Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in reluctant opposition, but I want to acknowledge the hard work of my friend and colleague, Chairman Berman, in piloting this legislation through difficult times. He made some important improvements, and I appreciate his willingness to delay final action while the administration negotiated far-reaching multinational sanctions against the Iranian regime.

I'm also reluctant because I understand what animates this legislation. We are all appalled at the repressive behavior of the regime towards its own people, the destabilizing effort it has in the international arena, and we all recoil at the prospect of nuclear weapons falling in the hands of this regime.

The problem is the legislation is not likely to accomplish these ends and poses problems for this--indeed, any--administration to be able to conduct the foreign policy of the United States. I would also oppose restrictions of this nature on the Clinton administration or the Bush administration.

The irony is that Congress seeks to impose its will at exactly the time the

Obama administration has secured significant diplomatic success. I am concerned that enacting the legislation undercuts our credibility going forward.

As long as the global economy runs on oil, Iran's massive reserves continue to make them a player. The world will buy their oil and the world will sell them refined oil products. Even with additional sanctions, the question is not ``will it work?'' but ``who is profiting and how?'' It stands likely that the Revolutionary Guard and countries like China will benefit, and not one member of the Iranian elite will lack for gasoline, while ordinary Iranians will go without. This is particularly counterproductive when one notes, by all accounts, that everyday Iranians still like Americans. Yet this legislation allows the regime to rally support by blaming the United States for hardships.

They will use this as an opportunity to end their current unsustainable subsidies for petroleum products, which they would have been forced to do anyway, only now they get to blame America. This approach has been a failure in the past, notably with Cuba, where our unyielding aggressive sanctions policy, if anything, has propped up a regime that would have fallen into the dustbin of history years ago. They didn't stop North Korea from nuclear weapons. The sanctions policy against Iraq produced suffering for the people but made no difference to Saddam Hussein. Most recently, years of harsh sanctions in Gaza, much easier to enforce than against Iran, did not topple Hamas but strengthened it, while it created a very difficult humanitarian situation.

This legislation will undoubtedly pass. While it makes some people feel better to seem like they are doing something, I strongly suspect it will have little constructive result on Iranian behavior--perhaps undercut support of the Iranian people for the United States and our principles--and is setting a precedent for Congress seeking to direct the conduct of American foreign policy. This goes beyond Republicans and Democrats, beyond the Obama administration. It's a path that I think we should all be reluctant to take, and it's why I am voting ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to join my colleagues in designating the week of June 13th as High-Performance Building Week. Green buildings present an important opportunity: we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, help people lead healthier, more productive lives, and spur vital economic development through retrofitting, redevelopment and new development of high performing buildings.

As I travel around the country, I have seen the importance of green buildings in communities everywhere. People are realizing that not only do green buildings decrease long term maintenance and utility costs, improve the health of their residents and workers and reduce our impact on the environment, they play an important role in spurring economic development and centering livable communities.

I am particularly excited by the work of Mr. Anthony Malkin, who is taking on the bold and visionary plan of retrofitting the Empire State Building. When it was built, the Empire State Building marked the beginning of a new era in American cities. It's a testament to the pioneering American spirit that we're taking what was a 20th century engineering marvel and turning it into an example of what is revolutionary and necessary in the 21st century. By the time Mr. Malkin and his team are done, the Empire State Building tenants will use 49 percent less energy and provide a cleaner, healthier space for all who work there. I'm glad to see that this American landmark will help lead the way to a cleaner, greener economy.

I can't talk about the green economy without discussing what's happening in my hometown of Portland, Oregon. Officials there are currently finalizing designs and plans for one of the first major living buildings. The Oregon Sustainability Center will be net zero for both energy and water, will be built and operated without using any toxic chemicals common to building materials, and will source materials and workforce from the local area. It will serve as a collaborative hub for Oregon's sustainability industry, encouraging collaboration between organizations, local governments and research facilities, and will show the rest of America showing what's possible. The Oregon Sustainability Center will be the first of the next generation in high performance buildings and I am proud that Portland is leading the way.

