Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 3513, the Copper Salmon Wilderness Act.

The Copper Salmon Wilderness Act would permanently protect nearly 13,000 acres in the headwaters of the Elk River on the southern coast of Oregon, and designate more than 11 additional miles of the river as either Wild or Scenic under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This legislation would protect some of the last remaining stands of Port- Orford-cedar in the Elk River watershed, which has the distinction as one of the most productive salmon and steelhead rivers outside of Alaska. This is rugged, wild territory, and I am hopeful that it may finally become wilderness in the 110th Congress:

Renowned among fishermen, the Elk River watershed is one of the last intact watersheds on the southwest Oregon Coast and is widely regarded as Oregon's last, best coastal salmon and steelhead stream. Oregon State University researchers have concluded that the Elk River is one of the healthiest habitats in the lower 48 states for anadromous fish, and the stream is home to chinook salmon, winter steelhead, coho salmon, cutthroat trout, and rainbow trout.

One of the things about this legislation about which I am most proud is that diverse stakeholders have been working together for more than a decade to gain broad support for protecting the Copper Salmon area. H.R. 3513 enjoys backing from Curry County Commissioners, local elected officials, the local Chamber of Commerce, hunting and fishing groups, tribes, the timber industry, and all local conservation groups. This is a model for the community-based consensus approach to designating wilderness.

Copper Salmon is truly a rare coastal Oregon gem. It is almost entirely intact ancient forest, which supports healthy fish runs and great elk herds, blacktailed deer, bears, and other wildlife. It is adjacent to the existing Grassy Knob Wilderness, and combined, these two areas will be one of the largest intact areas of forest in the Coast Range. This is an area that deserves protection for the enjoyment of future generations.

I am a proud advocate of protecting the Copper Salmon area, and urge my colleagues to join me in the passage of H.R. 3513, the Copper Salmon Wilderness Act.

Well, the presumptive Republican nominee for President, John McCain, wasn't kidding when he said he didn't understand the economy. He has proposed a gas tax holiday. Now let's think about it for a minute. Gas today costs three times as much as it did in 1993, but the Federal gas tax hasn't changed since 1993. So what is the cause of the big run-up?

Well, it might be the $40 billion record profit at ExxonMobil and the $400 million exit given to their last CEO. That might be part of it.

It might be the OPEC cartel colluding to drive up the price of oil and restrict demand. Or it could be the hedge fund speculators and others on Wall Street driving up the cost unnecessarily so they can make money.

But the nominee of the Grand Oil Party, the GOP, he's not going to take on Big Oil. He's not going to take on Wall Street. He's not going to take on OPEC. What he is going to do is cut Federal investment in our crumbling infrastructure, put hundreds of thousands of construction workers out of jobs, and condemn even more Americans to being jammed on congested highways that need improvement and bridges that are collapsing where we don't have the money to rebuild.

Well, the Grand Oil Party is at it again. $500 billion in profits to the oil industry since George Bush, the oil man, and Dick Cheney, the oil man, took office. Remember what they told us? They could deal with the industry. They'd talk the prices down. They could deal with OPEC. They'd talk the prices down. OPEC is violating international law. The President won't file a complaint in the World Trade Organization for their illegal constraint of production which is driving up the price. The President refuses to take any action against his friends in the OPEC consortium or cartel.

Now the big oil companies, $40 billion in profits for one, ExxonMobil, last year, their generous campaign contributors, the GOP, Grand Oil Party, is doing very well. But now they're crying crocodile tears here on the floor and saying they really care about consumers, after the Bush-Cheney energy bill, which gave subsidies to ExxonMobil who made $40 billion last year after the Republicans refused last year to strip those subsidies from the oil companies? They complain about the high price to consumers. They're born-again consumer advocates. That's great.

I've been a consumer advocate for a long time. I have consistently supported a windfall profits tax. I've also consistently said we've got to go after the OPEC cartel and file the complaints. And we need new technologies, and we need new fuels, and we need conservation. None of those things were in the Bush-Cheney energy bills written behind closed doors by big oil and the GOP, the Grand Oil Party.

