Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the so-called Bush-Cheney energy plan was developed in secret, and it was developed in secret because it was disastrous for America. It would have been bad policy for the 1950s based on subsidies for the oil, coal and gas industry, dig, drill and burn, but it was a total embarrassment and disaster for 21st century policies. Today we have a chance to reverse that, to put in place a modest renewable portfolio, but the Republicans object to renewable portfolios; to put in place a mandate on increased fuel economy, which the American people would dearly love to have more efficient vehicles, but the Republicans object to that; and investment in new technologies and new sustainable fuels to take us to energy independence, to free us from the thrall of being subject to Chavez and the Saudis and others, but the Republicans object to that too. And we would pay for it by stripping the wildly profitable oil and gas industry of some tax subsidies from the American people, and the Republicans object to that too. But despite their objections, we are going to establish a new energy direction sustainable for this country.

Get ready. You're going to hear a lot of fuzzy math, obfuscation and general BS here on the floor today; but there has never been a more clear choice between Main Street and Wall Street America.

On one side, tax relief for 22 million American families, 247,000 families in Oregon, 39,000 in my district, relief from the onerous alternative minimum tax.

On the other side, 50,000 millionaires and billionaires who manage private investment funds and exploit a tax loophole to pay a rate of taxes less than that paid by a teacher or a cop walking the beat. The bill would ask those 50,000 millionaire and billionaire investors to pay their fair share so that 22 million middle-income families can get relief from the alternative minimum tax, a tax originally designed to get at the millionaires and billionaires.

There will be gnashing of teeth because the millionaires and billionaires are very generous come campaign time. But you can't dodge this vote; Main Street or Wall Street?

It's a beautiful day within the D.C. beltway. And under the dome, another day, another free trade agreement. But on Main Street America, things are not so bright. The dollar is dropping like a rock with skyrocketing oil and gas prices.

We are borrowing $2 billion a day from overseas to buy things that we don't make here in America anymore. We have lost 5 million manufacturing jobs, 40,000 in Oregon. But this isn't the same old failed trade policy, they tell us. Not yet another platform to exploit cheap labor. It is decorated with negligible evironmental and labor protections.

And the burgeoning middle class in Peru, all three of them, are going to go on an orgy of buying U.S. goods after this passes. But the destructive, multinational, corporate-written chapter 11 core that led to the failure of NAFTA, CAFTA and other trade agreements remains at the center of this policy.

This agreement is by, for and about Wall Street, plain and simple. It doesn't address our current economic crisis. It is not in the best interest of American workers, the U.S. economy, or our national security.

The dollar is dropping like a rock. We're borrowing $2 billion a day from overseas to buy things we don't make anymore. We've lost 4 million manufacturing jobs. Millions of middle-class Americans are seeing their pay stagnant or declining.

Our current trade policy is a dismal failure. It's a failed engine for our economy. Now comes the Peru Free Trade Agreement. The advocates tell you the burgeoning middle class of Peru, all three of them, are going to go out and be a huge market for the goods we don't make in America anymore.

They tout the breakthroughs on modest labor and environmental provisions. Well, the destructive multinational-written chapter 11 provisions remain at the center of this trade agreement. If trade is the engine that drives our economy, it needs an overhaul. Instead, with this bill, we are getting a new hood ornament, some side-view mirrors and a misbegotten cousin of NAFTA as a trade policy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007, introduced by my good friend, Chairman Rahall. In 1991, I introduced the Mining Law Reform Act of 1991, which was very similar to the legislation that we are considering today. The following year, I introduced an amendment to another mining reform bill--also introduced by Chairman Rahall--that would have put a 12.5 percent royalty on hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. It is beyond belief that for the past 135 years, the law has allowed these minerals to be extracted with no royalty paid to the American people, unlike the royalties paid by oil, gas, and coal developers.

So, I am very familiar with the issues involved in hardrock mining and the efforts to reform the antiquated 1872 mining law.