I am proud to support this resolution today and hope that my colleagues will join me.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Nelson Wallulatum, chief of the Wasco Indians, who died on Sunday, June 13, 2010 at age 84. His tenure on the Warm Springs Tribal Council lasted 50 years, during which he oversaw many major tribal undertakings including the construction of a key hydro project, fishing rights litigation, and habitat restoration. His knowledge of the tribal way of life earned him the respect and honor of all who knew him. I found repeatedly that his presence at a meeting added dignity and perspective, to the benefit of everyone around him.

Chief Wallulatum was an expert in Tribal government and the Constitution, and a scholar of the 1855 Treaty in which the Wasco and Warm Springs Tribes ceded most of their lands to the United States. He served in the U.S. Navy from November 1943 to June 1945. He was also founder of the Museum at Warm Springs and educated younger tribal members in ceremonial customs and prayers. As an advocate of returning the sacred condor to Oregon, Chief Wallulatum named the first chick born in the Oregon Zoo's condor recovery program.

Chief Wallulatum, defended Tribal sovereignty, fishing rights and way of life, and inspired the next generation of tribal leadership and stewardship. His legacy is written in the land, water, and people that he loved.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is personal for me. We've watched our country come back from the brink in the fall of 2008. In my State of Oregon, helped by Recovery Act funds of about $6 billion, we've been able to stabilize and make some progress. Is it enough? Absolutely not. But I've had a steady parade of people coming to my office thanking me for the investment that was made in terms of infrastructure, in terms of health care, in terms of making sure that we didn't have layoffs of public employees.

Now we have a provision here that is an opportunity to focus on small business. It is a package, as the chairman mentioned, with two pieces. It's ironic that our friends are telling us that it's just not enough. These are small pieces, yet they were saying, on the other hand, the legislation we had that CBO has scored over 1.2 million jobs to as much as 2.8 million saved or created was too big. Well, we ought to be chipping away as we can on this. Having $30 billion for a small business lending fund, being able to provide a couple billion dollars of tax exclusion for small

business capital formation are positive items.

You know, one of the things that strikes me as ironic is that our friends on the other side of the aisle ignore the fact that the Recovery Act legislation that we had previously, 42 percent of it, was for tax cuts and for preventing the impact of the alternative minimum tax from hitting middle and upper middle-income families. Every family in America which made under $250,000 a year got tax cuts last year, and they are getting tax cuts this year. We have tried tax cuts to help move things forward. Now, this is small business lending.

This is part of an ongoing effort which is making a difference. The job losses peaked the month that President Obama took office--not his fault. They had been building for 22 months. Now we are making some progress. Is it enough? All of us agree that it is not, but I would suggest that dismissing this because they think it doesn't solve everything would be, I'm afraid, disingenuous. I don't think it's helpful.

I strongly urge the support of this legislation and then for us to continue with the task of rebuilding and renewing America, of reforming the Tax Code, and of coaxing the most out of these investments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5486, the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act and H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010. These bills will help small businesses grow, create wealth in our communities, and create new jobs. As we often hear, small businesses drive our economy and create the most jobs.

I have heard from businesses across my district that have had trouble accessing capital to expand their businesses, to weather this economic storm that Oregon faces, and to add to their workforces. Thousands of jobs have been lost, millions of dollars of savings have evaporated, and dreams have been cast aside or deferred for far too many Oregon families.

The legislation that we will pass today will ease these challenges. The legislation establishes a $30 billion fund to boost lending to small businesses by community banks. To ensure that the additional funding is deployed, the recipient community banks will owe the US Treasury a variable dividend. The more they lend to small businesses, the less they will owe to the Treasury. If they fail to lend, then the dividend obligation increases.

The legislation also makes important tax changes that will benefit the small business community.

