Floor Statements

It's clear from the results last evening that the voters are angry. They haven't seen the change in direction that they thought they voted for 1 year ago in November.

Now, some Republicans will see it as an endorsement to turn back to the failed policies of the Bush years that put us in this mess. That wasn't the message. But the message is they want real change. They want the reform of Wall Street. They're tired of business as usual where the fat cats make out and the taxpayers get the bill. They want to see real reform in health care, take on the insurance industry, take on the pharmaceutical industry.

The Obama administration kicked off health care reform with a deal with the pharmaceutical industry. Now, that is not the kind of reform the American people want to see.

We need to step back and put forward a package of real reform. Take away the antitrust exemption of the health insurance industry; lower the cost of health care for all Americans; make the policies better; take on the pharmaceutical industry; allow people to reimport drugs from Canada that are exactly the same as the drugs sold here at a fraction of the cost. Those are the kinds of concrete steps people want to see.

Mr. Speaker, this week two so-called reporters from Associated Press, a Matt Apuzzo and a Brett Blackledge, did a supposed analysis of the investment in transportation and infrastructure projects from the so-called stimulus legislation. They came to the conclusion that there was no effect on local unemployment and it barely helped the beleaguered construction industry. That is a pretty interesting conclusion when we can document the jobs created, the hours worked: 250,000 direct jobs were created, and when you look at the secondary employment impact, you are up to about three-quarters of a million jobs. There are 8,587 highway and transit projects under construction, and it had no effect on local unemployment? What they are saying is, because of the hemorrhaging in other parts of industry and business in America, the unemployment rate is going up.

Now, what if we had just not made the investment in transit and infrastructure and had walked away from those 750,000 jobs? Would they have written a story saying that unemployment increased by nearly a million jobs because the Federal Government failed to invest in transportation and infrastructure? This is a totally perverse and bizarre conclusion reached by these two individuals.

If they wanted to write about the tax cuts in the stimulus, I would say they are right. Remember, the total investment, total, in hard jobs, in transportation infrastructure in this bill was about 5 percent of the gargantuan stimulus bill, 5 percent, yet it created 25 percent of the measurable jobs. Now, the tax cuts which totaled 8 times more, 8 times as much money was spent on tax cuts, something which mimicked the failed Bush policy that President Obama wanted to do to have a bipartisan bill and cut a deal with three Republican Senators, we got $300 billion of tax cuts for three Republican votes for that bill which have not created a single job or prevented the loss of a single job.

Ask any American who is still working what they did with their tax cut last week, and they will say, What tax cut? Oh, President Obama's promised tax cut, the one the Republicans in the Senate insisted on.

They would say, I didn't get a tax cut.

Yeah, actually you did. There was a slight reduction in your withholding. And you are not getting sent a check this time. You are paying a tiny bit more.

Now, I have a lot of people in my district who could use that $12 a week. But they will also say to me, Congressman, that is not going to put a single person back to work. It is not going to help my neighbor down the street who doesn't have a job and used to work in the construction industry, and these two turkeys have the temerity to come up with a so-called study which is now being quoted by the likes of the Wall Street Journal and other right-wing institutions as proving that public investment in infrastructure doesn't create jobs. It arguably did create jobs, but I will say it was way too small.

We have 160,000 bridges in our national system that are weight limited or functionally obsolete. What if we had a plan to replace all of those bridges? What about the jobs in the steel industry to produce the steel for those bridges? What about the engineering jobs and the construction equipment jobs and all of those things? This stimulus was too small and too short-term in terms of transportation and infrastructure. It was a one-time thing. It did create a lot of jobs and it kept a lot of people off the unemployment rolls, but it didn't get the maximum effect it would get with a long-term investment in transportation and infrastructure where you get people ordering new rock-crushing machinery. There happens to be some made in my district. Or new streetcars. We are making some of those in Oregon, too. Or buses that are manufactured in the Midwest with components from all around America. Those sorts of things will put a heck of a lot of people back to work, will revive our manufacturing so we actually need not less, which would be the conclusion of these guys, but more investment in our crumbling transportation network in America.

