Floor Statements

I appreciate the chairman's courtesy. I appreciate his leadership in working with me on this bill.

Madam Speaker, as we stagger under the implications of what we have just witnessed at Virginia Tech, I think part of what we ought to do is to rededicate ourselves to simple steps that will help make the world a better place. I can think of no better or direct way for us to act today than what this legislation means for us.

I would begin by thanking the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, who can't be here right now because she is actually chairing a committee dealing with water pollution as we speak, as Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee. She has been really a terrific champion. I see here today my friend from Tennessee, the former Chair of the subcommittee, who likewise has been focusing on the central need for us to be respectful of water supply.

As the old joke goes, God gives us water for free, but he doesn't give us the pipes, the distribution system and purification.

Across the world, as my good friends from the Foreign Affairs Committee have just enumerated, every day millions and millions of poor people are paying the price for nature's failure to provide water exactly where they live, and a failure of stewardship on the part of governments and individuals to take care of the water that they have.

They are paying the price for pollution from inadequate or nonexistent sanitation, and far too many poor people are paying a huge amount of their scarce income because they can't otherwise get water. They are paying in time and in money. There are some poor people that are slowly going blind because of arsenic poisoning in their water system in Bangladesh.

I used to think that the pictures in the National Geographic articles with the water jug on the head was sort of exotic, but now I recognize this as the face of poverty. Indeed it is a travesty as young women particularly spend 1, 2, or 3 hours with that jug of water balanced on their head to meet the needs of their family. That is time that they are not spending in school, that is time that they are not spending economically to support that family. As has been mentioned, every 15 seconds a child dies from lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and each is an unnecessary death because we know exactly what to do to stop it. Indeed, there are people from churches and synagogues and Boy Scout troops and Kiwanis Clubs that are acting on their own to help provide water around the world.

Lack of access to drinking water and sanitation is the number one preventable killer in the world. And I won't repeat the statistics, mind numbing as they are, of over 2 billion people without access to sanitation, and the fact that half the people who are sick today around the globe are sick needlessly from waterborne diseases.

As my friend from Florida said, this is tied to other health problems, HIV/AIDS, and poverty reduction. The tragedy is compounded because we are not doing enough to stop it. By recognizing the goals and ideals of World Water Day, we commit again on this floor to spread the word about this grave issue and build the momentum to address it.

As the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out, in 2002 the world did take a stand. I was privileged to be at that conference in Johannesburg, where the United States and 185 other countries agreed to that ambitious goal. The frustration is that this goal can be met, if done correctly, for less than the cost of a takeout pizza a year for an American family.

In 2005, the Congress passed and the President signed into law the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act, which I thought was important because not only were we for the first time taking a stand, but the way that we did it, with the leadership of Mr. Lantos and Mr. Hyde; and on the Senate side we had the minority leader and the majority leader coming together in broad bipartisan legislation. We were for the first time providing a plan to implement the commitment that the United States and 185 other countries made.

I am saddened as we come to the floor today, however, that the Bush administration has failed to implement this legislation. Instead, as I read the budget, the President has proposed major cuts to the already inadequate commitment from the United States to water and sanitation.

The centerpiece of this bill was to create a strategy for meeting our international commitments, to bring together some 15 agencies and departments, to have a plan. Sadly, the deadline has passed, and as yet, we don't have yet that comprehensive plan. We continue to use gimmicks and numbers games to claim that the administration is meeting Congress' requirements, but they are not. This resolution ought to be a point of emphasis that Congress demands a greater effort, not lesser, from the administration, and indeed from ourselves, as we come forward with the budgets this year. We should insist that the United States stand by its word and actually do something about this crisis. We are saying that we have to partner with poor people wherever they are, not in a few allied countries in the Middle East, but especially in sub- Saharan Africa, in South Asia, and around the world.

I would hope that with the help of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the distinguished leadership on the floor here that when the State Department comes back to Congress this June with its second report on the implementation of the bipartisan ``Water for the Poor Act,'' I would hope that it will match our legislation in scope, ambition, and focus. If not, let us return to the drawing board to find ways to help the State Department meet its obligation under the Act.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud join with my colleague, Representative Tom Cole, to introduce the ``Rural Wind Energy Development Act,'' which would provide an investment tax credit to individuals--homeowners, farmers, and small businesses--to offset the up-front costs of owning a small wind turbine.

