Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues raising the issue of Congressional oversight in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the debate here today. I share their deep reservations about our engagement in the region, though I disagree with their invocation of the War Powers Act in this case. In fact, the targeted cooperation and training that U.S. Special Forces are said to be conducting in the mountainous border area of Pakistan will likely do more to help us in the long run than doubling down with a troop surge in Afghanistan.

Though I cannot support this resolution, I support the spirit of oversight and accountability behind it. Because I believe our strategy in Afghanistan is fundamentally flawed and cannot succeed without a credible partner in the Afghan government, I hope we can have a serious and vigorous debate about this--the real issue--in the coming months.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Transportation and Housing Affordability Transparency Act, or ``THAT Act.'' This legislation will provide homebuyers, renters, and policy makers with the information they need to make informed decisions about their housing choices.

The average family spends about half of its income on transportation and housing costs. Housing affordability has traditionally been measured as the extent to which a household's income can cover the purchase price of a home or the monthly rent. However, transportation costs can vary based on the location of a home. The cost of transportation has been growing as people move further from their jobs and community development patterns require families to drive for most of their outings. In certain auto-dependent areas, transportation costs can be very high, leaving families with less money for housing, food, healthcare, education, and other important expenses.

Transportation costs and savings are not currently taken into account in government affordability measures and standards, and information is not generally available to consumers looking to purchase or rent homes. For example, low-income housing tax credits, down payment assistance grants, and rental assistance under Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 are all awarded and used without regard to this transportation cost burden. At a time of increasing gas prices and the pending expiration of many of the federal subsidies that keep housing near transit affordable, it's important for consumers and decision-makers to take transportation costs into account.

This legislation requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to work with the Department of Transportation and other stakeholders to develop a transportation affordability index that measures the transportation costs associated with the location of a home. The bill requires HUD to take into consideration a number of factors that determine transportation costs, including the location and frequency of transit service, the average vehicle miles travelled in the area, and the availability of services such as grocery stores, bike lanes, community centers, and schools. HUD will be required to share this information with the general public, realtors, regional and local housing and planning agencies, states, and entities that engage in transportation demand management programs. The bill also requires HUD, where feasible, to incorporate transportation costs into its housing programs and work with other federal agencies, states, and local governments to incorporate transportation costs into their housing programs.

The information made available by this legislation will ensure transparency in housing and transportation costs for consumers, housing providers, local and regional planning agencies, and other stakeholders. It will also enable HUD, where appropriate, to incorporate transportation costs into its affordability measures and standards. Finally, it will help communities recognize the importance of providing affordable transportation and housing choices for their residents, and give them the tools they need to do so.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this simple legislation to help make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, last night I had an opportunity to preview a documentary entitled ``Homeless, the Motel Kids of Orange County.''

In the shadow of Disneyland, filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi captures the stark reality of children who are living in motels. For all the legitimate policy differences that divide people in Congress, sometimes it's jarring how starkly we view different worlds, that we can believe in different facts. But these children live in a world, the reality of which can be denied only by people who don't bother to see and listen.

I hope my colleagues will watch the HBO documentary Monday, or better yet, get a copy of the DVD to review themselves and with their staff.

We appear at times to be capable of arguing with a straight face about what the day's date is, but this is an area where we should agree to assign priority, spend precious dollars, and refine our policies. These children deserve our best.

I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the rule.

I will support the rule, but I rise in reluctant opposition to the legislation.

I sympathize with my good friend from Mississippi and admire his passion and commitment to this issue and his tireless effort to try and help his constituents who have been put in a horrible situation in the aftermath of Katrina. But I do think this bill is a classic example of how our empathy interacts with a system that doesn't work to cloud our judgment and leads us to consider action that would actually make things worse over the long haul.

As Mr. Taylor has forcefully argued, Katrina exposed many problems with the National Flood Insurance Program. The confusion about wind and flood damage and the difficulty that his constituents had in getting insurance companies to cover their losses after Katrina is unacceptable. That was why I was pleased to support his amendment to the Flood Insurance Reform Act on the floor last week that would prohibit the write-your-own insurance companies from excluding wind damage under their own policy solely because flooding also caused damage to the property. I think that will go far in preventing insurance companies from taking advantage of consumers or the Federal taxpayers.

But extending the flood insurance program to cover wind hazards is like slapping a Band-Aid on a broken bone and then putting the patient on a skateboard while the bones are still mending.