The city of Chicago, I hope they are listening down at the White House, got a grand total of $350 million towards its $6 billion backlog on the Chicago Transit Authority. They are holding up some of the ``L'' with 2-by-4s and other sorts of braces. They spent that money in 30 days. They ordered buses. They ordered steel. They put people to work immediately. They could have spent a billion. They could have spent $2 billion in that time period, but the money wasn't there. It was too small, but it did create a heck of a lot of good jobs and make needed investments in this country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to an example of Recovery Act funds that have been invested wisely. The ``Talking Water Gardens'' is a high-priority wastewater treatment project in Albany and Millersburg, Oregon that received Recovery Act funds from the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund. Those funds will be used to construct 39 acres of treatment wetlands and reuse the treated water to improve riparian habitat. Unfortunately, a report by two members of the Senate entitled, ``Stimulus Checkup: A closer look at 100 projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,'' inaccurately and unfairly criticized this project. Had the two Senators who authored the report called these two Oregon cities to inquire about the project they would have learned that the Talking Water Gardens is a shining example of how Recovery Act funds can be used to improve our aging infrastructure, mitigate environmental damage, and create good- paying jobs. The project also illustrates how a successful public- private partnership can work. I respectfully submit this letter from the City of Albany, which further explains the inaccuracies in the ``Stimulus Checkup'' report on this important project.

City of Albany,

Albany, OR, December 14, 2009.

Hon. Peter DeFazio,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman DeFazio: On December 10, 2009, we learned

that Senator John McCain and Senator Tom Coburn named

``Talking Water Gardens,'' our wastewater treatment and water

reuse project, in a report that questions the validity of 100

projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act. This project is an important, necessary, and high-

priority wastewater treatment project for the State of Oregon

that received funding through the State Clean Water Revolving

Loan Fund program. This project provides sustainable benefits

for the community, the economy, and the environment. We offer

this letter in rebuttal to the ``Stimulus Checkup'' report

dated December 2009.

No one from Senator McCain or Senator Coburn's offices have

ever contacted the City of Albany or the City of Millersburg

regarding the project. The information sources referenced in

the report were never verified with us for accuracy. It

appears that our project was singled out simply because of

the whimsical name, ``Talking Water Gardens.'' The project

will construct roughly 39 acres of treatment wetlands and

reuse the water to improve the riparian habitat on land that

is the blighted site of two defunct lumber mills adjacent to

the old oxbow of the Willamette River. This land has

significant elevation differences, so the treated wastewater

from the Albany-Millersburg Water Reclamation Facility and

the ATI Wah Chang treatment facility will enter the project

at elevations above the wetlands, creating several waterfalls

that will aerate the water. Waterfalls are often referred to

as ``talking waters'' and the name was chosen with children

and the Native American Kalapuya/Willamette River heritage in

mind.

The conclusions of the McCain-Coburn report are inaccurate

and misleading:

(1) The report states that a non-competitive contract was

issued for the construction. This is false. In accordance

with the Oregon Revised Statutes, the cities employed a

construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) procurement

method that is allowed and, in fact, encouraged by the State

to lower public project costs. The process followed a Request

for Proposal and interview process that included evaluation

of both cost

and non-cost elements. Of six proposals received, the

selected contractor represented the best qualified and least

costly.

(2) The report fails to mention that the Willamette River,

one of the 14 American Heritage rivers, has new thermal load

restrictions placed upon treatment plants to protect and

recover threatened and endangered salmon fish species as well

as other water quality regulations.

(3) The report fails to mention that the wastewater

treatment plant serving the cities of Albany and Millersburg

and ATI Wah Chang must construct additional wastewater

treatment capital facilities to comply with the regulations.

(4) The report failed to note that the project is a unique

industrial/municipal partnership, between the cities of

Albany, Millersburg, and ATI Wah Chang with the industrial

partner contributing its share of capital.

(5) The report failed to note that this project provides a

secure and environmentally-sound wastewater treatment

solution for ATI Wah Chang, a major local employer and

significant rare metals industry in the United States. This

project protects the jobs at this industry that would have

been put at risk had a cost-effective treatment solution not

been found.

(6) The report fails to mention that the project is the

least-cost alternative that requires the smallest ratepayer

increases to comply with the regulations.

(7) The report fails to mention that this project received

an Honor Award from the American Academy of Environmental

Engineers for Excellence in Environmental Engineering.

(8) The report failed to say that the project will provide

employment for an estimated 100 people in diverse sectors:

electricians, mechanics, pipe layers, and excavators;

surveyors, engineers and construction managers; raw material

and equipment suppliers for the pipe, pumps, rock, concrete,

asphalt, wiring, steel and other materials; landscapers and

nurseries. These jobs are needed in Linn County, where 15.1%

unemployment far exceeds the U.S. (10.2%) and Oregon (11.3%)

seasonally adjusted rates as reported in the December 2009

Benton/Linn Labor Trends Report for October.

Talking Water Gardens is a shining example of how to

balance the needs of the environment with the needs of cities

and American industries to preserve jobs in these tough

economic times. Many, many people have worked hard to make

this project happen and singling it out for criticism without

verified foundation is shameful at a time when we all need to

be working together.

Sincerely,

Sharon Konopa,

Mayor.