But now, their presumptive political nominee, Mr. McCain, has come up with a great idea, let's suspend the gas tax. Now, let's see. In 1993, the gas tax was 18.3 cents a gallon, and gas was $1.05 a gallon. Today, in my district, gas is $3.50 a gallon, and guess what? The Federal gas tax is still 18.3 cents a gallon. That money is a tax. It's a tax going to big oil and OPEC and to hedge fund speculators who are driving up the price of oil. That's the tax the American consumers are paying. They won't take on OPEC, and they sure as heck aren't going to take on their friends in big oil.

We're willing to do that. And suspending the gas tax, now I would ask the presumptive Republican nominee, Mr. McCain, if we suspend the gas tax, how many highway projects and bridge projects are you going to cancel? How many thousand people are you going to put out of work when you already have a deficit in the trust fund? If you want to give relief to the American consumers, target the real culprits. It is not the gas tax that's been flat for the last 15 years; it's big oil and it's the OPEC companies and the hedge fund speculators on Wall Street. Let's go after them.

Madam Speaker, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, John McCain, has a solution to skyrocketing gas prices.

Is he going to take on Big Oil, their price gouging, and their obscene profits? No. Is he going to take on OPEC and their collusion to restrict supply and drive up the price in violation of international trade law? No.

Is he going to take on the hedge fund speculators on Wall Street that are driving up the price unnecessarily 50 cents a gallon so then they can make money? No.

He is going to be the GOP nominee, the Grand Oil Party nominee. He can't take that money. He has a solution. Suspend the Federal gas tax.

In 1993, the Federal gas tax was 18.3 cents and a gallon of gas was a buck. In 2008, a gallon of gas is $3.50. The Federal gas tax is the same 18.3 cents. It's dropped to 5 percent of the cost.

If we follow his plan, we will cancel hundreds of needed bridge projects and highway projects across the country, throwing construction workers out of jobs, an already hard-hit sector, or maybe he is just going to borrow the money after he cancels the gas tax, because the only thing going up faster on the Republican administration than the price of gas is the national debt.

For a Republican minority, and particularly the gentleman from California, who whine day in and day out about their inability to offer amendments to even the most minor of bills, I've never seen a group so eager to give up their right, in fact, the right of every Member of this House to offer an amendment to this trade agreement in a rush to rubber-stamp yet another failed so-called free trade agreement.

As one Republican pointed out, yeah, its been the policy since 1974. Guess what? 1974 we were the manufacturing colossus of the world. We ran trade surpluses. We had a robust middle class in America. It was bad policy then. But after 24 years of that bad trade policy, our manufacturing's cut in half. The middle class is losing ground. They're unemployed. We're borrowing $2 billion a day from the rest of the world, including Communist China, to buy things that we used to make here in America, and they think we should do more of the same.

I've heard this and played this game before. I've never voted for one. But every President since I've been here, Republican and Democrat, says, hey, we negotiated this deal in secret. You can't fail us now. Yeah, it's got big problems, but we'll fix them later.

Guess what? Later never comes. Because this Congress, until today, has never had a spine to stand up to the special interests that are pushing failed trade policies, policies that fail the American people to benefit a few on Wall Street. This is about Main Street.

The House is growing a spine today. This is a great day and the beginning of a new trade policy for the American people.

Madam Speaker, today, for the first time in 4 decades, the House of Representatives stood up against yet another bad trade agreement. Our trade policy is creating a crisis. It's eroding the incomes of the middle class. We're losing our manufacturing base in this country. We're borrowing $2 billion a day from overseas making us vulnerable to countries like China and others who do not have our best interests in mind as they amount huge piles of our dollars because of the trade deficit.

Now, all the pointy-headed economists out there, they have a theory. The theory is when your dollar or your currency declines, at some point you kind of get to a point where your idled capacity ramps up, your goods become less expensive, and the world begins to buy your goods and your trade deficit goes away.

I confronted an economist over that vision a couple of years ago, and I said, well, that was an interesting theory, you know, 50 years ago. Maybe it even worked.