I strongly support the goals of the flood insurance program and know that it has played an important role in insuring many American communities while encouraging mitigation and reducing risks. But with each additional disaster, it becomes clearer and clearer that the program is broken.

Right now, as my good friend from Texas pointed out, it's $19 billion in debt. Adding for wind coverage, even if it's supposed to be actuarially sound, will only make this worse.

Now, it is very likely to result in significant short-term losses for the flood insurance program. Even though CBO has given the bill a neutral score, that's based on a highly questionable assumption that FEMA will charge actuarial rates that fully cover wind losses despite a 40-year history of failing to do so for flood losses. FEMA doesn't have the ability to calculate what actuarial rates for wind coverage should be, much less enforce them.

As Robert Hunter, who ran the program in the 1970s, has said, Poor management at FEMA--You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie--and lax enforcement of building requirements by local government has meant that the program hasn't worked the way it was supposed to. Some have even argued that it actually even encourages development in hazardous areas.

Let me speak for a moment about the building code requirements under this legislation. The NFIB already subsidizes unwise construction in floodplains, and this would make it worse. While the bill requires the adoption of building codes to mitigate against wind losses, this is not strong enough. It doesn't address development in hazardous areas itself, and by increasing the availability of Federally backed insurance in hazardous areas, this bill will give people a false sense of security and provide incentives for development in those various areas. And there is a serious gap in the actual enforcement of those building codes.

The current problems with the flood insurance programs must be addressed before we can even think of expanding it to cover yet more hazards.

The experts on flood insurance agree. The administration sent up a statement of administration policy against the bill yesterday. The bill is opposed by FEMA, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the insurance and reinsurance industry, the environmental community, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Consumer Federation of America. They argue that it would expand a broken program, further encourage development in hazardous areas by giving people a false sense of security, have the Federal Government unfairly compete in the private insurance market, and put the American taxpayer further at risk.

I rise in support of this legislation today. I've worked on miscellaneous tariff bills in the past that are important to open up markets here at home.

One of the areas that I've been involved with over the years has dealt with the bicycle industry, which benefits dramatically. It's a $133 billion part of the United States economy. It supports over a million jobs, generates almost $20 billion in taxes. We've got elements here that are not manufactured in the United States that are necessary for the bicycle industry to thrive. I'm pleased that they're in this legislation.

But I am stunned at what I'm hearing from my friends on the other side of the aisle. It is, sadly, a symbol of their hollow rhetoric and shallow thinking. They want to do the right thing, but they can't. They can't take ``yes'' for an answer because it's partisan. It's partisan because they refuse to vote for things that they know are right, that they helped craft.

And the notion that this is somehow an earmark--I'm sorry. I was pained when I heard my good friend from Texas on the floor. The top Republican on trade, Kevin Brady, has said that, while he supports the GOP earmark prohibition, he has never considered a tariff suspension an earmark, and added that he considers it important that the bill moves in this Congress.

It's not an earmark unless you want to pretend that it's an earmark. But for heaven's sakes, this is something that even the Republicans agree they're not going to do next year. It's an election year ploy to try and get attention to a problem that they made worse when they were in charge.

We've opened this process up. It's transparent. It's important.

I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will take ``yes'' for an answer and join me in voting for this legislation.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Personalize Your Care Act of 2010.

Advances in healthcare have led to increasingly complex health care decisions and more treatment options than we have ever had the benefit, or the burden, of choosing between. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that individuals should be fully involved in decisions related to their health care, making informed decisions that reflect their values and their needs. We also agree that when people have expressed their wishes, those wishes should be known and respected.

While there is widespread agreement in these principles, too often this is not the reality. Most adults have not completed an advance directive; if documents are completed, they are not regularly revisited and can be difficult to locate. Because these issues are difficult to discuss, surrogates can feel ill-prepared to interpret their loved ones' written wishes.

These shortcomings often leave families and health care proxies faced with the burden of determining their loved ones' wishes in the midst of crisis, sometimes with little or no information about how best to direct care. This adds not only stress and anxiety to an already difficult situation, but studies show that lack of advance care planning actually prolongs the grieving process after losing a loved one.