Unfortunately, none of these previous measures became law. Today, however, we have a real chance at mining reform. I am glad for that.

H.R. 2262 is a vast improvement over the 1872 mining law that currently guides mineral development on our public lands. Still, it could be improved further.

In the markup of this bill held by the Natural Resources Committee, I offered an amendment that would have clarified that the royalty

provisions of H.R. 2262 do not apply to small miners, many of whom reside in my district in Oregon. The Bureau of Land Management estimates that there are approximately 3,400 small miners in Oregon that hold 10 or fewer claims, who engage in casual use of the public lands for hand panning, nonmotorized sluicing, and other small, recreational mining activities. Unfortunately, my amendment was not approved by the committee, although Chairman Rahall agreed to work with me to address my concerns.

I intended to offer the same amendment to H.R. 2262 here today on the floor, to do just that. The Rules Committee, however, did not make my amendment in order. Therefore, I rise today to speak on this issue.

I am told by Chairman Rahall and his staff that the underlying bill does not apply to recreational miners, or those miners engaged in casual use of the public lands; i.e., those mining activities that do not ordinarily result in any disturbance of public lands and resources. Sections 302 and 304 of H.R. 2622 indicate that miners engaged in casual use do not have to get a permit to mine, and section 103 states that miners who hold less than 10 claims are exempt from paying the maintenance fee required under the act.

I am told that this language, combined with existing regulations, means that recreational miners are not subject to the royalty provisions of H.R. 2622. I remain unconvinced that this is the case, which is why I wanted to offer my amendment. If it is true that small miners are not covered by this legislation, then adding clarifying language should not have been a problem. If the bill is in fact unclear, my amendment would have clarified it. In addition, my amendment would have addressed concerns raised by Chairman Rahall that exempting small miners from royalty payments was a slippery slope, and that the exemption would have reduced revenues to the Federal Government. Nevertheless, I was not permitted to offer my amendment.

Therefore, let me be clear now, it is not my intention that the royalty provisions of H.R. 2622--specifically, section 102 of the legislation--apply to small recreational miners engaged in casual use of the public lands for mining. Hand panning, the use of hand tools, and other similar activities that work public lands for enjoyment or to supplement one's income is a time-honored tradition in this country, and explicitly anticipated by a variety of Federal laws governing the multiple use of these lands. While a revamp of the 1872 mining law is more than overdue, including placing royalties on the minerals extracted from Federal lands, we must ensure that small, recreational mining opportunities are not lost. My amendment would have guaranteed protection for small miners. I am disappointed that I was unable to offer it today.

I have made my concerns known to my colleagues in the Senate, and have provided them with copies of my amendment. When this legislation reaches their Chamber, I will call on them to ensure that small miners are not subject to the royalty provisions of this bill. Until then, I will reserve my judgment on whether I will support a final conference report on mining reform.

Madam Speaker, after running up more debt than the 42 Presidents who preceded him, $3.2 trillion borrowed and spent, $9 trillion total debt on the backs of the American people, presiding over a doubling of our international debt to more than $2.2 trillion, last week he proposed that we should borrow and spend another $190 billion on the war in Iraq, nearly 600 since he launched this unnecessary war.

Subsidies to Big Oil, scandals about no-bid contracts, the President has rediscovered his long-lost, inner-fiscally conservative self. He's going to cast the first veto of his Presidency on a bill that would spend money, after an orgy of borrowing, spending and misspending on many dubious things. His target, 10 million low-income kids.

The President stands on principle. Or is it he's standing on a pile of campaign cash contributed by the insurance industry to the Republicans?

Mr. Chairman, the administration proposed a punitive fee structure aimed at the heart of general aviation; and, ironically, they would have decreased the funding needed for an already congested and overburdened system.

This bill gets us the investment we need to deal with congestion, to deal with the Next Generation air traffic control. It would allow us to partner with the airports who need to deal with their problems through an increase in passenger facility charge. It has fair treatment for the most critical component of the people who keep us alive, the air traffic controllers of America who are being demeaned by petty work rules by this administration and having their pay cut.