Madam Speaker, the U.S economy continues to limp along mired in a jobless recovery. Wall Street banks have begun to recover thanks to a $700 billion bailout paid for by taxpayers. Unfortunately, everyone else continues to suffer the effects of the economic collapse. Oregon's unemployment rate exceeds 11 percent and small businesses in my district can't get banks to lend to them. I have long advocated for a targeted jobs recovery program that focuses on substantial investments in our Nation's infrastructure, which will create jobs quickly and leave a long-term benefit for future generations.

I reluctantly voted for H.R. 2847, the Jobs for Main Street Act because it begins to make these investments that are both desperately needed and effective at creating jobs. There are nearly 10,000 of ready-to-go infrastructure projects across the country that have been postponed or delayed due to decades of underinvestment and underfunding. There are 61,000 miles of the National Highway System in poor or fair condition. 152,000 bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The Nation's largest transit agencies face a combined $80 billion maintenance backlog to bring their rail systems to a state of good repair.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, provided a mere $34 billion for highway and transit formula programs. Nearly 70 percent of the funding has already been put out to bid on over 9,500 infrastructure projects. The 7,900 Recovery Act infrastructure projects have created or sustained more than 210,000 direct jobs, as well as 630,000 indirect jobs in the past nine months.

As the ARRA Act infrastructure funding draws to a close, there are still over 9,000 shovel ready infrastructure projects across the country that could proceed within 120 days. The projects include 7,500 in ready-to-go highway and bridge projects; over 1,800 in ready-to-go transit, rail, port, and aviation projects; and an estimated $21 billion worth of projects that transit agencies across the country could undertake immediately. These projects will create not just public sector construction jobs, but will procure American-made transit buses, trains, electrical equipment, computer systems and software designed by private sector, American engineers.

H.R. 2847 represents the bare minimum of what we need to do. Should the Senate redirect this effort to tax cuts or other ineffective job creation policies, I will have a very difficult time supporting a final bill.

Madam Chair, I rise to express my concerns over the legislation before us. H.R. 4173, The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, takes steps to address many of the problems that created our current financial crisis. However, I am alarmed at a number of provisions that weaken the bill.

The creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency is long overdue. Consumers need a strong advocate to protect them from the many questionable and confusing financial products offered. However, provisions put in by the banking industry to preempt meaningful state regulation threaten the strong consumer protections we are fighting for. Federal rules promulgated by this agency should set a floor of protection, not a ceiling.

Title III, pertaining to regulation of derivatives, could have been improved by amendments offered that banned certain abusive derivatives from being traded and offered better transparency to the swap market. Unfortunately, those commonsense amendments were defeated. Other amendments that created more loopholes in the derivatives markets were unfortunately included.

I was also disappointed that several amendments I cosponsored were denied an up or down vote. The Inslee/DeFazio/Hinchey ``Too Big to Fail'' amendment set a cap on the size of bank liabilities for financial institutions. Instead of relying on regulators to protect us from financial firms laden with risky investments, this amendment simply breaks up companies with excessive liabilities. The Hinchey/ Inslee/Conyers/DeFazio/Tierney amendment would restore key protections from the Glass Steagall Act including the separation of commercial and investment banking.

Furthermore, I opposed the Republican Motion to Recommit because it struck all financial reform from the bill, and would have ended the TARP program at the most inopportune time. I have long opposed the TARP program because it bailed out Wall Street for excessive risk taking at taxpayer expense. Now that Wall Street has been bailed out, the major problem facing Americans is rising unemployment. We should redirect the remaining TARP funds to real job creation on infrastructure because that will get people back to work quickly, rebuild critical infrastructure, and these jobs cannot be exported overseas. Wall Street got its bailout, now it's time to jumpstart American job creation.

I was a strong opponent of financial deregulation legislation in the 1990s. This undermined our financial regulators and gave Wall Street the opportunity to make the risky speculative bets that it lost big on. Reversing this trend is essential; therefore I plan to vote in favor of this legislation to move the process forward. I am eager to see what emerges from the Senate as they continue their debate on financial reform. I am hopeful that this legislation moves us back to responsible regulatory oversight. It is important that we rein in the cowboy capitalism that has too long prevailed in our financial markets.

Madam Speaker, the President brought the jobs summit to a very unfortunate and, unfortunately, ill-informed close in his summary statement.

The President is skeptical about shovel-ready projects. He said the term ``shovel-ready.'' Let's be honest. It doesn't always live up to its billing. Well, if he is talking about other than infrastructure, he is right.

The Department of Energy managed to commit a tiny fraction of the money in the stimulus bill, and that which they have committed has created thousands of jobs. Yeah. Unfortunately, they are jobs in China of making windmills that will be shipped to the United States of America. Not exactly what we had in mind.