One of the greatest misconceptions about advance care planning is that it is a one-time event. Attempting to plan for all possibilities in a single document or within a single conversation is both overwhelming and impossible. Early advance care planning is important because a person's ability to make decisions may diminish over time and he or she may suddenly lose the capability to participate in his or her health care decisions. Ongoing conversations are also necessary.

For advance care planning to be successful, it must become less about legal documentation and more about facilitating ongoing communication about future care wishes among individuals, their health care providers, and surrogates. This approach recognizes that advance care documents like advance directives are not the ``ends'', but the ``means''--the tools for documenting care preferences based on informed decisions that incorporate an individual's values, personal goals, and current circumstances.

This process not only provides higher quality care, but personalized care.

The Personalize Your Care Act aims to support advance care planning by providing Medicare and Medicaid coverage for voluntary consultations about advance care planning every 5 years or in the event of a change in health status. This periodic revisiting of advance care documents and goals of care recognizes that individual's preference may change over time. More so, should an individual develop a serious or chronic illness, additional curative and palliative treatment options may be available and the advance care plan should be updated to reflect the individual's current circumstances and preferences.

Honoring the expressed wishes of individuals must also be a priority and for this to occur, advance care planning documents must be accessible where care is provided. To this end, the bill would ensure that an individual's electronic health record is able to display his or her current advance directive and/or physician orders for life sustaining treatment (POLST), so that his or her wishes would be more easily accessible and respected. Furthermore, advance directives would be more portable to help individuals ensure that advance directives completed in one state are honored in another state in which the individual needs care.

And lastly, the bill provides grants to states to establish or expand physician orders for life sustaining treatment programs. These programs have a track record of promoting patient autonomy through documenting and coordinating a person's treatment preferences, clarifying treatment intentions and minimizing confusion, reducing repetitive activities in complying with the Patient Self Determination Act, and facilitating appropriate treatment by emergency personnel.

These investments in advance care planning will reinforce patient- centered care--engaging individuals in planning and decision-making about their future care and ensuring that those preferences are documented, accessible, and can be honored in any state and care setting.

I am proud to introduce the Personalize Your Care Act with the support of patient advocates, physicians, nurses, and the faith community who see everyday how advance care planning improves individuals' and families' peace of mind and the quality of their care.

I would like to submit for the Record letters of support from the AARP, Supportive Care Coalition, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, and American Hospital Association.

American Association of

Retired Persons,

July 19, 2010.

Hon. Earl Blumenauer,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Blumenauer: AARP is pleased to endorse

the Personalize Your Care Act of 2010. Your bill ensures that

more Americans have the opportunity to better plan and

prepare for their future health care needs. Early advance

care planning informs physicians, other health care

providers, and family members of an individual's treatment

preferences should he or she become unable to direct their

own care. This planning and informed decision-making between

patients,

families, and their health care providers aligns treatment

with patients' wishes.

To help encourage advance care planning, the Personalize

Your Care Act would provide Medicare and Medicaid coverage of

voluntary advance care planning consultations between

individuals and their doctor, nurse practitioner, or

physician assistant. Such consultations would occur no more

often than every five years unless there is a significant

change in the health, health-related condition or care

setting of the individual.

Honoring the expressed wishes of individuals must be a

priority regardless of where the care is provided. To this

end, the bill would ensure that an individual's electronic

health record would include their current advance directive

and/or physician orders for life sustaining treatment

(POLST), so that their wishes would be more easily accessible

and respected. Furthermore, advance directives would be more

portable to help individuals ensure that advance directives

executed in one state are honored in another state in which

the individual needs care.

Finally, the bill would also authorize grants to establish

statewide programs for physician orders for life sustaining

treatment or to expand or enhance existing POLST programs.

POLST translates the wishes of patients with advanced chronic

progressive illness into medical orders that health care

systems understand.

AARP supports your bill to help give Americans peace of

mind knowing their wishes for care are understood and

respected. If you have any further questions, please feel

free to call me or have your staff contact Rhonda Richards on

our Government Relations staff at (202) 434-3770.

Sincerely,

David P. Sloane,

Senior Vice President, Government Relations and Advocacy.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, as I appreciate his hard work with the Judiciary Committee, and my friend Mr. Gallegly from California.

This is an area, Mr. Speaker, that I personally think that we ought to be able to come together. I supported the original legislation. I found it horrific that we would have people profiting from the most obscene displays of cruelty to animals. I understand the arguments that were made before the Supreme Court, but I think they made it clear that there was an opportunity to craft it more narrowly, and I think the Judiciary Committee has done a good job in doing so.

