Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the political parties are missing an opportunity to deal with both the discontent and the fundamental causes we see in the political process today. You don't have to identify with the tea party to be frustrated with the tax system. It is incomprehensible, expensive, unfair, and unsustainable. People of all parties and philosophies understand that the long-term debt of the United States and the fiscal practices that drive it are heading for a train wreck.

The answer is not to ignore real problems, change the subject, or make it worse. A tax discussion should, frankly, address why the system is incomprehensible, the lack of certainty, how it doesn't pay for what America needs, and how we spend through tax breaks about what we collect overall.

There are real problems that we should be zeroing in on, like the alternative minimum tax. It was a millionaire's tax some 40 years ago that now threatens 30 million American families, not the billionaires. They won't pay it at all. It will be the near rich and the middle class. It was a system that was actually made worse the way the Bush tax cuts were structured.

We should deal with the corporate tax. Yes, it is the second highest stated rate in the world, but few companies pay the full amount because of a Swiss cheese of exemptions and special provisions. It actually penalizes people who manufacture here in the United States.

I would suggest that, if we can borrow trillions of dollars for tax changes, shouldn't the trillions be used to fix the broken system and not to push problems ahead a couple of years?

Instead, the debate is largely about extending $3.5 trillion in expiring Bush tax cuts or maybe about only extending $2.8 trillion, not to mention the cost of borrowing that money from the Chinese, the Europeans, or the Japanese. Missing in the debate is how much of that we can afford at all, not just the borrowed money and the deficit, but the lost opportunity to get the tax system right.

Yet it is not just about taxation. We must also look at the expending side of the equation, which is widely acknowledged. Our defense budget can be reduced and redirected. There are hints of this in the Obama administration, but we can do far more. We cannot continue to spend above the rate of inflation, not counting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars to protect West Germany from the Soviet Union, neither of which exists anymore.

We lavish agricultural subsidies on the richest agribusiness, but it doesn't help most farmers or ranchers. We can help far more for far less.

There is the bottomless pit in the name of homeland security. Dana Priest's brilliant writing in The Washington Post pointed out: It is out-of-control spending, layer upon layer of activities, that doesn't make us any safer. Perhaps we may be less safe with all the expenditure.

There are some on the other side of the aisle who talk about eliminating health care reform. No. We should actually accelerate the reforms that are in the health care bill so that they won't just save money but will actually improve health care. We can invest in value over volume. We must not ignore why the long-term picture is such a problem and certainly we don't want to make it worse.

Many tea party sympathizers and Jon Stewart fans could agree on this path forward. It would be nice, instead of campaign documents that get people past an election but that don't solve a problem, to work on areas of agreement with the public which start us on a path to fiscal solutions and economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, almost 1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. Sick children miss 300 million school days a year from waterborne illness. And it kills 5,000 children every day. Our Water for the World Act emphasizes building sustainable expertise in these troubled countries. Their version of the Water for the World bill passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously, and it passed the full Senate unanimously. Our House version has over 80 bipartisan cosponsors. This legislation does not provide new money, but helps us focus existing resources much more effectively to save lives.

I hope that our leadership on both sides of the aisle will schedule and support this important legislation, a symbol that we can work together while we help poor people around the globe.

I'm outraged by the blatant lies being told by some health insurance companies. I have a renewal statement here for a small business with a 28 percent increase, allegedly all because of health insurance reform.

How do we know it's a lie? Because the rate hike was requested before health reform passed. Health insurance rates were increasing at an astounding rate before health reform. That is why we passed the law, because consumers were paying more and getting less.

Their business model is dying, and health reform has nothing to do with it.

Hello. Without new exchanges, new tax credits for small businesses and subsidies for families, your industry is in a death spiral because people can't afford to buy your product.

The recent shocking rate increases are exactly why we need to implement health reform as soon as possible. We can't afford to slow down, let alone turn back. If insurance companies were honest, they would admit they can't afford it either.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts permitting me to speak on this important bill.