Maybe it's the tax cuts all across America. People every week are grateful for their tax cuts. No. Actually, they don't know that they get a minuscule reduction in their withholdings, and that's what is supposed to rebuild our economy. There was seven times as much money for tax cuts as there was for transportation infrastructure.

Now let's examine the President's statement a little further. I think he is very, very ill-advised by a prejudiced group of economic advisers who, for some reason, were frightened by infrastructure at a young age, perhaps. Whatever the reason, they hate it--plain and simple--because the fact is, as the previous gentleman said, 4 percent of the funding, that which was spent and is already committed and is underway in infrastructure, has created 25 percent of the jobs. All of that money will be spent out by next summer. There are hundreds of billions of dollars in other programs that aren't being spent out so well, but the shovel-ready transportation infrastructure projects are going forward.

We had a report last week. There is $49 billion more in bridge and highway projects. We have 160,000 bridges that need reconstruction across America. That's steel. That's concrete. That's construction jobs. That's engineering work. There is no long lead time. There is no lengthy environmental review. We are replacing or rebuilding things that are already in place. In addition to that, there are many other road and highway projects of great merit. That can be committed within 120 days--$49 billion. It could take place next construction season-- $16 billion in intermodal, port and other access issues.

Then perhaps this will get the attention out at the White House: $20 billion in transit. We are killing people on our transit systems because of the outmoded, decrepit infrastructure we have. There is an $80 billion backlog. When you begin to fill that backlog, what you can do within a day in some places, like the Chicago Transit Authority, which spent a quarter of $1 billion in 30 days, which is all the money they got--they spent it in 30 days because they have a decrepit system. They ordered things that create a huge multiplier effect and jobs across the economy--transit vehicles, buses. Then people who make parts for buses have jobs. We have ``buy America'' provisions so the jobs aren't going to China like the DOE grants are. These are the kinds of investments we need to be making. These things work.

Now, why won't his advisers wake up and tell him the truth?

Most of the jobs, the real jobs--the private-sector jobs--that were created by this last so-called ``stimulus,'' were in transportation infrastructure. The money has been successfully spent and obligated. We can give him those statistics. I defy them to go to any other part of that bill other than the money that kept teachers working and other things that helped the States or the tax cuts where the money has spent out at such a rapid rate.

So it's time to reorient the thinking down there on the economic team at the White House. If we want to put America back to work next year, we need to dedicate more funds for rebuilding our decrepit infrastructure across this country. Get the huge multiplier effect we get with that. We have a total of close to $80 billion of projects ready to go in 120 days. These aren't just your resurfacing things like we saw last year. These are major projects--bridge replacements and major work on transit systems--that are ready to go, that are shovel- ready to go. No lie there.

I hope some of his advisers are listening, that they'll look at the facts and will send the President a corrective memo on these issues.

Madam Speaker, America's infrastructure is in an extraordinarily sad state of disrepair, in fact, endangering and killing Americans. We need a new attitude in terms of rebuilding our infrastructure and bringing it up to a state of good repair at the White House.

There seems to be some reluctance. The President said after his jobs summit that he just had to admit that shovel ready wasn't always shovel ready, and he seemed to be referring to infrastructure. But actually, the infrastructure money is already 60 percent spent and underway and the other 40 percent will be obligated before spring to begin to catch up with that deficit.

Now, the Department of Energy has already spent about 8 percent of their money; HUD, I don't know if they've spent any of it. There are all sorts of fantasy programs out there that were in the stimulus where money hasn't been expended, but in transportation and infrastructure it has been invested and it is going to save lives and it is going to get people to work with less congestion and less damage to their vehicles by bringing the infrastructure up to date.

I would like to try and bring this home to the White House because they just don't seem to be listening. This was--or is--a lag bolt; it's about 60 years old. You can see it's kind of missing the bottom. Well, this lag bolt was involved in an accident on the Chicago Transit Authority. This is what holds down the metal plates that hold down the rail. They have a life span of about 40 years. There are thousands of them on the system waiting to fail.

Now, when the Chicago Transit Authority got $250 million--that's a lot of money--under the stimulus bill, they spent the money in 30 days. Thirty days. These aren't just your old public works construction jobs; these are, first off, almost all private sector jobs bid out on contract. Secondly, much of it was invested in sophisticated equipment and manufactured goods. So that $250 million produced a huge multiplier effect. They were buying new buses because their buses are decrepit. People who build buses were getting good wages. The people who build things to go on buses--tires, brakes, all that because of ``Made in America''--they were getting jobs, too. So actually, the shovel-ready stuff was ready and is underway when it comes to transit and highway infrastructure.

