles that we are talking about here make a huge difference for American security. The first hearing that we had on our Global Warming and Energy Independence Committee was a panel of retired military and intelligence experts.

The United States Department of Defense is the largest consumer of energy in the world. An aircraft carrier gets 17 feet to the gallon. The war in Iraq is the most energy-intensive military operation in the history of the world. It is four times more energy-intensive than the first Iraq war. We are delivering gasoline to the front at a price of over $100 a gallon, and it's being delivered in tanker trucks that might as well have great big bull's eyes on them.

Our military understands that part of the reason they are engaged in Iraq now is because it is the second largest source of proven oil reserves. They understand that their budgets are being tortured out of all proportion because of the rapidly escalating energy costs. They understand that our dependence on petroleum in areas that are extraordinarily volatile in the Middle East, in other parts of the world and Africa, Venezuela, and being linked to a decline in petroleum whenever that peak hits, if it hasn't already, and handcuffs them, puts them at risk, costs them money.

So while we are talking about greening the Capitol, empowering people in the neighborhoods to live more environmentally-sensitive lives and to be able to have policies that will reduce the threat of global warming and greenhouse gases, there is a very real and very tangible element here that is the very security of the United States and the protection of our soldiers.

The things that you have been talking about here, Mr. Inslee, and others, that we have talked about on Capitol Hill, if we are able to implement them for the Department of Defense, it's going to make a huge difference for the taxpayer and the safety and the military effectiveness of our soldiers.

Thank you, Congressman Inslee. I think it's safe to say that we are running to catch up with the American people, and that is one of the reasons why I think we are ultimately going to be successful in this, because the American public gets it.

Whether it is college campuses, churches, Girl Scout troops or Optimist Clubs, people are moving in this direction. I appreciate working with you and your joining us this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I know this will disappoint you because there are potentially another 15 minutes that we could have you and the dedicated desk staff held hostage, but I think we might sort of celebrate breaking for the holiday, and I am happy to yield back my time.