But what I said to him was what happens to the country that doesn't make anything anymore? Doesn't that mean, in fact, as your currency drops, you're still addicted to buying the goods made overseas or you're just not going to have those goods because you don't make them in the U.S. anymore?

There is no idle capacity to ramp up. Our companies of wholesale exported their manufacturing capacity to Mexico and China in the chase for ever cheaper, more exploitable labor around the world which has been encouraged by our trade agreements. Every other nation on earth has a trade policy to take care of the people of their own country. The United States has a trade policy to take care of the corporate elite in the United States of America and to heck with the rest of our country or even national security.

So why do I come to the floor today to talk about this? Two things: One is because we finally stood up against the free trade agreement and the fast-track gimmick that has jammed those things through time and time and time again. The President negotiated it in secret. You, Congress, you can't mess that up. We will lose respect around the world. You're just gonna take it. You can't amend it. And we'll fix it later. And later never comes.

But the second reason I come to the floor is because today, to the great surprise of those pointy-headed economists, our trade deficit got bigger even though we're in a recession and the dollar is dropping like a rock toward the value of a rupee, which it will soon achieve if we don't do something to turn the tide.

So our trade deficit grew 5.7 percent to $62.3 billion. We could be headed for a record trade deficit. Now why's that? Because those same goods that we don't make here anymore are more expensive now because we're still buying them with a depreciated dollar.

Of course, the nightmare scenario is the day when oil becomes denominated in somebody else's currency and countries refuse to take our currency and refuse to continue to lend us $2 billion a day. And that day of reckoning may not be far off.

It's time for a new trade policy in America, one that brings and keeps high-value jobs here at home and gives us a future as a great power and a manufacturing power, not as a has-been.

Well, we're hearing the howls from the Republican side. Their fat-cat supporters might be forced to pay a fair share of taxes in the future, millionaires and billionaires who today are paying taxes at a rate less than that of your average schoolteacher or an Army captain. They say that that's the secret for a strong economy. Those hedge fund managers on Wall Street are doing such a great job, the people who brought us the financial meltdown for the United States of America that's hurting average people while these people are still cruising in their yachts and building their seventh and eighth homes in exotic places around the world. They need those tax cuts. That's the nostrum for a failing economy: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts for rich people.

No, how about tax fairness and how about dealing with a sea of red ink in this country. You can't do it without asking the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share. And restoring some programs that are important to the middle class. Yeah, that's right. The rich people don't need roads that are up to standard because they're in the back seat of a chauffeur-driven limousine. They don't care if they sit in traffic for a long time. They're in their private jet. They're in their walled community. What do they need for public safety? Their kids go to private schools. What do they care about public education? And, hey, they don't have to worry about the cost of health care. That's the Republican world. We're going to change that with this Democratic budget.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 936) honoring the 200th anniversary of the Gallatin Report on Roads and Canals, celebrating the national unity the Gallatin Report engendered, and recognizing the vast contributions that national planning efforts have provided to the United States, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 936.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution reaffirming our national commitment to our national transportation infrastructure. Two hundred years ago, a farsighted President, Thomas Jefferson, commissioned Secretary Gallatin to provide a report and a vision for transportation in America, to knit together the then-young Nation and to better facilitate the movement of its people, its goods, its commerce and people, and to better compete in the international economy.

For 200 years, or nearly 200 years, that vision has been maintained and has been the prevailing view here in Washington, DC.

Unfortunately, we now have an occupant of the White House and a Secretary of Transportation who do not share that vision. A recent report detailing the extraordinary state of disrepair into which our transportation infrastructure has fallen from a commission created by this Congress in the SAFETEA-LU legislation pointed to the need for a massive increase in investment at all levels, Federal, State and local, because in order just to maintain the existing infrastructure, we would have to spend more than we are spending today. We are not even treading water. We are not even maintaining a deteriorating infrastructure; we are deteriorating towards Third World status. While our competitors around the world are leaping ahead with major investments in transit and roads, bridges and highways, and with major investments in ports and waterways, we are falling behind.