Like this failed bolt in Chicago, the Chicago Transit Authority could spend another $6.5 billion just to bring their system up to a state of good repair, and they can spend that money very quickly with a huge multiplier effect. Why can't the economic team at the White House understand that? Their pointy-head theories about, oh, infrastructure takes so long and it doesn't have a good multiplier, unlike giving people a little bit of money in withholding--or green grid, whatever that is, where a penny hasn't been spent. Somehow this is just too old school for them, fixing up our country, putting people to work, manufacturing and construction jobs.

We have 160,000 bridges on the Federal system that should be posted. The American people should see a big sign saying, ``Danger, the bridge over which you are about to drive is either weight limited, structurally deficient, or functionally obsolete.'' One hundred sixty thousand bridges. Now, if we began a program to replace those, it doesn't take long, look how quickly we replaced the bridge in Minnesota. It doesn't require lengthy environmental impact statements or planning, it's replace and fix the bridges, it's concrete, it's steel, it's workers, it's aggregate, it's made in America. You can't export those jobs.

But somehow the people on the President's economic team don't get that, or maybe from the back seat of their limousines they can't see that the bridges and the infrastructure are deteriorated, and they sure as heck aren't on the creaky public transit systems that are falling apart and here in D.C. killing people because the infrastructure is so outmoded and so substandard.

It is embarrassing for the greatest nation on Earth to be devolving toward a fourth-world infrastructure--we're not even third world. We are investing less of our GDP in our infrastructure than are many third-world countries. We are formerly first world, formerly world leader. Now we are watching our competitors around the world vault ahead of us with high-speed rail, with modern transit, with beautiful new highways, with safe bridges that are designed to current standards. But no, we can't afford it. And even if we could afford it, like taking some of that unspent TARP money or maybe some of the other unspent stimulus money, they don't want to do it downtown.

It's time for a new attitude downtown. Don't jeopardize the people of America with this kind of outmoded infrastructure anymore. Get it, guys. This means jobs, and it's something the American people believe in.

Mr. Speaker, just over 2 years ago, Fish and Wildlife Service arrested a dozen individuals for repeatedly and deliberately killing protected raptors under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In many cases, the individuals used cruel and shocking methods of torture, mutilation, poisoning, suffocation, and clubbing to kill and wound these birds. They then bragged about their egregious behavior on the internet and to members of their organizations.

Despite the horrific nature of the crimes, the defendants who pleaded guilty to the Class B Misdemeanor--the same penalty ascribed to unauthorized uses of the Woodsy Owl and Smokey Bear characters--escaped with fines far smaller than the maximum allowances and were granted probation or given community service.

I and thousands of Oregonians were outraged by the nature of these wanton and senseless crimes. Yet, the individuals responsible only received a stiff slap on the wrist, demonstrating that courts often do not take wildlife crimes seriously enough. Regrettably, horrific violence against protected migratory birds continues across the country.

I introduced H.R. 2062 to provide Fish and Wildlife Service with a law enforcement tool that would allow the agency to prosecute the most egregious violations of the MBTA with serious penalties. This bill would also send a clear message to courts that Congress does take wildlife crimes seriously and expects courts to apply penalties that measure up to the shocking nature of some of these crimes.

The bill before the House today is the consensus product of over 6 months of discussion with conservation groups, hunting associations, Fish and Wildlife Service, the States, and the Republican minority. The bill was passed unanimously by the House Committee on Natural Resources on November 18th. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield to the gentlelady.

Okay. That would raise a further interrogatory with me: How many did you deem in your opinion met the proper definition?

I yield.

Thank you.

Reclaiming my time, it is interesting to me, and I represent one of the districts most impacted by changes in Federal forest policy and suffering some of the highest rates of unemployment in the United States, and it is interesting to hear the gentleman from Utah now come before us as such a tremendous advocate for local governments with revenues created or shared from Federal lands, because when we were in a crisis, the Bush administration having made no changes in Federal forest policy and still limping along during the 6 years that the Republicans controlled the House, the White House and the Senate, the guarantees that had been put in place to ameliorate the impact of the Clinton forest plan, which I opposed, expired. They just expired while George Bush was in the White House and the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate.

Now I wonder about that tremendous concern. At that time when they controlled everything, they had an opportunity to continue a program that would fund sheriffs and would maintain our jail space and would fund our roads, bridges, and highways on the county system, would help fund schools, they just walked away from it. They let it die. And it took the Democrats 5 months to pass, after we took control from the Republicans, despite the objections of the Republicans and

the Bush administration, to pass legislation to give emergency payments for 1 year, and then yet again the Democrats in the last Congress extended the program for 4 years with a phasedown.