Small wind systems are electric generators that produce 100 kilowatts or less of clean and renewable energy to power homes, farms, and small businesses. With these small turbines, individuals can generate their own power, independent from the electric grid. These wind turbines will allow consumers to cut their energy bills and, at times, put power back into the grid. According to the American Wind Energy Association, a single wind turbine can provide $2,000-$4,000/year per megawatt or more in additional farm income.

This legislation is necessary because there is no Federal support for small wind systems. The Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) applies mainly to large utility-scale wind projects, not to individuals who want to install their own wind systems for on-site power. An investment tax credit for small wind systems will help provide stability and certainty for the industry to make the necessary investments to grow. It will also help consumers afford this pollution-free energy. In the 2005 Energy Policy Act, residential solar systems received a similar investment tax credit and saw an increase of more than 20 percent in installations over the last year.

Specifically, this bill would provide a tax credit of $1500 per \1/2\ kilowatt of capacity for small wind systems, which could be carried over for a customer unable to take advantage of the entire credit within a 1 year period. The bill also calls for a 3-year accelerated depreciation for wind property.

I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this important policy to promote wind power, which produces no harmful greenhouse gas emissions, involves no environmentally damaging natural resource extraction such as mining or drilling, and does not need fuel imported from foreign governments to run.

Madam Speaker, the Republican rhetoric about the Democratic budget still echoes in the Chamber, and the misrepresentation is astounding.

Why, just last night, jaws dropped across America as the author of the Republican alternative referred to the Concord Coalition, a respected centrist organization, as a ``left-wing think tank''.

Well, the Republicans have zero credibility when it comes to the budget. Last year, when they were in complete control, they couldn't even pass a budget resolution. They couldn't even pass the appropriations process, leaving town with 11 of the 13 budgets unfinished. The wheels completely fell off. These are the folks who gave us the rainforest in Iowa, the Bridge to Nowhere.

This is why 77 prominent national organizations have endorsed the Democratic budget, from the American Legion to Ducks Unlimited, the Environmental Coalition, the Military Officers Association to Veterans of Foreign Wars and the National Education Association.

I am proud of this Democratic alternative. I hope people read it to see through the Republican rhetoric.

Our Republican friends have no credibility on fiscal affairs. They had three times to take a bite at the tax cut apple in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. They ducked solving the looming AMT crisis, instead implementing a grab bag of tax benefits for the most well off. Now this budget puts at the top of their list more tax cuts, $1 trillion for the top 1 percent, financed by cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, the environment, and education. When they had their hands on all the levers of power, they couldn't even pass a budget. They left unpassed 11 of the 13 appropriations bills.

I strongly suggest rejection of their misguided fanciful approach and support for the majority resolution.

Mr. Chairman, today I voted for both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus alternatives to the budget resolution, in addition to voting for the House Democratic Budget resolution. I believe all three of these proposals have a great deal of merit.

The Congressional Black Caucus's alternative provides high levels of funding for important national health initiatives, including increasing funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $10 billion and increasing funding for veteran's benefits and services by $3.4 billion over the amounts provided by the House Democratic resolution. Importantly, the Congressional Black Caucus's alternative provides an increase over the House Democratic resolution in foreign aid spending by an additional $3.1 billion--providing much needed funds to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The Progressive Caucus's alternative also showcased wise policy choices; it also would have provided increased funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program and would have invested in America's future by funding educational opportunities, job training programs, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In addition, the Progressive Caucus's alternative reflected one of my highest priorities, which was to strip funding from obsolete Cold War era weapons programs that divert precious resources away from America's actual security interests, and its budget projections assumed a complete withdrawal from the Iraqi Civil War.

I was also proud to help craft and vote for the House Democratic Budget resolution, however, because it provides for increased veterans benefits and services, increased educational benefits, increased environmental initiatives, and leads to a budget surplus by 2012. In sum, it represents a reasonable balance of opportunities and it does so within our means--unlike the Republican proposals. A critical aspect of the House Democratic Budget resolution is its provisioning of reserve funds that enable this Congress to begin repairing the damage done by the Republicans to our Nation's fiscal stability by fixing the alternative minimum tax--a ``stealth tax'' on millions of middle class taxpayers--and preserving tax cuts for the middle class. I voted to express my support for the ideas contained in Congressional Black Caucus's and the Progressive Caucus's budgets, but I also voted to support the House Democratic Budget resolution because it provides a reasoned blueprint for the fiscal decisions facing this country.

Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located as 630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in Portland, Oregon as the ``Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post Office.'' This post office, located near Martin Luther King Boulevard, shall serve to remind us of the civil rights leader who inspired a nation and served as a catalyst for change. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream of equality and brotherhood between people of all creeds and colors remains a vital and relevant vision. While our nation has come a long way since the days of the civil rights movement, it will always benefit us to be reminded of the ideals and inspiration of Dr. King. I am honored to introduce this bill as another tribute to and reminder of this remarkable leader.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy.

You can hear the drumbeat from our friends on the other side of the aisle about the largest tax increase in American history. Well, the fact is we are today going to be able to talk about the largest tax increase in American history, but it is not contained in the Democratic budget. The largest tax increase in American history is $1.8 trillion that the President's budget anticipates as a result of the collection of the alternative minimum tax.

It has never been a priority of the Republicans to deal with this looming disaster. Indeed, they squandered 8 years of hard-earned Democratic surpluses, unprecedented surpluses, squandered in a heartbeat in their relentless pursuit to give tax benefits for those who need them least.

There are a few items in there that would have broad bipartisan agreement, the 10 percent bracket, tax credit for families, making some reasonable adjustment in the inheritance tax. But no, they were not interested in dealing with areas of agreement and then solving the alternative minimum tax. Each year, they have kicked the millionaire tax down the road. It has long since morphed into something that is not a millionaire's tax. It is going to be a tax under the President's proposal, and with the Republican priorities, it is going to be a tax on every two-income working family in America with children that have any sort of middle income.

They are going to be paying the alternative minimum tax. And in fact, it is going to cost them more to compute in many cases than the actual tax. They get whacked twice.

In 2001, in 2003, the Republicans refused to deal with this looming challenge and instead gave all sorts of tax breaks to all sorts of people and avoided solving this problem.

In 2004, when we had a $4 billion problem with our overseas manufacturing tax credit, that morphed into a $137 billion tax grab bag and ignored the alternative minimum tax. I put forth to the administration in our hearings in both Ways and Means and in Budget to find out where their priority was. Well, their priority is not fixing the alternative minimum tax, just a 1-year patch. They want to extend all of these tax breaks, the good and, frankly, some of the bizarre, for people like Paris Hilton.

Well, Madam Speaker, the Democratic alternative is focusing on what the real problem is. What we are doing in Ways and Means, we have made a commitment. Our number one priority is to solve the alternative minimum tax. Theirs, as is evidenced in their substitute, is going to take all of the potential headroom to make that challenge in solving the problem even more difficult by permanently extending all of those tax increases without any offset.

The Democratic alternative is responsible, it speaks to the needs of working men and women, fiscal stability, and most important, our priorities stopping the looming tax tsunami of the alternative minimum tax, which will, in fact, be the largest tax increase in American history.

Will the gentleman yield?

Is the gentleman familiar with the provisions in our bill that set up the reserve fund so that it permits the opportunity for the Ways and Means Committee to be able to move forward, hopefully on a bipartisan basis, to be able to establish that within the pay-as- you-go rule?

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and I appreciate his calling the attention, if not to our Republican friends, but to the American public, that they can look at page four in the resolution that is before us and find what has been said is simply not true.

Additionally, they can keep thumbing to page 46, which deals with what our policy is, in fact. Because we do want to minimize the impact on middle America. We make it clear that we are very interested in terms of being able to support extensions, the extension of the child tax credit, the extension of the marriage penalty relief and the extension of the 10 percent individual income tax. What we are not interested in doing is buying into the grab bag of special interest tax benefits, most of which flow to the Americans who are most well off.

I want, if I could, to just make one point in terms of talk of the largest tax increase in American history. Well, it's coming. There is a tax tsunami that is bearing down not just on the rich, not just on the upper middle class, but on middle America, and it is called the ``alternative minimum tax.''