I could not agree with him more. I did spend a month working in Oregon to deal with people who are concerned about the economy. I had a meeting just last Friday with over 200 people, including executives, presidents of two of our local electric utilities. I have met with electrical contractors. I have met with utility contractors and with unemployed union workers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you not only is the initiative under the Recovery Act putting people to work in North Carolina and in Massachusetts; it's putting people to work in Oregon. But what is important here is building on that model to be able to extend it to more home builders, more contractors and other utilities. There is a potential here to employ 168,000 people over the course of the next 2 years.

Now, I come from a region that has invested heavily in energy efficiency. We have been able to save hundreds of millions of dollars of investment because we are getting more out of the energy we have now. The good news is the products that are energy efficient are largely made in America. And they are very labor intensive. These are installing new windows, installing weatherization, installing more efficient appliances, heating and cooling. This is saving money for years to come for families while it's putting families to work now.

An important part of this legislation is that it will empower electric cooperatives which provide energy to many in my State and across the country to help customers reduce energy use and cost.

This bill was amended to include the Home Star Energy Efficiency program, so it helps people in the 88 percent of the country that are not served by electrical co-ops. All Americans should have access to these low-cost home improvement loans to save energy and save money.

And it has a terrific mechanism of working with the utilities, public and private utilities, and allowing people to pay it back on a monthly basis through their energy bills, which are going to be reduced. For many people, it is not going to actually cost them anything over the course of the next 5 years and it will save them money for years and years to come, every month with that utility bill, while it puts people to work here in America now.

It is why homebuilders, contractors, and energy companies all combined to support this legislation. I am baffled that my friends on the other side of the aisle didn't hear from people at home like I heard from who want this opportunity to work in America, to save energy, and to put people back to work.

I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee's agreeing for me to speak on this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of H. Res. 1595 to recognize the 50th anniversary of real estate investment trusts.

For the last 50 years, we have seen how these publicly traded REITs have provided American investors with an affordable way to invest in real estate. I do a lot of work with livable communities. I want to congratulate the REIT industry for their efforts to pursue practices that will reduce the carbon footprints of their properties.

We are dealing with serious problems of energy efficiency and carbon pollution. Buildings account for almost 40 percent of our country's total energy consumption and 72 percent of our electricity consumption. This is one area where the industry has had a footprint that extends from coast to coast.

I commend the REIT industry for joining with Energy Star to find ways to improve the energy efficiency of the industry. I am pleased to see honorees of this program include the Simon Property Group, AMB Property Corporation, and ProLogis--which owns property in my congressional district.

I have enjoyed working with the REIT industry to introduce H.R. 4599, the Renewable Energy Expansion Act, which extends and improves the Recovery Act's grant program for renewable energy production and involves the real estate investment trusts in this arena. I have worked with my colleague, Linda Sanchez, to resolve a technical barrier which will dramatically enhance the ability of REITs to access these grants. It is just one example of where, working with the industry, we have been able to deal with long-term benefits to our communities, stabilizing investments, strengthening neighborhoods, working on ways to make sure we are productive, and that families are safer, healthier and more economically secure. I congratulate them on 50 years of progress and look forward in the future to having them as valuable allies in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, in today's wars, military contractors play a larger role than ever before. As we have seen over the past decade, our laws have been inadequate to curb what became a free-for- all for contractors overseas. That is why I support efforts like this one, to define and reign in unacceptable and damaging contractor abuses.

In my own state of Oregon, 26 Oregon National Guardsmen have filed suit against war contractor KBR, formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton, alleging that KBR personnel knew a highly toxic chemical was present at Iraqi facilities in 2003, but that they waited months before bringing it to the attention of the U.S. military. By that time, unsuspecting members of the Oregon, Indiana, and West Virginia National Guard had already been exposed.

Even more troubling, if KBR is found to be at fault the company may never have to pay for its actions. A still-classified clause in KBR's contract may result in the U.S. Army--and U.S. taxpayers--paying for the harm done by contractors.

This is just one instance of past contractor actions having continued repercussions today. I will continue to work for swift congressional action that will hold contractors accountable, strengthen oversight and protect both our troops and the taxpayers.