I am pleased that this is one of the areas where Congress has been able to come together, people on both sides of the aisle, to act quickly in an area that actually is important to avoid demeaning us all.

Mr. Speaker, cruelty to animals is not something that is just sort of an esoteric issue that is one that is only nominally of interest. This is something that speaks to the fundamentals of whether or not our communities are going to be livable, whether or not we can relate positively to one another. There is study after study that documents that people who are abusive to animals are also people who are likely to be abusive to their fellow human beings. It is a broad, far-reaching problem we have in our communities still.

Having worked with the committee in the past on issues that relate to animal fighting, there is a dark subculture here with people who get satisfaction, emotional, sexual, out of seeing animals suffer. It seems to me that it is important for us to respond quickly to be able to fill the gap. I don't think anybody benefits from this type of activity other than people who profit from it and people who have their own sadomasochistic satisfaction.

I appreciate what the committee has done to meet the court's First Amendment concerns and still speak to making sure that there are not people who are engaged in these activities and profiting from it. At the time of the original legislation, there were thousands of animal crush videos, for example on the Internet. But after the enactment of the original ban, they essentially disappeared. Now, after the Supreme Court decision, we have seen a resurgence, one that is not in anybody's interests. I hope that we are able to move with dispatch passing this today, and moving onto the Senate, to be able to enact this and have one significant, discrete area of progress that we can all take pride in.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the rule, as I have appreciated her work in her community over the years dealing with the consequences of flooding and water damage.

I rise in support of the rule and reluctantly am supporting the underlying bill.

I have great sympathy for the work that was done by the Financial Services Committee. I understand what horrible timing it is to deal with the huge losses in housing value, other real estate markets, as well as unemployment and the economic slowdown. We are all reluctant to put any additional pressure on people who are located in harm's way.

But I will tell you, having worked on flood insurance reform now for over a decade, there is never a good time to fix this program. The tragedy of Katrina 5 years ago dramatically illustrated both the need for, and the flaws in, our flood insurance program and environmental protections.

For generations, local and State governments and, sadly, in some cases, the Federal Government itself has encouraged people to live in harm's way. Over time, this has become a much more expensive proposition while we have accelerated the potential for disastrous floods as we've engineered our rivers, while we've encouraged filling in wetlands that used to be nature's sponges, and we have more people in the areas that are subjected to even worse flooding.

Now we have the situation where global warming is creating weather instability, extreme weather events, brutal rains and winds that make what was once a one in 100 years or one in 500 year event, sadly routine. We have seen on the floor of this House people come to the floor dealing with 500-year floods that have happened in relatively short time frames, and it is going to continue accelerating in the future.

We need to make sure that FEMA has the resources to do this important mapping job properly, and we need to have the gumption to support FEMA after it has gone through the process and done the mapping right, to enforce that mapping. We need to make sure that people who are in harm's way are encouraged to protect their properties, and after repeated damage, that we don't just keep putting people back in harm's way but help them be located more safely.

It is important that we no longer put the taxpayer on

the hook for massive losses and have the rest of the people who pay flood insurance pay higher premiums while people who should start making some modification waiting 10 years before they pay their own way.

This bill is a compromise, but I am hopeful that Congress can do more work to make a compromise that is more effective and long term because this is the tip of the iceberg. If we don't get it right, we're going to be back here time and time again on the hook for more and more money and more loss of life and property.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this legislation to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is essential for people who live in hazardous areas. The bill makes a number of important reforms that will help increase the fiscal soundness and stability of the Program.

First, I am especially pleased that the bill extends the successful Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program, which was created in the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. This program provides resources to communities to mitigate properties that have flooded repeatedly.

Repetitive loss properties cost the NFIP about $400 million annually. While they comprise approximately 2 percent of the program, they account for more than 25 percent of the claims paid.

By extending the Pilot Program, this legislation will help reduce the cost burden of these properties on the Program and will release homeowners from the cycle of flood, rebuild, and flood again. I appreciate that Chairwoman Waters included a provision in the manager's amendment making a technical fix to ensure that FEMA is implementing the Pilot Program as Congress intended.