The legislation reduces capital gains taxes on the small business community. Under the Recovery Act, Congress excluded seventy-five percent of capital gains tax on the sale of small business stock during 2009 and 2010. This legislation continues and expands that policy by increasing the exclusion to one hundred percent for 2010 to 2012.

The legislation also improves the ability of small businesses to deduct start up costs. Under current law, a start up may deduct $5,000 of start up costs; this legislation will expand that deduction to $20,000. These costs include market surveys, initial advertisements, training costs and other costs associated with starting up a business.

Oregon is still struggling with a near record unemployment rate of 10.6 percent, a percentage point above the national average. In April 2010, over two hundred thousand Oregonians remained unemployed. It is imperative that we do all that we can to improve the economy and to put Oregonians back to work.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate his leadership, and I think it is important for people to understand the genesis of the problem that we are facing here now.

We've heard some of our friends on the other side of the aisle come to the floor somehow trying to lay this at the feet of the President of the United States, but sadly, what has happened here in the gulf is a direct result of policies that we have seen implemented by our friends on the other side of the aisle when they were in charge, particularly under the watch of President Bush, where it was routine to come to the floor repeatedly in efforts to undercut environmental protections, where agencies that were supposed to regulate the industry were stopped with refugees from the very industries, from lobbyists and association executives who are going back now and looking at from whence they had come.

We had situations that, by the end of the Bush administration, it was clear in the MMS that there were people in that critical agency tasked by law with the protection of the public interest who were not only avoiding that responsibility, they were literally in bed with the industry.

I look forward to an opportunity in the course of the next few minutes to discuss with you further the genesis of the problem that we face and approaches that we should be taking to make sure that we're no longer held hostage to what even President Bush referred to as our addiction to oil.

Thank you. As I am listening to your presentation, talking about what could have happened, what should have happened, and looking at the magnitude of the devastation that we are facing in an ongoing disaster, I was reflecting on my experience here in the House under Republican control and the Bush administration where their first instinct--the gentleman will recall because he was an important elected official just across the Potomac and had a front-row view of what was happening here--that the Vice President convened a secret energy consultation group, his energy task force, which to this day has not been revealed in terms of who were the members--although we're most certain that there were people from BP, for instance, that were there-- that from the outset it was all about trying to cut through these red tape items, the environmental protection, things that got in the way of energy production, and not focusing on priorities that would have reduced our reliance on fossil fuels.

Indeed, there were 105 recommendations. Only 7 involved renewable energy. We watched, in the year that followed, the Bush administration actually propose cuts in the renewable energy budget and had tax breaks that they worked on with the Republican leadership to provide incentives for more dirty oil production and consistently fought against efforts that we brought to the floor, including in some instances bipartisan amendments to raise the fuel efficiency standards that hadn't been increased in a quarter century.

I'm reflecting on that and saddened that that was the thrust for most of the last decade, instead of putting us in a position where we would be less reliant and have better protection.

I do appreciate our friend from Colorado talking about the history here, because we hear people come to the floor to somehow lay this at the foot of President Obama, who has been busy since the moment he took office dealing with a series of disasters that he inherited.

But the approach that has been taken by the Republicans when they were in the majority actually set the stage for this. In 2003, they added an exemption for all oil and gas construction activities from the provisions of the Clean Water Act. They had a stipulation that the BLM had only 10 days to make drilling permit decisions. They had new authority for the Department of the Interior to permit new energy projects in the Outer Continental

Shelf without adequate oversight or standards and then providing, on top of that, $2 billion for already profitable companies to drill in ultradeep water.

It is absolutely scandalous that we have had this steady assault. Luckily, we stopped that in 2003 when the other body used the filibuster constructively. But we faced it in 2005, as they actually were able to put those provisions in place, which our friend from Colorado and you, sir, Mr. Connolly, have pointed out. It continues to bedevil us.