In response to that, unfortunately, the Secretary of Transportation joined with a minority in dissenting from the report and essentially proposed that we phase out any Federal role or investment in our national transportation infrastructure.

I can think of nothing more wrong-headed, shortsighted, or more destructive for the future of our country than to pull back from these extraordinary needs. So that's why I think it is so important that we look back, we look back over 200 years of history, we look back to the Gallatin Report, we look back to the successes that have followed upon that vision that we have been building upon for 200 years, and we set a course for the next 200 years so that we can again boast of having the state-of-the-art, most efficient, most energy-efficient transportation network in the world, which is far from the condition in which we find ourselves today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

It's already been referenced earlier by the Speaker, and by Mr. Blumenauer, that one thing we could do for the ailing American economy to put people back to work, quite quickly this year, this construction year, would be investment in our infrastructure. These would be American jobs with American products. They can't be exported. The benefits are here at home. It will make our country more competitive in the international marketplace. They help businesses with just-in-time delivery. You're now seeing trucks detoured by 100, 200 miles because of failing and weight-limited bridges. There's a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done.

It would also make us more energy efficient by helping to obviate some of the congestion that we're currently suffering from, the detours that I already mentioned.

If we set a goal, for instance, of looking at our largest cities, having 10 percent of people take transit to work, we could save 40 percent from the oil that we currently import from the Middle East. That would be tremendous for national security, our balance of trade, and great for the American people and good for the environment.

Now, some might say that's too ambitious. Well, I just came back, or I took the committee on a trip to Europe. In London, more than 85 percent of the people ride transit to work. And in Barcelona, they're investing more money in one addition to their subway system, which is at capacity right now, than we're investing in all transit in the entire continent of the United States of America.

We are not pushing the margins here in terms of our investment. We can do better and we can learn from the past and, at the same time, look to a more transportation efficient future by observing this commemoration of Gallatin and beginning to construct our own version of a Gallatin report as we move to the reauthorization of the surface transportation and transit legislation in 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

The Bush administration presided over the creation of the housing bubble and the underlying exotic financial instruments with their typical ``hands off'' regulatory approach. Now it has exploded, and some in the administration are recognizing that the economy is in trouble, something that middle-income America and average Americans have known for quite some time.

Finally, the President and his appointees are talking about some stimulus. But they are drawing a line. They are saying yes, we will do some stimulus, but we will not invest in America. There will be no infrastructure investment. They are saying that would be bad. So far, there's no indication either that they intend to bring any regulatory discipline to the bizarre, exotic, over-leveraged, and opaque financial markets, something that also cries out to be done.

Stimulus, yes. I believe we can reach agreement on that. It needs to be targeted toward those who have been hurt the worst: Middle-income and working families. The best way to do that, the most progressive way to do that would be through a payroll tax holiday. Nearly half of the people in this country pay more in payroll taxes than they do Federal income taxes. It's a flat, regressive tax. Forty-four percent pay more in payroll taxes than they do income taxes. Lower income Americans, seniors in particular, who work part-time jobs to augment their retirement Social Security, pay no taxes, and would not get any rebates under the President's plan. They need help too. They are struggling with higher costs of medical care, fuel, and heating like everybody else in this country.

So a payroll tax holiday would be the fairest way to get money to the people who need it the most, who would be most likely to spend the money, and provide some short-term stimulus to the economy. That is short-term. But long-term we need to reinvest in America, and it is strange the President draws a line in the sand there. It is not so strange, I guess, since the Secretary of Transportation last week, Mary Peters, recommended phasing out any Federal role, any Federal investment in our roads, bridges, highways, and transportation systems in this country. She said the financial markets will take care of that, they will lend us the money, the same financial markets that are totally in the tank and having to go overseas now, the same big firms that are borrowing money from Saudi Arabia and other state funds in order to stay afloat because of all their speculation. No. We need investment in America.