It gives long overdue protection to cabin flight attendants and the passengers who fly in those cabins in terms of workplace health and cabin safety. It has critical consumer protection for the first time, something that's been ignored for years here on the Hill under the Republican leadership.

It will provide security for overseas repair. Most Americans would be shocked to know that people, we don't know who they are, overseas are doing the majority of heavy work on our airplanes. This bill would begin to turn that around. And this bill does much, much more. Congratulations to the committee on their great work.

Mr. Speaker, listeners should know that, unfortunately, truthfulness is not required on the floor of the House of Representatives under the rules.

It is not truthful that somehow we are extending benefits to illegal aliens. That is against the law of the United States. It is statute.

It is not truthful that we have enacted the largest tax increase in history. That is the attitude that brought about the bridge collapse in Minnesota. President Bush told us we couldn't have a penny more to invest in the infrastructure of this country, even though we knew the bridges were crumbling. The Democrats had a list of all the insufficient bridges in the country. But the President said, no, we can't afford it. Not a penny more.

Do you know what it would cost to catch up with our bridge problem over the next 20 years? We would have to invest a lot of money, an incredible amount of money. Two weeks in Iraq every year is what it would take to fix the bridge problem in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are stonewalling us on a reasonable plan to get out of Iraq, and they are stonewalling us on more money to fix our infrastructure problems. People are dying in Iraq, and they are dying in America because of their intransigence.

Most Americans would agree that it would be prudent to have a plan to provide for the continuity of government and the rule of law in case of a devastating terrorist attack or natural disaster, a plan to provide for the cooperation, the coordination and continued functioning of all three branches of the government.

The Bush administration tells us they have such a plan. They have introduced a little sketchy public version that is clearly inadequate and doesn't really tell us what they have in mind, but they said, don't worry; there's a detailed classified version. But now they've denied the entire Homeland Security Committee of the United States House of Representatives access to their so-called detailed plan to provide for continuity of government. They say, trust us. Trust us, the people who brought us Katrina, to be competent in the face of a disaster? Trust us, the people who brought us warrantless wiretapping and other excesses eroding our civil liberties? Trust us?

Maybe the plan just really doesn't exist and that's why they won't show it to us. I don't know. Or maybe there's something there that's outrageous. The American people need their elected representatives to review this plan for the continuity of government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It was just about 2 years ago this month that we were struggling with the final details of the SAFETEA-LU legislation, in my opinion the signature legislation of the last Congress, bipartisan legislation, to improve the transportation efficiency of the United States of America, investing nearly $300 billion.

But, as good as the bill was, there were technical problems, and we are correcting those here; and, as good as that bill was, we must do better in the future.

As chairman of the subcommittee, I have already begun hearings looking toward the reauthorization which we would hope to have accomplished by the expiration of this legislation, October 1, 2009. We hope not to go through multiple continuations and extensions as we did in the last Congress.

We also need to find new resources to better address the infrastructure needs of our country. The Bush administration's own Department of Transportation estimated before the consideration of the last bill that we needed $375 billion, not $283 billion, just to keep up with the deterioration and the growth needs of the country, as pointed out by the gentleman from Minnesota.

We need to deal with congestion to improve American's lives, to become more fuel efficient, and to deal with just-in-time delivery for our businesses, to become a better competitor in the international community. Other nations are investing much more. We must do better. This is an interim step as we correct the bill from the last Congress, and I look forward to working with both sides of the aisle as we develop the next bill for 2009.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

In May, the Appropriations Committee included language in the FY07 supplemental to impose requirements on the Department of Transportation before they open the U.S. border to Mexican trucks, giving them free range across the United States of America. This language by the committee was the first step in ensuring that the Department of Transportation considered safety and security ramifications before allowing cross-border traffic and before rushing into a pilot. And unfortunately, the Bush administration immediately declared that they were in compliance with the law, making no changes in their program.