I strongly support Mr. Welch's efforts here today, and those who help tackle this problem on behalf of our brave men and women in uniform.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

Mr. Chairman, this is about keeping faith with the American public. It's not the end, but it's an important beginning.

Large oil companies pay some of the lowest fees to American taxpayers compared to what oil companies pay anywhere in the world while enjoying unnecessarily expensive, outmoded tax breaks. And some, by bookkeeping errors, pay no royalties at all while they extract oil. Under this legislation, they will have to choose between continuing this rip-off or getting future leases.

It will make the Land and Water Conservation Fund properly funded, making an impact on communities all across the country, and it leverages new resources. It does all this, as the chairman says, with a net benefit of deficit reduction of $5.3 billion over the next 5 years.

Protect the taxpayer, protect the environment, and improve our communities by approving this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the current article of the New Yorker magazine has a thoughtful article from Atul Gawande, ``What medicine should do when it can't save your life.'' It focuses on those critical areas of end of life. It deals with fascinating studies that show people who deal, who are in hospice care, rather than the most aggressive medical interventions, actually, in many cases, live as long or in some cases even longer.

But, more important, Madam Speaker, is the notion of control for these patients. The people who have substantive discussions with their doctor about end-of-life preferences were more likely to die at peace and in control of their situation and to spare their families anguish.

This is exactly why I have introduced Personalize Your Care Act, H.R. 5795, to make sure that patients' wishes are observed, that the government helps promote that conversation, and that we allow people to live their lives the way they want to.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me to speak on this rule.

Madam Speaker, embedded here in this legislation for Transportation- HUD is the Livable Communities Initiative, a visionary, popular, and important program of the administration. In fact, however, it began in the last Congress where the subcommittee of Transportation and HUD, under the leadership of Chairman Olver, promoted these initiatives. It was also part of a partnership with Mr. Oberstar, the chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who has long championed these efforts to have the Federal Government be a better partner working with communities on critical areas of transportation and housing.

This bill has built on this approach. It has taken critical elements that strengthen community, revitalize the economy, and help protect the planet.

I must, however, speak against a couple of ill-advised attacks on the livable communities program of the administration. In particular, there is an amendment by my friend and colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) that would strip out of transportation elements of livability. The irony is that the reauthorization that Mr. DeFazio is working on--which we all hope will happen sooner rather than later--actually will promote a number of these approaches. And the money that he would strip out would actually have gone to help get a head start on the important program that actually will be a part of the legislation that I am confident will be produced by his subcommittee and, ultimately, by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

These are not areas that are insignificant. There is great public support. For example, the TIGER grants received 40 times more requests than the administration had money for. And I must point out that this is not taking any money away from the transportation trust fund because, if it's not authorized, it comes from the general fund.

Equally sad, and I think misguided, is an amendment offered by my colleagues Peters, Adler, Himes, and Welch that would strike or reduce funding for a number of critical programs where the committee has adjusted it even above what the administration requested. These are programs for high-speed rail, infrastructure investment grants, HOPE VI, Brownfield redevelopment, railroad safety technology, Veterans Affairs-supported housing. I mean, I could go on. Time doesn't permit.

These are precisely the types of programs that we should be concentrating on because they stretch dollars, because they help promote the activities back on the ground in our districts, and, in fact, they are supported by the people who sent us here in the first place. I would strongly recommend that my colleagues look carefully at these provisions.

What Chairman Olver and his subcommittee have done is to rebalance efforts that were offered by the administration. In some cases, they were reduced; in some cases, they were increased. But there is a package here that will make a difference for every community, rural and urban, from coast to coast, making the Federal Government a better partner, promoting the livability of our communities where every family is safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

While I will support the rule, I strongly urge, if these two amendments are offered, that they be rejected.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I commend the subcommittee on its work to refine the administration's proposal, reduce it a billion dollars, but nonetheless deal with the challenges that face the American people.

And Mr. Olver is right, as is my friend from New York, in talking about how we're losing an infrastructure challenge globally, which is apparent to anybody who travels overseas. This is an important piece of legislation that struggles to help make the Federal Government a better partner in rebuilding and renewing America.