For 6 years, Republicans in charge have had an opportunity to rebalance tax priorities in this country. My colleagues and I have called upon them to deal with permanent adjustment to the alternative minimum tax. They have refused. So now we have inherited a serious problem that is going to mean that middle America is facing the alternative minimum tax. Twenty-six million American families, 89 percent of people who earn between $75,000 and $100,000 will pay the AMT by 2010. Stopping this increase is our priority, that is what we are going to focus on, that is what we have committed to, that is what we are going to do, something that the Republican majority have failed to do in 2001, 2003, 2004.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I just think it is important that the American public can listen to politicians debate on the floor of the House, but they also have an opportunity to deal with independent groups.

And I appreciate the gentleman's pointing the Concord Coalition that makes it clear that it does not call for or require a tax increase and the type of mindset we are getting from our friends on the other side that they would dismiss former Senator Warren Rudman, Republican from New Hampshire, establishing a left-wing think tank.

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

I was just taken aback when I heard one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I think from South Carolina, talk about the concern they have about being, that they weren't big spenders enough. Well, what we have seen under Republican control, where they had the executive and both branches, the spending has skyrocketed. In fact, we saw essays from Republican conservative pundits saying that probably they should have lost in the last election because they have lost control of the budget process. The greatest increase since the Great Society.

I think it is important to go back and look at their record. When they had complete control, spending was out of control, and the most conservative pundits said so. The facts reveal it. They may try and run away from their record at this point by attacking a balanced budget, pay-as-you-go, and focus on priorities that the American public supports, but their record does not support the assertion.

Mr. Chairman, what we are hearing this evening almost gives hypocrisy a bad name. We have our friends on the other side of the aisle somehow chastising us for not doing enough on entitlement reform when they have had 6 years of being in control. We have a situation, in spite of their collapse of the budget process last year, they couldn't put it together, collapse of the appropriations process and, quoting from the Heritage Foundation, that they presided over one of the largest run-ups in spending in American history. They somehow are looking at our budget and thinking that it is wanting.

Well, through their warped prism, I can understand that. Their top priority is not dealing with the tsunami of the alternative minimum tax, which they have ignored for the last 6 years, but to put $1 trillion in the hands of the top 1 percent over the next 10 years with their tax priorities.

As my friend Mr. Allen pointed out, this is about priorities. And, for the first time in 6 years, we are going to reverse their negative priorities dealing with the environment, one of the few areas that they could control spending. Now, bear in mind, these are the folks that gave us the rainforest in Iowa which they are now concerned about, the Bridge to Nowhere.

Announcement By the Acting Chairman

I appreciate the advice of the Chair.

They cut spending for the environment, the 300 section, 16 percent; and under the leadership of Mr. Spratt and the Democrats, we are reversing it. We can't deal with all their problems in just one year, but we are making a good start with over $2.5 billion to deal with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, dealing with cleaning up of superfund sites and toxic waste.

But look at the details of what they offer in their alternative later. Mr. Ryan has suggested almost $19 billion of reductions in ag, transportation, and

natural resources. These are conservation, these are clean water, these are environmental protection. The contrast could not be more stark.

We are investing in America's environmental future. They, if their alternative were adopted, would continue the deterioration, the disinvestment, the attack on America's priorities. I would respectfully suggest that this alone ought to be a compelling argument to reject their alternative offered later and to adopt the Democratic proposal that is before us this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Scott's courtesy in permitting me to speak and the leadership in taking what is seemingly a simple and innocuous bill and bringing it to the floor of the House. I appreciate working with my friend, Elton Gallegly. This has been a long haul, lots of ups and downs, but today we reach an important milestone.

This is my fifth year of working on this issue. We were exposed to it during the last farm bill. We found that this got caught up in back- room machinations that really just defy description.

You have already heard about the despicable cruelty. You have heard about the association with illegal activity, gambling, violence, drugs and firearms trade. Louisiana is now poised to become the last State to make it illegal, making it illegal in every State in the Union.

Why then is this even an issue? Well, it is an underground and pervasive activity. It is in fact active across the country.

I just heard from one of our floor staff as we walked in today that he saw accounts from small town newspapers in Alabama the last 2 weeks in articles there. In Portland, Oregon, in recent months we have had officers break into a meth and coke den where there were 43 live chickens and all the equipment, as well as illegal weapons and large amounts of cash. In another high-profile case in my community, a professional basketball player was involved with illegal fighting of his pit bull.