Sadly, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle simply haven't gotten the point. In this Congress, the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Mrs. Bachmann, who has no shortage of opinions on this, introduced legislation that would have required, would have required that the Secretary of the Interior waive any application of Federal law that requires a permit under lease for drilling. It would require a waiver from all of those nagging little requirements any time oil got expensive, over $100 a barrel, throw it all out the window, and yet has the audacity to try and shift responsibility under this.

I think it is something that we all need to be focusing on and not allow the people who helped create this problem to rewrite history.

I appreciate your putting in context not just the potential threat to your State of Virginia, but to all of us here who work and celebrate our capital region and the Chesapeake Bay, having those precious resources at risk.

I appreciate your exploring a dimension that I must admit I really hadn't thought through adequately: the threat unregulated, indiscriminate, offshore oil drilling could pose to military readiness. Your point about what could happen in terms of naval operations and training is one that I don't think has been given voice in this debate. I have been spending a lot of time working on it. This is new information to me, and I deeply appreciate your putting it out before the American public this evening.

I think this issue that we are wrestling with has many dimensions that require us to step back and expand the scope of inquiry, the need for our fixing a broken regulatory system.

We have referenced the fact that the administration, despite the previous administration talking about the addiction to foreign oil, did nothing about it, and, in fact, even after we regained control, worked against our efforts to try and increase efficiencies.

It's going to take time. I agree that the administration needs to move quickly to weed out the MMS. I wish they could have cleaned house earlier, but obviously these things take time. It's hard to undo 12 years of running roughshod over safety and environmental regulations in 17 months. But it is also a vivid call for a new energy future in which the deepest water is the last place we look, not the first, for new energy sources.

I would look forward to discussing that further, but I know you have, Mr. Connolly, some specifics in terms of some of the legislative provisions that we have been working on as Democrats in Congress.

I must say how much I appreciate the legislative approach that you bring to the job. I can see the experience and leadership that you demonstrated in years of actual hands-on dealing with the public in a very direct and personal way in local government with some spectacular successes across the river from our Nation's Capitol, as evidenced in the simple, commonsense approach that you are taking here in terms of being practical, being direct, things that will make a difference. I really appreciate that spirit that you bring to the Capitol.

I would like to pivot, if I could, just on the last point that you made, which I think, at the final analysis, is the most important.

It is important to understand history. It's important to not allow people who got us into this mess to rewrite it, to point fingers, to obscure, to try and get partisan advantage from something that they, sadly, helped create in the first place. That would be a tragedy in and of itself.

But it is where we go from here, what we learn from these lessons, what we understand is required. It is outrageous to me that the spill off the Santa Barbara coast that inspired the first Earth Day was fought with essentially the same technologies that we have available today.

All the time, all the energy, the resources that were thrown at it by the Federal Government was used basically by the industry to have more and more esoteric, sophisticated deep-drilling opportunities, not dealing with making sure that it was safe.

So we are trapped in time 40 years at the negative end of this equation, when the ultimate disaster, which was predictable, perhaps not avoidable, but is much worse because of the focus.

But it is the transition to clean energy technology that I would conclude my remarks. I see we've been joined by our friend we have referenced earlier, our colleague, Congressman Holt, who has some great legislation moving.

But I would just conclude my observations that we don't want to be in a position where we continue to be tethered to the oil spigot, to have the United States consume 10 percent of the world's oil supply going back and forth to work every day, that it is past time for us to move forward.

I appreciate the leadership of both you gentlemen in our livable communities issues, where we provide more tools to local government and more choices to people so they don't have to burn a gallon of gas to get a gallon of milk, that there are more sensitive land uses, that we fight against mindless sprawl, that we give people an alternative to the automobile in case they don't want to drive or can't afford to drive or maybe there are some people that we all know who probably shouldn't drive--giving them choices to walk and use transit, cycles; be able to make a system that is more sustainable, that is complemented by a clean energy future with tidal, wind, solar, geothermal, and investment in making our facilities now more energy-efficient.

We have the capacity right now, with what we know how to do, things that we have off the shelf or almost ready for installation, we could be completely Kyoto-compliant, save consumers and taxpayers money, and preserve our national security.