I actually did bring my bill for authorizing programs to the floor of the House last year on June 5, 2008. It was brought up under a suspension of the rules, unfortunately. Because of Republican opposition to the bill, it was deemed it would have to come up under suspension of the rules. We got 218 positive votes; 16 of those were Republican, 16, but it was not the gentleman from Utah. He opposed my proposal.

Suddenly, now, over a little 400 acres of land, which does not have any potential to produce any large amount of money, if any, under the current forest management, he wants to block this bill. But last year when the opportunity to vote to extend funding to all of the counties and school districts in America, and his State would have been one of the greatest beneficiaries outside of Oregon and California, he voted ``no.''

So sometimes around here, I think the proof is in the pudding on how you vote. I think it is an objection of convenience on the part of the gentleman, this sudden, newfound concern for local governments and schools for the nonexistent revenue from this very small parcel of land as opposed to the benefits that would accrue to that area by the protection of this. The local governments and all of the other officials in that area support the legislation. They aren't concerned about some theoretical, infinitesimal loss of money. They are more concerned about protecting the resource and developing that area into a recreation corridor that will attract people from around the State and perhaps from around the Nation to that area. That is part of their local economic development strategy, and that is what the local governments want. That is what the Representative for that district wants. That is what I support, and I will just say that any specious argument that somehow this hurts local government, hurts schoolkids, hurts public safety, coming from someone who opposed an opportunity to give robust funding for public safety, schoolkids all across America, to all of these distressed counties, is a little bit out of line.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady's concerned about two things, the deficit and jobs. I share those concerns. But again, we have a little problem with consistency. When she was offered an opportunity, just in September, to extend the national surface transportation investment, fully paid for through user fees, gas tax and other fees, fully paid for, a program that creates millions of jobs, construction jobs, she voted ``no.'' She voted to end all funding for investment in our national transportation infrastructure, an extraordinary vote, unbelievable for someone who cares about jobs and cares about the deficit, because it was paid for and it creates millions of jobs.

And on October 1 that program was going down, and tens of thousands of people across the United States of America would have been unemployed, private sector people, construction workers who are already hard-hit in this recession. If the Republicans and she had their way, that program would have ended on October 1.

Now, it's pretty hard to justify that vote. I don't quite understand it. But she also has the same consistency problem as the gentleman from Utah; that is, when there was an opportunity to help those school districts, those local communities fund critical public safety, sheriffs and jail beds, she voted ``no'' along with a large majority of Republicans against my legislation last May.

Now, there's this suddenly newfound interest in a community that doesn't want her interest. They want self-determination. They support this legislation. The elected Representative supports this legislation. But, no, the Republicans from elsewhere around the country, they know better than the people of Oregon. They know better what would help the people of Oregon.

Except, again, back to the Bush administration and the Republicans running Congress, when the Bush administration had an opportunity to continue payments to those counties, or change the forest policy, they did neither. They didn't change the Clinton forest plan, which I opposed, which has devastated communities. And they allowed the legislation signed by President Bill Clinton to give assistance to those counties impacted by his forest policies assistance--they allowed that to expire, too, when they were in charge. And the gentlelady said nothing at that time. She didn't help support us in that effort. She didn't support that. She didn't support it last year when I offered it.

So let's not have a false debate here about what's better for the people of Oregon, coming from even a near neighbor in Washington State, or from the gentleman in Utah, or a woman from back East. Let's respect the local will of the people.

When Don Young chaired the Resources Committee, we kind of had a rule. We didn't mess around in each other's districts. I kind of liked that rule. We're messing around in someone else's district here. We're messing around with the local will. And let's not have newfound sympathy for my constituents who've been hit so hard when you didn't lift a finger to help them when you ran everything.

I will yield.

The gentleman is correct, and he did work hard to help with the renewal of the county schools, and my colleague from Oregon, Greg Walden, was a partner in that effort. But the fact is that, you know, when you controlled everything, it died. The program died. And we were so desperate that at the end of the Congress Greg and I came and sat here on the floor till 2 o'clock in the morning, so at the end of that Congress we could offer a unanimous consent request to move that program forward and fund it, and the objection came from your side of the aisle again.

So, unfortunately, you know, there are some hard facts here. You are right. The original legislation was passed when the Republicans controlled the House. Bill Clinton was President. We had a bipartisan agreement to help the counties, but when there was a later opportunity, nothing happened.

Too many Americans are out of work. The stimulus certainly preserved some public sector jobs and was of benefit to public education and filled in some other gaps. But the rest of the spending has not been of great impact, particularly the $340 billion in tax cuts insisted upon by three Republican Senators. And unfortunately, the Obama administration, at the urging of its chief economist, Larry Summers, caved in to those demands for yet more ineffective tax cuts, something that failed miserably during the Bush era to put the economy back on track, and failed again.