I have great respect for my good friend from Iowa, but I must respectfully disagree. The programs dealing with livability are, in fact, refined and tested. That's why there was such an outpouring of support for things like the TIGER grants. They are popular, and they are already making a difference, as we see, around the country.

As for high-speed rail . . . give me a break. Yes, the administration did move forward with $8 billion for high-speed rail, which takes a little time to work through the process, but China is going to spend more in the next couple of months than we will in the next 3 years, illustrating how we are losing that effort.

Livable communities were actually developed by this subcommittee in the last Congress. The administration took the work that you Mr. Chairman developed, they refined it, they expanded it, and I think it's to your credit for what you have done.

I am saddened by an ill-advised amendment by my friend and colleague, Mr. DeFazio from Oregon, targeting transportation livability programs that, in fact, if they were allowed to move forward, would give us a head start on what I think the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee wants to happen with their reauthorization. They know that's important. This would allow a head start on communities large and small, rural and urban, to be able to get ahead of the curve and make those programs work better.

Even more ill-advised, I think, is an amendment from Peters, Alder, and Himes to cut some of the guts this effort from TIGER grants, high- speed rail, Brownfields, HOPE VI, housing for veterans. These are programs that, in community after community, people have acknowledged are important. These have economic vitality. They give communities tools. They leverage far more than the Federal investment.

I would suggest that rather than targeting products of a thoughtful rebalancing that came out of this committee, our goal instead should be to support the committee in its efforts refining the administration's proposal, help rebuild and renew America with infrastructure that is failing and out of date and losing competitiveness. We should reauthorize the Surface Transportation Act.

This is the home stretch.

We have had examples, for the last 14 years that I've been in Congress, where communities are struggling to figure out how to put the pieces together. I commend the committee for its work to try and give the tools the communities need to stretch Federal dollars, to be able to encourage private sector investments, to build on models of proven success, the cutting edge of architecture, of construction, of energy conservation, water. These are areas that America desperately needs. I think it would be shortsighted to cut back on this fine work.

I will guarantee you over the course of the next decade that Congresses and future administrations are going to build on the foundation that you've established. I hope that this Congress does its part by moving this forward and supporting the subcommittee's important work.

I appreciate the chairman's courtesy for these 2 valuable minutes, and I want to use them to focus on three basic points.

First and foremost, it is true that the administration advanced an economic recovery package that we had hoped would be able to hold the unemployment rate lower than it ultimately went. The Administration was guilty of, frankly, accommodating Republican wishes by pushing more in tax reductions that all the economists say do not create as many jobs as the infrastructure investment. And of course my Republican colleague conveniently ignored the fact that 95 percent of the American public got tax cuts last year, and they will get tax cuts again this year. Ignored.

Look at the Bush administration job record over 8 years. The Obama administration, in less than 2 years, has already created more jobs than the Bush administration in its entire 8 years.

We have before us today specific provisions that are going to make a difference in everybody's community. The reference has been made to lifting the volume caps for water infrastructure, a program in every State in the Union that will create jobs and have a multiplier effect on an ongoing basis.

The adjustment in the new market tax credit that will allow it to be offset against the alternative minimum tax means that the leverage for the new market tax credit, a very valuable mechanism to help create jobs in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, is going to be magnified.

Mr. Speaker, this is important business. There is nothing here in terms of the pay-fors that already hasn't passed the House. There was an important adjustment to give the business community more time to adjust so it is later in nature.

This is where we heard feedback, the chairman in the committee responded to make it easier for businesses to accommodate the change in the future, while still making the basic objectives.

I strongly urge our colleagues to listen to the local communities, to local government, to businesses that are involved with rebuilding and renewing America, and approve this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 2480, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act. This legislation is an important step for consumers and animals. It is also basic common sense. It removes a loophole that has kept consumers from knowing what they're buying and enforces a law that Congress passed ten years ago.