This is a paper-based program. They have not inspected physically one Mexican truck. They have not interviewed one Mexican driver. In Mexico, they have no system of drug testing, unlike the United States of America, and no certified drug-testing laboratories, unlike the United States of America. They have no hours of service in Mexico. Mexican drivers are frequently required to drive as long as 72 hours. They take drugs to do it. They freely admit that in the Mexican press.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.

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

I thank the chair and the ranking member for their support on this. This will be a tremendous step toward protecting the American traveling public. It will move us away from a system of faith- based regulation and protection to one based on the rule of law and regulations.

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

Vice President Cheney, in his usual arrogant way, refused to disclose the deliberations of his secret energy task force that gave billions to big oil and increased our dependence on OPEC. He claimed executive privilege.

Then his office illegally disclosed the identity of a secret undercover CIA officer, Valerie Plame. They claimed executive privilege.

Now, we find that the Vice President is mishandling classified information in volumes in violation of Executive Branch regulations. And we have the astonishing assertion that the Vice President is not part of the executive branch. Rip up those civics text books kids. Dick Cheney is above the law and the Constitution of the United States, according to his attorney. Or perhaps he's just that higher power that George Bush refers to every time he has to make a difficult decision like launching an unneeded war in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I will be brief, given the generosity of the chairman.

This amendment would prohibit the Selective Service from conducting a full-blown nationwide exercise of a mock draft. This House just voted less than 2 years ago, 404-2, against reinstitution of the draft. There is no scenario under which the Pentagon, the White House, or this Congress believes we are going to return to a draft. These funds would be wasted with this exercise.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that the other side is reserving a point of order on this because of a previous objection to an amendment which would have allocated $425 million into the Safe and Secure Rural Schools program, a program which I very much support. I am on the authorizing committee and I can assure them that the authorizing committee is determined to move forward on, one of the authorizing committees at least, in the near future. In the last Congress, the Resources Committee did act and the Agriculture Committee did not on reauthorizing this program.

So we are engaging in that process in good faith and hope to be working with our friends on the Appropriations Committee in the not- too-distant future to extend this program for a number of years as we phase it down.

But in the interim, the Appropriations Committee and this Congress did, in the emergency supplemental, approve 1 year of temporary funding, which was excellent. It staved off disasters in county after county in terms of closed jails, loss of rural sheriffs patrols and many, many other vital services.

But, unfortunately, in doing that there was an oversight, and it is a simple oversight, easily rectified if there is not an objection. One of the most beneficial parts for the Federal taxpayers generally beyond the services that are provided within the counties and school districts across America is the Resource Advisory Committees, committees made up of a broad cross-section of communities across the Western United States, both environmental, timber interests, general community members, who have come forward, worked collaboratively, and have put 15 percent of the funds under the program, reinvested it back into the Federal lands, providing tremendous benefits ecologically to those lands, economically, in terms of thinning projects and other things, things that were not within the budget of the United States Forest Service or the Department of the Interior in the case of the O&C lands.

Unfortunately, since these committees, which are widely applauded in a bipartisan way across the Western United States, were not reauthorized, this language simply would give them authorization to monitor the ongoing activities.

It is extraordinarily noncontroversial, and it would be extraordinarily regrettable if in some sort of a misplaced tit for tat there was an objection to this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my remaining minute.

Mr. Chairman, to the point of order, again, the gentleman is technically correct. But again, unlike the previous amendment, this amendment not only does not cost money, it actually benefits the Federal Government and the Federal taxpayers.

I wish the gentleman would reconsider that point and not target this because of an earlier debate on a different issue having to do with spending levels. This actually would save the taxpayers money. I would ask that the gentleman reconsider his objection.

We have heard speaker after speaker on the Republican side say how concerned they are about spending. The minority whip stood in the well and castigated the Democrats for spending. He has $950,000 of earmarks in the bill.