This is something that has been an area, frankly, where Congress has shamefully been complicit. We have ignored the fact that inadequate penalties, as has been said by the chairman of the committee, by my friend from California, which have just been the ``cost of doing business,'' We have looked the other way.

This is an important vote today. I am confident with over 300 co- sponsors it will pass, and it will pass overwhelmingly. But the battle is not done. Never underestimate the power of the apologists, the allies and the enablers of this vicious and cruel, I won't even call it a ``sport,'' it is a vicious practice.

I am hopeful that we will move forward with not just voting today, but make sure that it passes the other body, and it is not subjected, as it has been time and time again over the last 5 years, to some other devious action.

Do not sell short the people who are apologists for this sport. Join with us not just with your vote but to make sure that we get this legislation enacted and then enforced around the country.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act, which would raise the penalty for violators of the federal animal welfare law, from a class 1 misdemeanor to a felony. In an industry where thousands of dollars change hands with each fight, misdemeanor fines and charges are simply considered ``the costs of doing business''. This bill would close this loophole and keep criminals from traveling to states with weaker penalties to conduct their business.

Animal fights are not only despicable for their cruelty to animals, but they are commonly associated with illegal gambling, drug traffic, firearms trades, and numerous other illicit activities. Recently in Oregon, officers found meth, cocaine, $10,000 in cash, along with 43 live chickens, cockfighting equipment including metal spurs and gaffs in a Portland man's home. Drugs are often the impetus for the discovery of gamecocks and illegal weapons. In another high profile Oregon case, a former Portland Trailblazer pled guilty to animal abuse for fighting his pit bull. Officials found her bloody, scarred, and covered in tar which is used by fighters as a cheap antiseptic to fresh wounds.

But animal fighting doesn't just pose a threat to the people and animals who engage in them, it has enormous costs to the United States health and economy. Cockfighting has been implicated in the introduction and spread of exotic Newcastle disease in California in 2002-2003, which cost the U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate. The disease spread further to large scale egg farms in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas; costing the U.S. poultry industry many millions of dollars in lost export markets. Cockfighting has also been implicated in the deaths of at least 9 people in Asia who contracted avian flu after exposure to fighting birds. If avian flu were to reach the shores of America, the economic and human consequences would be staggering.

This bill has widespread support across the country, including 303 cosponsors in the House and 35 cosponsors in the Senate. HR 137 is endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States, the National Chicken Council which represents 95 percent of the Nation's poultry producers, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Sheriff's Association, and more than 400 local law enforcement agencies. Currently there is only one bastion left for cock fighters; the State of Louisiana. Although gamers have attempted to use tribal lands as exemptions from state and federal laws, a federal jury recently convicted four men for their participation in a cockfight, and 70 others entered guilty pleas. It is my understanding that the increase in penalties contained within this bill would be equally applicable to animal fights held on tribal lands or Indian Reservations.

It is far past time that Congress give our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to end this barbaric and consequential practice.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. I appreciate also what Ranking Member Coble talked about in terms of outlining these issues.

But it seems to me that there was just one area where I would take modest exception with him, and that is the notion that we should have been taking more time to vet this and look at alternatives. Because I fully agree with the gentleman from California, where there was not adequate time for Congress to be involved is when this was slipped into the PATRIOT Act revisions in the first place. Without the knowledge of anybody, it seems, in the House or the Senate, this change was done by the staff behind closed doors. We didn't know about it. I haven't heard yet from any of my Republican friends that did.

By restoring the status quo ante the way that it had been for years, we get back to a situation where we can remove this from the table. We can have a dispassionate discussion about what has happened with the Department of Justice and its future; and, if we want to make any change, then at least we have something that has stood the test of time.

Madam Speaker, the Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church has been a historic and cultural landmark of Portland ever since May 17, 1959, when the congregation marched from their temporary home on North Fargo Street to their new home at 106 Northeast Ivy Street. It was there that Reverend O.B. Williams of Vancouver Avenue Baptist Church preached the first sermon as Morning Star's guest for the afternoon service.

The Church building, constructed in 1919, and inhabited by Morning Star for the past 48 years, has come to represent not only a historic landmark, but a lively center of worship. The church also embodies an important part of the modern-day tradition, culture, and fabric of the community. Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church has helped to meet the needs of the community by providing important assistance to those around them who are in need. In addition, the church offers a venue for a vital spiritual and social community network.

The Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church has endured much restoration and growth in the past, but no one in the community was prepared for the tragic burning to the ground of this historic building on February 6, 2007. In a show of support, many individuals, churches, community organizations and local businesses have offered thousands of dollars in donations in support of the eventual reconstruction of the church. We thank them for their generosity.

It is with admiration and respect that the long history of the Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church be honored. By commemorating this historic fire and the eventual reconstruction, Portland can help to keep the memory and present duty of this church alive.

We stand with Pastor A. Wayne Johnson, the Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church congregation and their respective communities in solidarity during this trying time. We recognize the sense of loss that all associated must feel surrounding this unexpected fire, and we extend our best wishes to the congregation for the church's recovery and restoration. We only hope that the church's capacity to help the community it has reached out to over its many esteemed years of service will soon be restored to its fullest.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support the DC House Voting Rights Act. It is long overdue to give the nearly two-thirds of a million residents of our Nation's Capital the fundamental right of representation.

This is not a partisan issue. Maintaining a fair and responsive government is a duty that transcends politics.

This legislation fairly addresses both parties by granting one seat in the House to the District and one additional seat to Utah, which is next in line to receive an additional House seat based on its population. This elegant and equitable solution leaves the overall composition of the House unchanged as the District seat is anticipated to be Democratic and the Utah seat Republican.

Given this bipartisan spirit, I am disappointed that the administration is fighting to deny citizens their basic voting rights. I hope the President has the good sense to withdraw his veto threat. Any concerns this administration has regarding this bill's constitutional appropriateness are best left up to the judicial branch to clarify.

I am proud to support this important legislation and urge its speedy passage into law. Residents of the District have waited long enough.

Thank you, Mr. Obey.

Mr. Murtha is right; it wasn't Bill Clinton that sent our troops into Iraq without appropriate equipment and without a plan to win the peace, it was the Bush administration. The war against Saddam Hussein was over in a few weeks, yet for over 3 years they have been trapped in a deadly crossfire of an Iraqi war. This bill is not micromanaging the war, it is the next logical step as Congress rediscovers its voice and its constitutional responsibility as a coequal branch of government.

This weekend 15,000 Oregonians made clear that this day cannot happen too soon. This is hard for me. I have never voted for a supplemental appropriation on this war, but I will vote tomorrow for the first enforceable deadline. It is what Americans want, and it is what our troops and their families deserve.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to extend the Transportation Fringe Benefit to bicycle commuters. Currently employers may offer a Transportation benefit to employees for certain costs incurred while commuting to work. Employees may receive up to $215/mth for parking expenses or $110/mth for transit or vanpooling costs. The Bike Commuter act aims to balance the incentive structure by extending the benefit to include bicycling.

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 bicycle use through a small change to the tax code's existing Transportation Fringe Benefit. There is great potential to increase the number of bicycle commuters in the U.S., which would help reduce the number of trips made by automobile. These changes will benefit all Americans whether they ride their bikes or not.

Madam Speaker, today, along with Congressman Robert Wexler and Congressman Jerry Weller, I am introducing the ``Legal Timber Protection Act, LTPA.'' The LTPA prohibits trade in illegally harvested timber by extending the protections of the Lacey Act to timber, while ensuring that legal timber trade isn't harmed. Specifically, the LTPA bans the import, export, transport, purchase, sale, or possession of timber that has been taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of a foreign law or international environmental treaty. It has been crafted to make sure that it will not prohibit trade in legal timber or impose burdensome regulations on American timber companies.

Illegal logging threatens some of the world's richest and most vulnerable forests. The illegal removal of high-value threatened tree species destined for international markets is often the first step leading to forest clearance. The tracks and roads built to access and remove timber become entryways for further illegal cutting, hunting and burning. The easy accessibility to the depths of the forest and fragmentation further threatens already endangered plants and animals and leaves others vulnerable to achieving this status. As illegal logging contributes to deforestation, the water balance and dynamics of fragile ecosystems are disrupted. Deforestation accounts for 20 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions--more than the entire global transportation sector.