I also support language in this bill that will phase in actuarial rates for non-residential properties and non-primary residences. Many houses in hazardous areas were built before the NFIP was put in place and those hazards was identified. For too long, these properties have enjoyed subsidized rates that drive up costs for everyone else in the program and send the wrong signals to property-owners about their risks. By setting rates based on risk, this legislation bolsters the stability of the NFIP and may result in lower costs for all policy- holders.

I am disappointed, however, that the bill includes provisions that I believe will result in consumers not understanding the flood risks they face and will potentially harm both policyholders and taxpayers.

Under direction from Congress, FEMA has undertaken a map modernization process around the country. The purpose is to identify areas at risk, as flooding patterns have changed over time.

Section 6 of this bill essentially says that even if the new maps find that a property is at risk, property owner will not have to purchase flood insurance for 5 years. This undermines the mandatory purchase requirement of the Program. If there's a flood in the next five years, taxpayers will be on the hook to bail these property owners out.

Section 7 of the bill takes this denial of risk even further, saying that after the five year delay, a property owner newly identified as living in a flood hazard area will enjoy subsidized rates for another 4 years.

Finally, I'm concerned about Section 10, which automatically deems safe properties ``protected'' by a levee or other flood protection system, effectively removing the mandatory purchase requirement even if the flood protection system no longer works. As my friends from New Orleans know, levees can break. With this provision, we send a signal to homeowners that they do not need to mitigate their risks.

While the bill includes some important reforms, it doesn't go far enough to address the structural problems that have cost taxpayers money, harmed the environment, and kept people in harm's way.

The challenges for the program will only increase with time, as increased development and climate change put more people at risk. Already, over the past thirty years, the number of billion dollar US weather disasters has increased. From 1980-1989, there were 10 disasters that resulted in over $1 billion in damage. From 2000-2009 there were 44. If we don't take steps now to reform the system, this number will only continue to increase exponentially.

For this reason, I would have preferred that this bill extend the program for less than five years. I understand that FEMA is undertaking a comprehensive review of the program, long overdue, and will come to Congress in two years to make administrative and legislative recommendations to strengthen the Program for the future. I hope that as this bill moves

forward through the process we can better coordinate the extension with this review so that Congress can keep the focus on reform.

In the interest of moving this legislation forward and ending the short-term extensions that the NFIP has been facing this year, I urge passage of H.R. 5114. But I look forward to working with my colleagues to make further forms to protect taxpayers, policyholders, and the environment.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to have the opportunity to support H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvements Act of 2009. I would like to thank Representative Sarbanes, Representative Lynch, Chairman Towns and Representative Wolf for their leadership on this legislation and for working to improve the lives of government employees across the country. Giving people the flexibility to work from home, when possible, makes the federal government a more productive and environmentally responsible employer by saving money, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, decreasing congestion and improving productivity.

Currently only 10 percent of eligible federal employees telework on a regular basis, even though many federal jobs would be well suited to teleworking. 95 percent of federal government employees expressed interest in teleworking, but the majority of these workers said there was not adequate support from their agency to do so. This bill will give federal workers the flexibility to telework when appropriate. There are many private companies, such as Intel in my home state of Oregon, where up to one third of employees telework regularly, and these companies have seen increased employee satisfaction, employee retention, and an average savings of $4,500 a year per employee in transportation costs and time savings.

Unfortunately, teleworking is a case where the federal government has missed the opportunity to lead by example, and now we need to catch up. Federal government employees should be able to take advantage of the same technology for workplace flexibility, time savings, and environmental benefits that private sector employees do.

This winter, the federal government was essentially shut down for a week because of snowstorms. Even with the minimal support in place for teleworking, estimates suggest that the federal government saved $30 million a day, because of teleworking.

Finally, we cannot discuss the importance of telework without looking at the environmental impact. The Telework Exchange estimates that if 20 percent of Americans were to telework, we could eliminate 67 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually and reduce Persian Gulf oil imports by 40 percent. More to the point for this legislation, if all eligible federal employees were to telework for two days per week, it would save 2.7 metric tons of pollution each year.

This bill is an important first step, and I would also like to encourage my colleagues to look at the telework provisions in legislation I have introduced. H.R. 3271, Green Routes to Work, is a collection of green commuting tax incentives. The legislation promotes a variety of commuting methods, including transit, bicycling and walking, but it also provides a tax credit for qualified teleworking expenses. I hope that my colleagues will look at Green Routes to Work as another tool to incentivize teleworking.