If you don't have a job, a tax cut doesn't do you much good and doesn't put you back to work, does it? So it's time for a new approach, considered, unfortunately by some, old school. That would be rebuilding the infrastructure of America.

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, we have a $2.2 trillion infrastructure deficit in this country. One hundred sixty thousand bridges on the Federal highway system are either load-limited or functionally obsolete. Our transit agencies across America have an $80 billion backlog.

Now, the chief economist for the President, Mr. Larry Summers, an academic, doesn't think that infrastructure investment's a good thing. He cut it back in the stimulus last spring. But you know, actually, the 4 percent of that huge bill that went to infrastructure created 25 percent of the jobs. So perhaps Mr. Summers was wrong yet again, like he was when he prevented the Clinton administration from regulating derivatives, which caused our world collapse of the economy.

But he thinks that infrastructure takes too long to spend out. What he doesn't understand is, when you have a massive backlog, you have projects that can be put on the ground or to work immediately.

I'll use an example that's kind of close to home for the President. The Chicago Transit Authority, they have a $6.8 billion backlog in their transit system. They testified before my committee that they could spend $500 million tomorrow, tomorrow, productively, bringing that system back toward a state of good repair. It would still take another $6.5 billion, $6.3 billion, and it would take quite some time.

Now, they got out of the stimulus $240.2 million for their transit backlog. They spent that money productively in 30 days. They bought buses. Guess what? You buy a bus, people who make buses have jobs. People who make parts for the buses have jobs. We have a ``Buy America'' rule. Those jobs are actually here in the United States of America, and then those people work and they pay taxes and there's revenues to the government; sort of a good old-fashioned way of stimulating the economy and helping the deficit. Unfortunately, the President's chief economist doesn't believe in this. It's time for him to reorient his thinking.

We need a massive investment in our infrastructure. It is so degraded that we have projects ready to go all across the country in transit districts, in States with bridge replacement. These aren't things that require five to 10 years of planning and a long spend-out and those things that those ethereal academic economists think about when they think about transportation infrastructure.

No, when you're in deficit, like the United States of America is today, when you're headed toward a Third World transportation infrastructure, while our competitors like China are spending hundreds of billions of dollars for high speed rail, what are we doing? We're struggling to keep Amtrak running at 19th century speeds. That's kind of pathetic.

We can do better. But it will take a commitment, a push by the White House, a reorientation in the thinking down there, or perhaps ignoring some bad advice they're getting, and have the President champion the creation of jobs and the rebuilding of our infrastructure. And you know, we can do this in a way that actually wouldn't have to add to the deficit.

They've done a great job of bailing out Wall Street. Goldman Sachs is going to be paying bonuses that average $700,000 this year. Whoa, good times are here again, except not for an America that is suffering very high unemployment. So maybe it's time that Wall Street just gave back a little bit. We could reinstitute a tax we had from 1916 to 1966, a modest transaction tax.

Congress, in the last Great Depression, they had the guts to actually double that tax. Disaster was predicted on Wall Street. Guess what? The economy only went up from there, and tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people were put to work building a new America, an infrastructure that needs rebuilding today.

Madam Speaker, at a time when our economy is focused on recovery, adopting renewable sources of electricity will spur job creation and economic growth, save consumers money, and reduce greenhouse gas pollution. People's Utility Districts (PUDs) have consistently been at the forefront of this effort.

Emerald PUD, in my congressional district, is an excellent example of People's Utility Districts that have consistently demonstrated a commitment to delivering clean energy and conservation resources to their customers. Due to their relatively small size and local consumer ownership, PUDs are able to meet the unique energy needs of their community while also investing in local renewable energy resources.

For more than a decade Emerald PUD has offered clean renewable energy options to their customers. Their customers have the option to purchase a percentage--or all--of their energy from clean wind power sources. In addition, Emerald PUD regularly assists customers in gaining access to solar energy. Through generous assistance programs they have helped numerous area schools, businesses, and homes to install solar energy systems.

Beyond this investment in sustainable energy, Emerald PUD has made a priority of aiding local residents, industry, and businesses with energy conservation efforts. These projects range from weatherization of homes to the large-scale installation efficient lighting in industrial facilities. Through this sort of individually tailored energy consultation, Emerald PUD has facilitated significant energy savings for many customers who otherwise may not have had access to such resources.

Emerald PUD has demonstrated an extraordinary dedication to bringing clean energy and energy conservation resources to all of their customers. Notably, Emerald--and other PUDS--have shown that this can be done while still holding energy costs well below the national average.