I hope that this is one of the lessons we carry away, not just understanding history, not just taking some of this terrific legislation that will help a difficult situation be a little better and take the taxpayer off the hook, but make sure that we are not in this dependency in the future.

Thank you. And I really appreciate your leadership in presenting this today and your courtesy in permitting me to take part.

I am intrigued with my colleague from Ohio's approach, because when the other team was in charge, we had a series of programs that undercut the ability to have government equipped moving forward: the scandals in the MMS, the appointment of people literally from the industry to sort of look at their former colleagues, people who were literally in bed with the people that they were supposed to regulate.

A series of efforts, the litany that we have heard from our colleagues when they were in charge was to cut back on regulation, to move it faster, to do more drill, baby, drill. And with all due respect, I think looking at the history of 10 years of moving in the other direction, to now somehow fault the administration, who inherited an unparalleled economic collapse, problems with EPA, with MMS around the whole array of areas that are a consequence of policies that were put in place by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I feel it's somewhat ironic that we are celebrating Ocean Day on the 51st day of the disaster. I am hopeful that it is an area that we are not somehow going to spend--I am happy to go toe to toe with my friend in terms of what the Republicans did and their policies to strip the Federal Government of the ability to move forward, but I think what we need to do is talk about where we are going forward to reduce our reliance on imported oil and domestically produced fossil fuels.

We need to move to a cleaner, greener approach, where we have more energy efficiency. We absolutely need to be aggressive in making sure that the laws are enforced. We need to have people who stop being apologists for the industry, whether it's BP or mining disasters, and move forward with a new era of more efficient-energy use, and respect for the oceans.

I am honored to be on the floor with my colleague Mr. Farr, who has been a champion for as long as I have been in Congress in this area that deserves far more attention, far more resources, far more work on the part of the Congress.

I would hope that respect for the oceans, that research and protections

would be something that brings us together so that not only do we avoid disasters like this in the future, but we are able to do a better job with the wide range of areas that are going to make such a difference for the future of the planet.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Green Railcar Enhancement Act of 2010 with 49 of my colleagues.

This legislation will help save a critical domestic industry, create 32,000 to 50,000 family-wage jobs, enhance the fuel economy of freight rail, and reduce the carbon emissions of the freight and logistics industry.

As a result of the financial crisis and subsequent recession, the freight railcar industry neared collapse. New car deliveries declined from 75,000 in 2006 to fewer than 10,000 in 2010. Only a handful of suppliers remain operating today and there is great concern that several of them may not survive this downturn. Without any action to pull forward some future market demand, the potential loss of the American rail supply base is at great risk.

The Green Railcar Enhancement Act provides a 25 percent tax credit for replacing or rebuilding old, inefficient railcars. The tax credit is limited to cars built in 2010 or 2011 and requires a minimum 8 percent increase in capacity or fuel efficiency. In effect, the legislation shifts market demand from 2012-14 to this year and the next, which will help the rail supply industry survive these two treacherous years.

This bill will continue to improve the great efficiency of rail transportation, which currently gets 480 ton-miles to the gallon. In fact, if 10 percent of the long-distance freight currently moved by truck switched to rail, then the national fuel savings would exceed one billion gallons each year. Requiring increasingly efficient rail cars will improve these figures.

Upgrading our fleet of railcars will also make the rail industry more competitive, reduce costs for consumers, and will help relieve our congested highways. In fact, one freight train can carry a load equivalent to that hauled by 280 trucks. Shifting the movement of freight to rail clears congestion from our roadways, eases wear and tear on our commercial corridors, and clears our air. In addition to these environmental and system capacity benefits, rail transport continues to be a leader in worker safety, with one of the lowest worker injury rates in the transportation sector.

Finally, by helping to pull market demand forward, our Nation will maintain the strong railroad supply industry and manufacturing base necessary to the Nation's defense.