Unemployment among construction workers is up to nearly 10 percent, and nearly a million are unemployed. If we just spent $15 billion on ready-to-go and needed infrastructure projects in this country; roads, bridges, highways, water and sewer systems, we could put 712,000 people to work. That's 712,000 people. We could basically wipe out unemployment in the construction trades. But the President says no. He won't borrow money to invest in America, he will borrow some money to provide some short-term consumption.

Of course, part of the problem with that is those who won't just use it to pay bills, or essentials, which many will, will be buying things that aren't made in America any more. So that money is going to leak overseas to China when they buy that flat screen television with the $600 or $800 rebate the President is proposing.

So we need both. We need a stimulus, and that will help some if it's targeted to those most in need, but we also need a long-term reinvestment in our country. It will make us more economically efficient, it will save fuel, and it will put people to work. It's worth borrowing money to do that.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 409) to amend title 23, United States Code, to inspect highway tunnels, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 409.

Madam Speaker, this legislation will fill a gap in the national inspection regime and in public safety, one that was brought to our attention by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano). Obviously, a failing infrastructure is very much on the minds of the public, given the collapse in Minnesota this last year, but, unfortunately, the Minnesota instance is not unique and it points to the need for constant vigilance and inspection of the critical infrastructure to avoid tragic accidents. And in this case, the gentleman from Massachusetts has pointed out that we do not have a regular regime of tunnel inspection, nor do we have standards which are set nationally for tunnel safety and inspection, nor do we have certified tunnel inspectors. All of that would be rectified by this legislation, so I'm very supportive of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 772) recognizing the American Highway Users Alliance on the occasion of its 75th anniversary, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 772.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 772, a resolution to congratulate the American Highway Users Alliance on the occasion of its 75th anniversary.

Founded in 1932 as the National Highway Users Conference, in 1970 the group merged with the Automotive Safety Foundation and were renamed the Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility, and in 1995 they took on the current name of American Highway Users Alliance (``the Highway Users'').

The Highway Users has always been an outspoken proponent for adequate funding for our Nation's highway infrastructure and a consistent voice for motorists and those who depend on our highways for commercial purposes.

For the past 75 years, Highway Users have expressed the interests of motorists and businesses on all major national highway and traffic safety legislation, including strong support for the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which authorized the Interstate Highway System, established the Highway Trust Fund. Since then, it's been an unwavering force for protecting the integrity of the Federal Highway Trust Fund and State Highway Trust Funds.

As we received a report last week on the state of the Nation's infrastructure from a commission that was created by the passage of the SAFETEA-LU bill, we find that we are dramatically in deficit in investing in the Nation's infrastructure. And the current administration is dramatically in denial about the deficit in investing in infrastructure, so there will be a lot of work to be done by the American Highway Users Alliance and other advocates for an improved transportation network in the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 866) honoring the brave men and women of the United States Coast Guard whose tireless work, dedication, and commitment to protecting the United States have led to the Coast Guard seizing over 350,000 pounds of cocaine at sea during 2007, far surpassing all of our previous records.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 866.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the United States Coast Guard provides extraordinary service to our Nation on a daily basis. They are providing for homeland security. They are providing in this case that we will talk about in some depth a drug interdiction to keep our citizens safe and deprive drug traffickers of easy access to the United States, and they also provide life-saving services, in addition to other routine law enforcement and monitoring activities.

This seizure is fairly extraordinary: 350,000 pounds of cocaine with an estimated street value of about $4.7 billion. That is more than half the budget of the United States Coast Guard. It is extraordinary for this, the smallest of our uniformed services, to have provided that much protection for our country.

There are 41,000 men and women in the Coast Guard who patrol our Nation's shores, gather and process intelligence from around the world every single day of the year, as I mentioned earlier, both a homeland security purpose, and in this case, to interdict drug smuggling.

Though most Americans may not often see the Coast Guard at work along our 95,000 miles of coastline, you can be certain that the effects of the service's essential work ripple down into even local neighborhoods. Drug dealers are feeling the effects of the Coast Guard's good work as they complain of short supplies in more than 35 major U.S. cities.

The Coast Guard has been guarding our coasts and securing our borders since 1790. They do so without need for special recognition. They execute their missions daily, whether it is maritime safety, environmental protection, search and rescue, maritime law enforcement or homeland security.