In addition, illegal logging creates huge financial losses to producing nations. By avoiding export duties, timber royalties and taxes on their profits, companies operating unlawfully are robbing national governments of in excess of $15 billion annually on public lands alone. This loss in revenue decreases governments' ability to invest in the forestry sector to promote sustainable forest management and conserve their natural forest resources.

At the same time, given that as much as 30 percent of hardwood lumber and plywood traded globally could be of suspicious origin, responsible U.S. companies lose an estimated $460 million in export opportunities every year because of displacement caused by illegally harvested timber. On top of that, the annual value of U.S. exports is between $500-$700 million lower due to downward pressure on prices from illegally harvested timber. As Oregon produces approximately 13 percent of U.S. lumber, losses to Oregon are estimated to be between $130-$150 million every year.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and with all the stakeholders on this issue to pass this important bipartisan piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is to be commended for her creation of the special Select Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence. I am honored to be chosen by her to join a strong field of my Democratic colleagues chaired by Congressman Ed Markey, a long-time advocate for realistic policies on energy and climate change. He will be joined by Members with special areas of expertise and dedicated commitment to the environment.

Hilda Solis, a renowned environmentalist not just in Congress, but dating back to her days as a California legislator. Emanuel Cleaver, with important municipal experience as Mayor of Kansas City, and one who has been working with the community of faith, particularly evangelical Christians who are worried about our stewardship of God's handiwork.

My Northwest colleague, Jay Inslee, is strong, an environmentalist with keen interest and expertise and energy. Stephanie Herseth, who has been a leader particularly in reducing the carbon footprint in the all- important agricultural sector. Even our two Members newly elected to Congress; John Hall may be famous as a musician, but for years he has been involved with advocacy and leadership in the energy arena. And Jerry McNerney is a successful alternative energy businessman and engineer who probably has more technical knowledge than anybody else in Congress.

I was perplexed somewhat by the Republican appointments, not so much about who is there, but who isn't. There are a few people in the Republican Caucus who have been outspoken about their concerns of climate change, global warming, their understanding of the science, people who are not in denial, but they were passed over for membership. There are some Republican Members who have been outspoken critics, for example, of the Kyoto treaty. Well, you know, this whole effort has moved beyond Kyoto. The world has moved on.

While for 12 years Republican leadership in Congress refused to move forward, there are 320 cities who have gone ahead with their own post- Kyoto initiatives. There are hundreds of counties and universities. Last month, 10 major companies here in Washington, D.C. announced that they would meet or exceed the standards. They can't afford to wait for the Federal Government. The people who are still hung up over Kyoto have never produced a viable alternative and are being left behind by people who do understand and who do care.

It is not that we don't know what to do; cut carbon emissions and increase energy efficiency. Girl Scouts, neighborhood associations and campus conservation teams can tell this administration and Congress what to do. Why, the Bush Administration could just approve the higher energy efficiency standards for appliances. There are 34 of them that have been stalled, they could stop dithering and start acting.

And it is not that we can't afford to do this; we cannot afford to act. Those energy efficiency standards will actually save consumers money while they encourage new product development.

We are on a very dangerous trend line. Ask people in Alaska, where roads are buckling from melting perma-frost and coastal villages are eroding. Ask ski operators about the impact of global warming. Look at impact of extreme weather events on our disaster budgets. We will face far higher costs in the future if we don't act now, take action like private companies, cities across America, and governments around the world.

There are opportunities for field hearings and parliament exchanges for this new committee. I would hope that we could entice them to visit the Pacific Northwest. With Congressman Jay Inslee and my colleague Greg Walden from Oregon, we can demonstrate that the Northwest in the last quarter century has saved 3,000 average megawatts equivalent to building eight giant coal power plants, but at only half the cost. We can bring them to Portland, Oregon, where as a member of the City Council in 1990 we adopted energy efficiency standards to achieve

at least $1 million savings within 10 years. We reached that goal in 5 years ahead of schedule, and we continue to increase the efficiency and get the benefit, $2.5 million last year, 20 percent saving in energy cost.

There is land-use planning, broad transportation choices, people living closer to where they work. All these are among the reasons that Portland's greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 on a per capita basis have fallen by 12.5 percent, unlike probably any other American city.

So my congratulations to the Speaker. My thanks for having a chance to play a role as we use this select committee for the Federal Government to help catch up with the rest of the world.