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

Mr. Chair, as we prepare to observe Memorial Day, the House passed a measure that makes a significant investment in our armed forces. In addition to much-needed additions in equipment, mental health care, and health services, the FY 2011 Defense Authorization Act includes a significant step forward for human rights. I am proud to say that this Congress has taken action to end the outrageous ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. By the end of 2010, it is my hope that all members of our armed forces will be able to serve our nation proudly and openly.

I am also pleased that the Committee has taken my request for additional environmental cleanup funding seriously. This bill provides $20 million over the President's request, which is a small, but important first step. Our nation has tens of millions of acres of land that are contaminated with toxins and munitions left over from military training. Much of this now serves as parks, housing, or business development where Americans work and play every day. Yet the last of these sites won't be cleaned for another 250 years. It was my hope to include a provision, which I submitted to the Rules Committee as an amendment with Representatives Brown-Waite and Farr, to require that the military notify families and businesses living and operating on these sites. I am disappointed that this simple and commonsense amendment was not made in order, and it is my intention to offer it as a stand-alone bill. Americans have a right to know.

The continuous commitment to the escalation in Afghanistan concerns me greatly. The money and effort is misplaced and ultimately ineffectual. I am also disappointed that the House voted to preserve funding for the extra engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. I have opposed this program for years, as have President Obama, Secretary Gates, the Army, Navy, and Marines. This is a sad reminder of how parochial interests can overwhelm good policy, and I will work with my colleagues to remove this funding in conference with the Senate.

I also look forward to working with my colleagues to clarify the Department's role with respect to the siting of wind energy projects, and to clarify the bidding process with regards to the Army's M915 truck.

No bill is ever perfect, and I will work to refine and strengthen this legislation through the conference process.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

We are watching the harsh reality of governing without any meaningful Republican participation. It would have been an opportunity as we were moving forward to act as if they were actually legislating. People who were part of the party could have been able to zero in on some of these things.

I personally am absolutely committed to deal with the SGR problem. This bill is a step forward to deal with it. It is not as good as what we had passed earlier in the House. But it is interesting that our friends on the other side of the aisle just took a hike, decided to be negative.

One of the best examples is their hypocrisy or willful ignorance when it comes to the stimulus.

I talked to hundreds of people who were here in town, and I'm sure some of them made it to Republican offices as part of the construction industry fly-in. All were thankful for the investment of the economic recovery package that kept people working in construction. Not just the thanks from teachers, firefighters, energy industry who have benefited from the jobs that have resulted, but they heard that particularly from infrastructure companies, if they cared to listen.

I find a certain amount of disingenuous argument here when people are saying, well, we can't use emergency funding to help unemployed people in America. It should, instead, be funded by raising taxes or cutting programs.

These are the same people that funded not billions of dollars, but hundreds of billions of dollars year after year after year in emergency spending for the war in Iraq, which was absolutely foreseeable, predictable, and they paid for that ``off the books.'' But when it comes to Americans unemployed, well, all of a sudden, then, we want to be more stringent.

Last but not least, I appreciate what is done with the committee in terms of infrastructure. The Build America Bonds, lifting the caps on sewer and water financing, that will put people to work.

Is this a perfect bill? No. But I think it's an important step forward. It keeps the principles moving, and it ignores the hypocrisy that we're hearing on the other side of the aisle. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

I rise in support of the rule. I am pleased that we are going to be allowed to debate the wisdom of having two jet engines for the Joint Strike Fighter. I strongly hope the amendment that I have cosponsored along with Mr. Larsen is in fact approved, adding $485 million to reduce the deficit. It is an issue that I feel deserves debate, and I think people looking at it on the merits will understand that we don't need a second engine, that we can agree with the Secretary of Defense of the administration, and indeed the previous administration.

I am, however, a little frustrated that we continue to shortchange our efforts to deal with the toxic legacy of unexploded ordnances from military operations in the United States on our soil for the last 200 years. I had attempted to have a minor amendment to at least have the Department of Defense tell people in the community what the risks are from these toxic chemicals, from fuels, from unexploded ordnance. People who are building schools, child care centers, and housing developments have a right to know what could happen, particularly since we are underfunding cleanup.