Due to the Coast Guard's aggressive enforcement in monitoring the Caribbean drug routes, drug smugglers have now had to resort to much more dangerous and expensive tactics providing a deterrent. They've had deterrents to specific routes, which takes them more than 1,000 miles offshore, which costs them more money and presents logistical difficulties, and yet again, gives the Coast Guard further opportunities to interdict.

Although the Coast Guard is the smallest of the seven uniformed services, it is the Nation's leading maritime enforcement agency. Interdicting drugs is an Interagency effort. The Coast Guard relies heavily on their partnerships with numerous Federal and State agencies, including the Department of Defense, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration and Customs and Border Patrol to extend their law enforcement authority.

These partnerships are a critical component of their interdiction success. They have also negotiated international bilateral agreements to allow them to conduct operations and stop illegal smuggling outside of U.S. territorial waters.

H. Res. 866 honors the brave men and women of the Coast Guard whose tireless work, dedication and commitment to protecting the United States resulted in this extraordinary interdiction of illegal drug shipments in 2007, and on a daily basis protects our Nation and our citizens.

I rise in strong support of H. Res. 866 and urge adoption of the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated member of the United States Forest Service as he concludes his 32-plus years of service to his country. Mr. Doug Macdonald deserves this honor. Oregonians are grateful for his contributions to the wise and sustainable use of our Nation's forests.

Doug Macdonald's personal and professional career accomplishments are as diverse

as they are noteworthy. His loyal service and sacrifices for over three decades working in the communities of Oregon are a testament to all who use and appreciate our public lands. I would like to take a moment to reflect upon Doug's career as he makes the transition to life beyond Government service.

Born in Yakima, Washington, Doug learned to speak Japanese before he spoke English because he spent time in Japan as a toddler while his father was serving in the Armed Forces. His family then moved to upstate New York where Doug gained appreciation for the outdoors at their home near the Catskill Mountains. After high school, Doug started college in Boston but the lure of the Pacific Northwest pulled him back to where he calls home.

Doug joined the Army National Guard where he served his country for 6 years. He graduated with a civil engineering degree from the University of Washington and in 1975 started his Forest Service career as a civil engineer trainee on the Willamette National Forest.

Doug's career in the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service included positions in the regional office in Portland, Oregon, and on the Malheur National Forest in John Day, Oregon. In 1986, Doug returned to the Willamette National Forest as the Assistant Forest Engineer and eventually was promoted to the Forest Engineer. In the 1990s, Doug was part of an international team that traveled to Indonesia for 3 or 4 weeks per year to train Indonesian foresters to design and build environmentally sensitive roads. He retires as the Zone Engineer for the Willamette, Siuslaw, and Mt. Hood National Forests. as well as the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area.

Early in his career, Doug was instrumental in developing and implementing new forest road designs that were efficient, cost effective, and more environmentally sensitive. Doug also played a significant leadership role in bringing together research science and engineering to improve hydrologic function and fish passage on forest roads and culverts. In the last several years, Doug has worked tirelessly to enhance the facilities of the Forest Service. He has forged new partnerships and inspired innovation and creativity to reduce costs and improve the vital facilities for the entire Pacific Northwest Region. In my own district, Doug was responsible for initiating a partnership to build an interagency center to house the new offices for the Forest Service, the BLM, and the Oregon Military Department. His efforts helped save tax payers millions of dollars in facilities costs.

Among Doug's numerous and exemplary accomplishments, none are more evident than the relationships he has built and his commitment to others that he tirelessly displays. Doug has touched so many people both in and outside the Forest Service. His caring for people has resulted in immeasurable benefits to the people of Oregon and our Nation.

Madam Speaker, it is with great honor for me to present these credentials of Doug Macdonald to the House of Representatives today. It is clear through all of his accomplishments that he has dedicated himself to furthering the benefits we enjoy on public lands. All of his actions reflect a true leader with a sense of purpose, commitment, and conscience.