Encouraging teleworking will help the federal government be a better partner as we look for ways to improve families' quality of life and make all communities safer, healthier and more economically secure. Putting money back in individuals' pockets, saving the federal government money, reducing carbon emissions and reducing time spent in traffic are important aspects of a livable community, and I am proud to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the End Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, legislation that will end the expensive and unnecessary subsidies that the American people provide to the world's largest and most profitable companies. The legislation leaves untouched the tax treatment for small, independent companies.

Every year, Americans file their tax forms, contributing to our nation's defense, education, and infrastructure. Yet the biggest oil companies retain staggering tax benefits that shield these companies from their tax burdens. These benefits may have made sense decades ago for a fledgling industry, but today there is no need to protect the largest and most profitable companies in the world from burdens that every other taxpayer faces.

In 2008, the top five oil companies made a combined profit of $100 billion. In 2009, ExxonMobil hit an all-time record $45.2 billion in profits, yet paid no U.S. federal income taxes. In fact, they received a $156 million tax refund. To be sure, these companies face other tax liabilities. But the cornerstone of financing the federal government is the federal income tax and here Big Oil can largely offset its income with these tax subsidies. It is patently unfair that ordinary Americans must pay into a system that subsidizes this mature industry.

At time when we are working to rebuild our economy and curb the deficit, America cannot and should not subsidize the most profitable corporations in the world. President Obama's FY 2011 Budget proposed ending many of these tax breaks, which could reduce the deficit and fund national priorities from education to clean energy. At the recent G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh, the administration agreed with the other G- 20 nations to eliminate these subsidies.

The unique tax breaks enjoyed by the oil industry provide unnecessary and harmful incentives for exploration, drilling, and refining activities that keep America anchored to oil, a threat to our environment and our national security. The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's oil but has less than 3 percent of the proven reserves.

By continuing to artificially subsidize fossil fuels, we undermine investments that will guarantee our energy dependence. It is time for our country to shift gears, end the billion dollar carve-outs for the largest oil companies, and start investing our limited taxpayer dollars in America's future rather than America's past.

Mr. Speaker, pollinators play a key role in the support of our ecosystem and agricultural production. Most Americans don't realize the day-to-day impact that bees, bats, birds, butterflies and other pollinators have on our crops, family gardens and natural habitats, but nearly 75 percent of the world's flowering plants and two-thirds of our agricultural crops depend on pollinators for survival. One out of every three bites of food we eat exists because of pollinators.

Pollinator species, especially bees, bats and butterflies, are extremely sensitive to changes in their environment. In particular, Colony Collapse Disorder is threatening entire varieties of bees, including three that have recently been added to the endangered species list. One-third of all bee colonies in the United States did not survive the 2010 winter. As most pollinators are ``indicator species,'' their declining numbers provide cause for concern and should encourage us to examine how changing climate, increased pollution levels, and the increased use of toxic products and genetically modified crops is impacting our environment and our economy.

I applaud the goals of National Pollinator Week and look forward to working with my colleagues on the newly formed Pollinator Protection Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, for as long as I have been in Congress, I have worked on being a proponent of ``bike partisanship,'' something that everybody ought to be able to agree on. That's why I have been appalled at the repeated attacks on cycling by the Republican leadership. The latest is for the second time, Republican Whip Cantor has offered on the chopping block Safe Routes to School. You know, this is a program in 6800 schools across the country and has been requested by three times that number.

People know that children under 14, one-third of all their deaths occur when a car hits them when they're biking or walking. In my old grade school on a very busy street, these grants have reduced crashes by 25 percent and pedestrian injuries by 34 percent. This is a commonsense program supported by people regardless of their party. When children can bike or walk safely to school, we won't be worried about 300-pound morbidly obese 6th graders and a second rush hour as people take their kids to school. And then all our families will be safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Conference Report on H.R. 4173--the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. This legislation will strengthen our financial system by providing new rules that bar big banks and Wall Street investment houses from the risky practices that badly damaged our economy. The legislation also enacts new consumer protections to block predatory lending practices and financial gimmickry.

It was famously remarked by Professor Elizabeth Warren that it is ``impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance an existing home with a mortgage that has the same one-in- five chance of putting the family out on the street.'' With passage of this bill, Congress has ensured stronger protections for families and small businesses by ensuring that bank loans, mortgages, and credit cards are fair, affordable, understandable, and transparent. The bill has been called the ``strongest set of Wall Street reforms in three generations'' by Professor Warren. I am proud of my work with Professor Warren and I commend her efforts in strengthening this bill.