The gentlelady who is managing the rule is going to have another 50 years before the last site is cleaned up in her district--better than waiting for 200 years. We can do better.

I rise in support of this amendment and for purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Maryland to clarify the intent of his amendment regarding the Army's M915 truck program.

I would yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for his remarks and clarification of the amendment. I want to acknowledge that the M915 truck program is a critical asset to the United States Army Reserves, and note the current M915 truck program is on cost and schedule and meets all performance requirements.

Mr. Bartlett, would you be willing to work with me on this critical issue during your conference deliberations with the Senate regarding H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011?

I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the clarification and look forward to working with you.

Mr. Speaker, the decades-long, unresolved crisis caused by the Lord's Resistance Army, LRA, is one of Africa's longest running and most gruesome rebel wars. For over 20 years, Uganda, a country slightly smaller than Oregon, and its neighbors have suffered from brutal massacres and torture instigated by the LRA. Originally based in northern Uganda, the LRA have infiltrated northeastern Congo, southern Sudan, and the Central African Republic. The humanitarian crisis has resulted in the torture, rape, and death of thousands of civilians and the displacement of over 1.5 million people. Over the past decade, the LRA has abducted over 20,000 children for forced conscription and sexual exploitation. In northern Uganda, children living outside protected camps often leave their homes at night to sleep in hospitals or churches for fear of attack.

The ongoing crisis in Central Africa instigated by the LRA demands more attention, more support, and a more effective plan of action. A fellow Oregonian and constituent of mine, Lisa Shannon, founded the ``Run for Congo Women,'' which has grown into a global movement that has raised over $600,000 for Women for Women International's Congo program.

I'm pleased that we can help her efforts with S. 1067, which directs the administration to develop a strategy to protect civilians and increase aid and awareness about the effects of the war on the people, governments, and economies of the region. We must act to help Uganda and the three other LRA-affected countries aid their displaced citizens and rebuild their basic services, government, and economic infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, I just returned from a 2-day livability tour, thanks to the courtesy of my colleague, Congresswoman Allyson Y. Schwartz, a champion of sustainability. I visited her district in Pennsylvania, where she represents parts of Montgomery County and Philadelphia, where we saw rural landscapes, small townships, suburban communities, dense urban areas, open space, abandoned industrial land, and an aging but vital transit system. Together, they illustrated all the challenges that we face in our efforts to rebuild and renew America.

I have a special interest in their initiative for a trail network, where their vision and hard work was rewarded by millions of dollars from the Obama administration and the economic Recovery Act to help fill in the gaps of an exciting trail expansion for the two-State region, including New Jersey.

Amidst impressive progress on Mayor Michael Nutter's vision to make Philadelphia the greenest city in America, with innovative water projects, creative private sector efforts in green development, township progress on revitalization, and important progress in open space protection, the bicycle session stood out. The increase in ridership in Philadelphia was impressive, and they have undertaken a spectacular program--in all 172 elementary schools to train young cyclists and pedestrians. It certainly got my attention. But so did the challenges they face as cycling advocates. It didn't appear as though the regional planning agency, or PennDOT, placed a high priority on bicycle safety. I hope I'm wrong, especially since bike fatalities doubled last year in Philadelphia, but it would not be unusual if it didn't capture a priority. Nationally, bicycle and pedestrians represent 15 percent of all traffic fatalities but only 3 percent of our spending on safety improvements and education, about one-fifth of the proportionate share that would be warranted. It's especially sad, because the bike and pedestrian victims are more likely to be children and the elderly, more vulnerable populations that should, if anything, command more of our attention.

The cycling community is doing its part to change this unfortunate pattern. As part of its effort to raise awareness, tomorrow in 49 States and 21 nations, there will be Rides of Silence. There will be 274 silent processions riding no more than 12 miles an hour to show respect for the families, friends and neighbors of 700 cyclists killed last year in America alone and as a reminder to law enforcement, to motorists and government officials of both the dangers to and the opportunities for cyclists.