As Doug departs from public service, I ask my colleagues to join me in delivering an appreciative tribute from a grateful nation, and best wishes to him and his family for a productive and rewarding retirement.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the commission which Congress created during the enactment of the surface transportation, the SAFETEA-LU bill, reported its results to the Congress in terms of the state of the Nation's infrastructure. The short version is that the state of the Nation's infrastructure is abysmal. We are seeing dramatically increased congestion. We are seeing bridges collapse. We are losing ground. We are not even maintaining the investment made by the Eisenhower generation in the Nation's interstate system let alone other vital national needs. It needs immediate attention.

And, of course, investment in our infrastructure will produce jobs. Large numbers of jobs will be produced should we go ahead with this needed construction, not only construction jobs but suppliers, small businesses, communities will benefit. The economy as a whole will benefit in terms of our economic productivity and competitiveness with just-in-time delivery and other concerns. And the American people will benefit in terms of more time at home, less time in commutes, less fuel wasted in congestion and backups in traffic. These are investments that need to be made.

The commission, a bipartisan commission, by a large majority said we need to be investing between $220 and $335 billion a year from all sources, Federal, State, local, and private, in the Nation's transportation infrastructure.

And today we're investing about $87 billion, about a third of the minimum they think is necessary. This is a wake-up call that's long overdue to this Congress, to this administration, and to the country about how we're losing ground. We're headed toward Third World status in terms of our Nation's transportation infrastructure. That is not acceptable.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration, the headquarters of the head in the sand folks, are saying no additional Federal investment is necessary; that all of that $220 billion can come from privatizing the Nation's highways; tolling and pricing people off the roads will help mitigate congestion. Yes, they want to toll existing highways, paid for by taxpayers, they want to put extortionate tolls on where they would charge more at rush hour. Now, if you happen to live on the east side of town and work on the west side and have to travel a congested highway, from George Bush and Mary Peters, Secretary of Transportation, the message is, quit your job, move, or tough luck, suck it up. That's not acceptable for America. We are not going to solve this problem through the fantasies of this administration. You're not going to solve it with the privatization of our existing network.

Now, in certain areas, tolling, congestion pricing and private-public partnerships, done properly, protecting the public interest, can contribute a small amount. The estimates are, generously, maybe 10 percent. But the Bush administration is saying that can do 100 percent because they're saying they will never ever support any increase in any taxes to increase any investment in the national transportation infrastructure. That's a shame. That's an incredible shame. And it is doing an amazing disservice to the future of our economy.

And as we stagger in this recession created by the policies of this administration, one of the best ways that we can begin to build out of it and to make ourselves more productive in the future and prevent future recessions is investment in our infrastructure. You can justify borrowing money to build things that are going to last 30, 50, 100 years and benefit all of the American people and our economy. They want to borrow money to give more tax cuts to the few rich people, many of whom have done fabulously well, some of whom lost their shirts with speculation in this recent market. Other sides of the speculators made hundreds of millions and billions of dollars by speculating on the collapse of the housing market, while the Bush administration and Alan Greenspan and everybody watched the bubble grow and grow and grow and grow and did nothing.

We need a concrete investment for the future, an investment in our transportation infrastructure, despite what Mary Peters and George Bush think is one of the best ways to promote the long-term health and competitiveness of the United States of America. We should begin to make those investments.

The Bush-Cheney energy policy has led America to a dead end, increasing dependence on imported oil and price gouging by big oil companies.

The new direction in energy policy to be considered here today puts America on a new path to energy independence and sustainability. It will be great for American consumers, saving billions at the pump; our businesses; our economy. And it will be great for the environment.

But it will be even better for millions of Americans in rural counties across

America. This bill also includes funding for critical county school payments. 780 counties in 42 States will get critical funding for law enforcement, search and rescue, and struggling rural schools.

My district, the Fourth Congressional District of Oregon, will avert a disaster if this legislation is adopted.

I thank the Democratic leadership for leading us in a new direction on energy and fulfilling their commitment to rural counties.

The ball was dropped by the Bush administration and by the Republicans. We're taking it up for all America here today by passing this bill.