The woman from Colorado has $150,000 of earmarks in the bill.

If the gentleman is so sincere, let's entertain a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. Chairman, is it in order to make a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Republicans be allowed to voluntarily strip their $45 million of earmarks from this bill, which would save one-quarter of the amount of money that the gentleman is trying to save by cutting all the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

In conclusion then, we have a bit of hypocrisy here. They want to complain at the same time as they put the projects in their pocket and they go home and brag about it. They brag about how they want to cut spending in Washington, and they brag about the money they bring home.

I believe in investment in America in many ways, and this bill is making many crucial investments in America.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

My amendment presents the Members with a very simple choice: Do we want to continue to fund a government agency whose mission is obsolete, and whose expertise the President, the Pentagon and the House have all said will never be called upon, or do you want to fund a program that has a presence in every State in the Union and the territories, and helps small businesses, creates jobs and returns $2.82 in Federal revenue for every dollar invested?

Seems a simple choice to me. Perhaps not, but we'll see when we get to the vote.

Thirty years ago Jimmy Carter created and reactivated the Selective Service System. Now, he said this was symbolic, to send a message to the Soviet Union which had invaded Afghanistan. Well, today the United States of America is in Afghanistan in pursuit of the Taliban and al Qaeda and attempting to pacify that country. Surely that symbolism is no longer needed.

No one, no one in this House, two people, in fact, the last time we voted, said they wanted to reinstitute the draft. No one downtown at the administration says they want to reinstitute the draft. No one at the Pentagon says, under any scenario, that they envision reinstituting the draft. They prefer the All-Volunteer Force.

So if we were to transfer $10 million from this obsolete, Cold War, symbolic bureaucracy which has no function in today's society, in today's world, and is not necessary for today's readiness, we could create tens of thousands of jobs across America and assist small businesses to begin to create even more jobs.

I believe it's a very simple choice: $10 million from Selective Service, and add

$10 million to the SBDC. The Congressional Budget Office says it's budget-neutral. There are 1,100 SBDC offices, all 50 States, DC., Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands. They're a collaborative effort. This is not a bureaucracy. This is not dumping money into the maw of Washington, DC.

State, local governments, the private sector and education community serve more than 1.3 million small businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs a year. Every Federal dollar, as I said earlier, invested in Small Business Development Corporations yields $2.82 in additional revenue to the Treasury. A new business is opened by an SBDC in-depth client every 33 minutes in the United States of America. Our entrepreneurs need this help.

Similarly, these clients create a new job every 7 minutes and generate $100,000 in sales every 9 minutes. What a great return on a Federal investment, to help American entrepreneurs put people to work in this country and make us competitive in the international community.

In my home State of Oregon, the SBDC has created 3,300 new jobs, generated new wages of more than $53 million. The SBDC has served more than 6,000 small businesses in Oregon alone. Across the Nation those numbers are obviously much larger.

The Association of Small Business Development Centers requested funding of $110 million for SBDCs for fiscal year 2008. That would essentially provide a catch-up for all the years in which their budget was restrained or cut by the previous Congress and the administration. That could create 110,000 new jobs, save an additional 110,000 jobs, and make $11.7 billion in new sales, preserve $8.4 billion in existing sales, and obtain $4.5 billion in financing to grow businesses, and generate $310 million in new Federal revenues for economic growth.

This, I believe, is a great investment in America. We do not need to continue dumping maw down the bureaucracy of the Selective Service System. They've been incompetent since day 1. Commercial databases could better provide the data we need if ever a draft were needed. And even if a draft were needed, guess what? We have no training capacity, so the people who were drafted would have to wait 6 months to a year in any case.

So we don't need an active, on-the-edge Selective Service System in this country for a draft that no longer exists and only two Members of the previous Congress thought should exist.

I believe this is a commonsense amendment. Put Selective Service in deep stand-by and help the Small Business Development Corporation live up to its full potential creating jobs and economic potential for this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.