Madam Speaker, at a time when our economy is focused on recovery, adopting renewable sources of electricity will spur job creation and economic growth, save consumers money, and reduce greenhouse gas pollution. People's Utility Districts (PUDs) have consistently been at the forefront of this effort.

Central Lincoln PUD, in my congressional district, is an excellent example of People's Utility Districts that have consistently demonstrated a commitment to delivering clean energy and conservation resources to their customers. Due to their relatively small size and local consumer ownership, PUDs are able to meet the unique energy needs of their community while also investing in local renewable energy resources.

With the assistance of a nearly $10 million federal grant, Central Lincoln PUD is poised to implement an energy saving smart grid system. Central Lincoln will contribute an additional $9 million to the endeavor. A portion of these funds will go toward the installation of smart meters in home and business. These advanced meters will empower consumers to more effectively manage their energy use, leading to significant savings.

In addition to the smart grid project, Central Lincoln PUD has made a priority of aiding local residents, industry, and businesses with energy conservation efforts. These projects range from weatherization advice for homes to the large-scale implementation of energy saving measures at local businesses. Through this sort of individually tailored energy consultation, Central Lincoln PUD has facilitated significant energy savings for many customers who otherwise may not have had access to such resources.

Capitalizing on their costal location, Central Lincoln PUD has become a significant player

in the development of wave energy technology. As a platinum sponsor of Oregon State University's Wallace Energy Systems & Renewable Facility, Central Lincoln PUD directly contributes to research into this clean and renewable technology.

Central Lincoln PUD has demonstrated an extraordinary dedication to bringing clean energy and energy conservation resources to all of their customers. Notably, Central Lincoln--and other PUDs--have shown that this can be done while still holding energy costs well below the national average.

Mr. Speaker, big insurance companies and their Republican allies are bitterly opposed to health care reform, and I understand their opposition. This bill will outlaw the worst and the most lucrative consumer abuses by the insurance industry. It repeals their unfair antitrust immunity. No more collusion and price-fixing to drive up your premiums. It outlaws the preexisting condition exclusion. It outlaws them from canceling your policy when you get sick, a common practice in the insurance industry. And no more small print lifetime caps that drive families to bankruptcy.

It improves Medicare coverage for all Americans and improves Medicare reimbursement for Oregon seniors and the disabled. The Republicans would have none of that. In fact, they opened new loopholes for abuses by the insurance industry by allowing them to base their national plans in the new state of the Northern Mariana Islands, which they have designated in their alternative. So when you have a complaint, you can call Jack Abramoff when he gets out of jail, and he will help you with your insurance problem. That's the Republican plan.

Our plan isn't perfect, but it is a good step toward providing affordable health care for all Americans.

I thank the gentlelady.

The Republican record defies their rhetoric. Remember their so-called ``prescription drug benefit'' for seniors passed in the dark of the night, no one read the bill, didn't know what was in it? It cost $700 billion because that was subsidizing the pharmaceutical and insurance industry. But now they're worried about costs that gave the seniors a doughnut hole. Now their concern is not about what they're stating; it's about their patrons in the insurance industry.

This bill has real reforms of the worst abuses of the insurance industry. It takes away their unfair antitrust community so they can no longer collude to drive up premium prices or restrict coverage. The Republicans would continue the antitrust exemption.

This bill outlaws the unfair preexisting condition restriction. The Republicans would continue that for the insurance industry.

This bill would not allow the industry to cancel your policy even though you've been paying your premiums when you get sick. It's called recision. The Republicans allow that abuse to continue.

This bill on our side outlaws the small print that limits your lifetime coverage which bankrupts families every day in America. The Republicans allow it to continue.

And that's not enough. They open up a new loophole, their so-called ``national plan.'' A company would only be regulated by the laws of the State in which it was based when it sold you a policy. If you live in Oregon but you bought a policy that was written in--oh, and by the way, they expand the definition of States to include the territories and the Mariana Islands. So if you've got a problem, call the Mariana Islands insurance commissioner. That's the Republican plan: Profits for the insurance industry.

Republicans are craven in their obeisance to their health industry patrons who are so generous at campaign time. They are saying that they're going to offer a new national policy; they're going to free up the insurance industries to offer new national policies with no antitrust law from the Federal Government, no regulation by the States. They've come up with a new loophole for abuses. They have defined on page 122 of their bill, the Northern Mariana Islands--that is Jack Abramoff's lobby client--with their sweat shops and sex shops as a State so insurance companies can go to the Northern Mariana Islands and the only consumer protections that will apply for a policy you buy--one of these new, great, cheap national policies--will be the laws of the Mariana Islands. Buy a policy in Oregon, call the Mariana Islands insurance commissioner, whoever that might be--maybe Jack Abramoff when he gets out of jail--and they'll help you out.