The financial crisis cost us 8 million jobs and $17 trillion in retirement savings. It was the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The financial crisis limited investment, cost jobs, put families on the street, and has ushered in a sense of financial anxiety that limits American imagination and opportunity.

The Dodd-Frank Act establishes a strong set of consumer protections, including a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that will be led by an independent director appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with a dedicated budget in the Federal Reserve. The Bureau will write rules for consumer protections governing all financial institutions--banks and non-banks--offering consumer financial services or products and oversee the enforcement of federal laws intended to ensure the fair, equitable and nondiscriminatory access to credit for individuals and communities. The bureau will roll together responsibilities that are now spread across seven different government entities, providing consumers with a single, accountable, and powerful advocate.

The legislation also establishes strong mortgage protections. The bill requires that lenders ensure that their borrowers can repay their loans by establishing a simple federal standard for all home loans. Lenders also are required to make greater disclosures to consumers about their loans and will be prohibited from unfair lending practices, such as steering consumers to higher cost loans. Lenders and mortgage brokers who fail to comply with new standards can be held accountable by consumers for as much as three-years of interest payments, any damages, and any attorney's fees.

The Dodd-Frank Act also disciplines Wall Street. It imposes tough new rules on banks to prevent the risky financial practices that led to the financial meltdown. Taxpayers will no longer pay the price for Wall Street's irresponsibility. The bill creates a process to shut down large failing firms whose collapse would put the entire economy at risk. After exhausting all of the company's assets, additional costs would be covered by a ``dissolution fund,'' to which all large financial firms would contribute.

The dissolution of a failing firm will be paid for first by shareholders and creditors, followed by the sale of any remaining assets of the failed company. Any shortfall that results is paid for by the financial industry. The bill requires big banks and other financial institutions, those with $50 billion in assets, to foot the bill for the failure of any large, interconnected financial institution posing a risk to the entire financial system, as AIG did in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. Financial institutions will pay assessments based on a company's potential risk to the whole financial system if they were to fail. Before regulators can dissolve a failing company, a repayment plan to charge Wall Street firms and big banks must be in place to recoup any cost associated with the shutdown.

It has been remarked that the markets will discipline themselves, that all that stands between poverty and wealth is some mythical regulatory barrier. But that is not what we found in the financial world and not what recent history illustrated. Instead, the market allowed participants to take wild reckless risks. This legislation reins in these irresponsible risks that cost us millions of jobs, millions of hours of economic productivity, millions of homes that have been foreclosed, and trillions in American savings. I look forward to passing this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Geothermal Energy Investment Act. This legislation will extend a 30 percent investment tax credit for geothermal energy through December 31, 2016, providing parity with the solar investment tax credit. This longer-term incentive will support substantial growth in utility scale geothermal power, distributed on-site power generation, and heating for buildings and commercial processes, while using clean and renewable American energy.

Geothermal energy facilities supply environmentally-friendly baseload power while producing very low emissions. Once installed, geothermal power is incredibly reliable, with average availabilities of 90 percent or higher (compared to about 75 percent for coal plants). The United States has more geothermal capacity than any other country. In fact, if we could recover this entire resource base, our domestic resources are equivalent to a 30,000-year energy supply at our current levels of consumption. Geothermal energy resources are present in all 50 U.S. States today, and in California more than 40 geothermal plants provide nearly five percent of the State's electricity.

To access this capacity, however, developers of this power source need assistance ameliorating the risks associated with geothermal energy investment. While the costs for electricity from geothermal facilities are declining, these installations are complex, long-term projects. There are significant costs involved with the exploration and development of these installations, and significant risks that the forecast resources are unavailable. The short-term incentives currently in the tax code limit long-term efforts to develop these resources.

The legislation also seeks to encourage growth of new geothermal technologies, in particular small power production and direct heat uses. New technology allows geothermal power to be generated and used on-site, such as the new power generation equipment installed at Oregon Institute of Technology.

Small, distributed geothermal power generation is being explored in many new areas, from Oregon to Texas and North Dakota. This proposal will encourage the development of those technologies by extending the 30 percent credit to them as well.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.