We all deserve to know what we're buying. However, the current fur labeling exemption is unclear and out of date, leaving consumers in the dark. Consumers often end up buying real fur that they are told is fake or domestic dog fur mislabeled as raccoon fur. If a product has less than $150 worth of fur on it, it doesn't even need to be labeled at all. That means that a $500 coat with $150 worth of fur on the collar and cuffs does not require a label. Based on approximate pelt prices after tanning and dressing, that coat could be made using the fur from 30 rabbits, three Arctic foxes, one otter or one timber wolf, without requiring any sort of label. That does not provide consumers with adequate protection and doesn't allow them to make informed decisions. The Truth in Fur Labeling Act will remedy the situation and give consumers the ability to make choices for themselves, rather than being kept in the dark or even deceived.

I am proud to support this legislation today, and am pleased to see the widespread support it has received from outside organizations, including such diverse groups as the Humane Society of the United States, Macy's and Saks Fifth Avenue. I hope that my colleagues will join me in protecting consumer rights and animal welfare.

Madam Chair, this bill contains many worthy items, including a substantial investment in our Veterans Affairs programs. A strong safety net for our veterans is more important than ever, particularly in Oregon, where returning Guard and Reserve members face high unemployment and a difficult transition back to civilian life.

I also want to highlight what my colleague Representative Chellie Pingree of Maine stated earlier in this debate: the cleanup of closed military bases is critical to health and growth of our communities. Across America, these closed bases contain discarded munitions, toxins, and shell fragments leftover from years of military training. Funding the return of these properties to safe and productive use is vital. Funds go directly to the development of detection and removal technology, the creation of skilled technician jobs, and generate economic growth as cleaned lands become commercial, residential, or recreational spaces.

For the past decade I have worked with a bipartisan group of members to raise awareness of this issue. I am pleased that with the leadership of my friend Representative Sam Farr, the House has designated $100 million over the President's budget request for the legacy BRAC account. This $460 million is critically needed to address the large backlog of environmental hazards still present at bases closed during the earliest Base Realignment and Closure rounds. I hope in future years we can build on this commitment to our nation's safety and prosperity.

MR. EDWARDS of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as a nation, we face challenges ranging from education shortfalls and growing energy needs to a slowly recovering job market. We cannot afford to escalate the Afghan war with a credit card. The mounting loss of life and widespread corruption gives no indication that more money and more boots on the ground will achieve success in Afghanistan.

We need success at home. The elements in the bill for veterans exposed to Agent Orange and for FEMA are a start. I cannot support a bill that spends $37 billion in Afghanistan while denying $10 billion for teacher jobs, $1 billion for summer youth employment, $5 billion for Pell grants, and $701 million for border security. My votes signal in the strongest possible terms that this war must be wound down and not escalated.

Across Oregon, our priorities are helping small businesses, creating jobs, and supporting our schools.

We need to start making the right choices. This means drawing down from a costly war that Americans and Afghans want to end, and investing in a better, more productive future for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to support House Resolution 1366, Recognizing and Honoring the Freight Rail Industry. Freight rail is an important part of our transportation system because of the unique role that it plays as both an economical and environmentally-friendly freight mode. Freight rail moves goods from place to place efficiently, reliably, and without increasing congestion on our highways. It is an efficient mode of transport, averaging 457 freight ton miles per gallon of gasoline. If 10 percent of goods currently shipped by truck were instead shipped by freight rail, we would decrease our annual greenhouse gas emissions by more than 12 million tons. Furthermore, freight rail creates local, green jobs. Estimates suggest that each $1 billion invested in freight rail creates 20,000 jobs. Freight rail plays an important role in making our communities safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

I appreciate the opportunity today to honor the men and women who make up our freight industry. I encourage my colleagues to consider freight rail as we look for ways to make our transportation system more efficient, more environmentally-friendly, and more effective. Many of my colleagues have cosponsored H.R. 5478, the Green Railcar Enhancement Act, legislation I introduced offering a tax credit for replacing or rebuilding old, inefficient railcars. I appreciate their support and I look forward to continuing to promote freight rail as a critical part of a 21st century transportation system.