You know, it doesn't have to be this dangerous. Facilities, awareness, training and courtesy can all make cycling safer. I have seen it firsthand. I represent Portland, Oregon, the unofficial American cycling capital. We have had spectacular increases in bike riding. It's doubled in the last 10 years alone, the highest participation in any major American city, but the rate of injuries and death was cut in half.

At a time when more and more Americans want to burn calories, not fossil fuel like the oil bubbling out in the Gulf, when they want to fight congestion, obesity and save money cycling, let's work not just to make it convenient and fun but safe, especially for our children.

This is Bicycle Month. On Friday, we have Bike to Work Day all across America. Tomorrow, I hope Americans will join us in respecting the Rides of Silence to raise awareness for cycling safety.

Madam Speaker, America has a long and rich tradition with beer. Many of America's Founding Fathers--including Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and James Madison--who attempted to establish a ``Secretary of Beer'' as part of the new nation--were all avid small brewers. Thomas Jefferson built a brewery in his kitchen at Monticello and Benjamin Franklin famously wrote that ``Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.''

I have the distinction of serving as a representative from the state of Oregon, which is one of the most enlightened states when it comes to beer. Oregon craft beer represents 3.8 percent of the total volume of beer brewed in the U.S.

Oregon is the second largest producer of hops in the country and the birthplace of the Willamette hop, giving us the IPA and now, the Cascade IPA. The city I represent, Portland, has 33 breweries, more per capita than any city in the world. These breweries provide an economic boost of over $2.3 billion to the region, promote local agriculture and provide opportunities for social interaction within the community.

Most importantly, the craft brew industry is an engine of job creation. America has over 1500 small brewers. The small brewers in my state employ more than 4,700 individuals while struggling with the higher costs for production, raw materials, and packaging than their larger and in many cases foreign owned competitors. They also operate in one of the most highly regulated business sectors. In spite of this, they are important economic generators in their local communities, avid promoters of our agricultural economy, and tireless in communicating the history and traditions of brewing and the message of responsible enjoyment of their craft made lagers and ales.

I would be remiss if I did not use this time to urge my colleagues to join the Congressional Small Brewers Caucus. The caucus meets regularly to not only celebrate the craft beer industry, but to educate our colleagues on the regulatory challenges these vital small businesses face every day.

I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this resolution to the floor and urge their support of the resolution and of the craft brewers in their district.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H. Res. 1294, honoring those who are serving and have served courageously as Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel, as contractors or members of the United States Armed Forces.

At home and abroad, unexploded ordnance (UXO)--bombs and shells that failed to explode during military training, testing, or operations-- pose a health and safety risk to communities and restrict opportunities for economic development. These still-dangerous explosives and harmful contaminants are located on or buried in millions of acres of former military lands in every state and Congressional district. Alarmingly, much of this land now serves as housing, schools, businesses, parks, and playgrounds.

For the past ten years I have worked closely with my colleagues to direct Congressional funding and legislative action on UXO cleanup and increase investment in technology. In 2005, I formed the bipartisan UXO Caucus as part of an ongoing effort to increase Congressional awareness. The purpose of the UXO Caucus is to inform Members of the health, safety, and environmental risks of UXO and to highlight the challenges faced by communities and the federal government to clean up UXO and redevelop former military properties. Due to these bipartisan efforts, the Department of Defense has now named a program manager in charge of remediation, and additional funding has gone to technology that will better determine the location and density of munitions contamination.

UXO technicians and units at home and abroad perform a selfless and dangerous task on behalf of the United States and we will forever be in their debt. Despite risking their lives for the health and safety of our families and communities, these heroes have largely gone unrecognized. I am extremely grateful for their sacrifices and I am pleased that we can honor them with this resolution highlighting National Explosive Ordnance Disposal Day.