Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to have the opportunity to support H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvements Act of 2009. I would like to thank Representative Sarbanes, Representative Lynch, Chairman Towns and Representative Wolf for their leadership on this legislation and for working to improve the lives of government employees across the country. Giving people the flexibility to work from home, when possible, makes the federal government a more productive and environmentally responsible employer by saving money, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, decreasing congestion and improving productivity. Currently only 10 percent of eligible federal employees telework on a regular basis, even though many federal jobs would be well suited to teleworking. 95 percent of federal government employees expressed interest in teleworking, but the majority of these workers said there was not adequate support from their agency to do so. This bill will give federal workers the flexibility to telework when appropriate. There are many private companies, such as Intel in my home state of Oregon, where up to one third of employees telework regularly, and these companies have seen increased employee satisfaction, employee retention, and an average savings of $4,500 a year per employee in transportation costs and time savings. Unfortunately, teleworking is a case where the federal government has missed the opportunity to lead by example, and now we need to catch up. Federal government employees should be able to take advantage of the same technology for workplace flexibility, time savings, and environmental benefits that private sector employees do. This winter, the federal government was essentially shut down for a week because of snowstorms. Even with the minimal support in place for teleworking, estimates suggest that the federal government saved $30 million a day, because of teleworking. Finally, we cannot discuss the importance of telework without looking at the environmental impact. The Telework Exchange estimates that if 20 percent of Americans were to telework, we could eliminate 67 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually and reduce Persian Gulf oil imports by 40 percent. More to the point for this legislation, if all eligible federal employees were to telework for two days per week, it would save 2.7 metric tons of pollution each year. This bill is an important first step, and I would also like to encourage my colleagues to look at the telework provisions in legislation I have introduced. H.R. 3271, Green Routes to Work, is a collection of green commuting tax incentives. The legislation promotes a variety of commuting methods, including transit, bicycling and walking, but it also provides a tax credit for qualified teleworking expenses. I hope that my colleagues will look at Green Routes to Work as another tool to incentivize teleworking. Encouraging teleworking will help the federal government be a better partner as we look for ways to improve families' quality of life and make all communities safer, healthier and more economically secure. Putting money back in individuals' pockets, saving the federal government money, reducing carbon emissions and reducing time spent in traffic are important aspects of a livable community, and I am proud to support this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for as long as I have been in Congress, I have worked on being a proponent of ``bike partisanship,'' something that everybody ought to be able to agree on. That's why I have been appalled at the repeated attacks on cycling by the Republican leadership. The latest is for the second time, Republican Whip Cantor has offered on the chopping block Safe Routes to School. You know, this is a program in 6800 schools across the country and has been requested by three times that number. People know that children under 14, one-third of all their deaths occur when a car hits them when they're biking or walking. In my old grade school on a very busy street, these grants have reduced crashes by 25 percent and pedestrian injuries by 34 percent. This is a commonsense program supported by people regardless of their party. When children can bike or walk safely to school, we won't be worried about 300-pound morbidly obese 6th graders and a second rush hour as people take their kids to school. And then all our families will be safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the End Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, legislation that will end the expensive and unnecessary subsidies that the American people provide to the world's largest and most profitable companies. The legislation leaves untouched the tax treatment for small, independent companies. Every year, Americans file their tax forms, contributing to our nation's defense, education, and infrastructure. Yet the biggest oil companies retain staggering tax benefits that shield these companies from their tax burdens. These benefits may have made sense decades ago for a fledgling industry, but today there is no need to protect the largest and most profitable companies in the world from burdens that every other taxpayer faces. In 2008, the top five oil companies made a combined profit of $100 billion. In 2009, ExxonMobil hit an all-time record $45.2 billion in profits, yet paid no U.S. federal income taxes. In fact, they received a $156 million tax refund. To be sure, these companies face other tax liabilities. But the cornerstone of financing the federal government is the federal income tax and here Big Oil can largely offset its income with these tax subsidies. It is patently unfair that ordinary Americans must pay into a system that subsidizes this mature industry. At time when we are working to rebuild our economy and curb the deficit, America cannot and should not subsidize the most profitable corporations in the world. President Obama's FY 2011 Budget proposed ending many of these tax breaks, which could reduce the deficit and fund national priorities from education to clean energy. At the recent G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh, the administration agreed with the other G- 20 nations to eliminate these subsidies. The unique tax breaks enjoyed by the oil industry provide unnecessary and harmful incentives for exploration, drilling, and refining activities that keep America anchored to oil, a threat to our environment and our national security. The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's oil but has less than 3 percent of the proven reserves. By continuing to artificially subsidize fossil fuels, we undermine investments that will guarantee our energy dependence. It is time for our country to shift gears, end the billion dollar carve-outs for the largest oil companies, and start investing our limited taxpayer dollars in America's future rather than America's past.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, pollinators play a key role in the support of our ecosystem and agricultural production. Most Americans don't realize the day-to-day impact that bees, bats, birds, butterflies and other pollinators have on our crops, family gardens and natural habitats, but nearly 75 percent of the world's flowering plants and two-thirds of our agricultural crops depend on pollinators for survival. One out of every three bites of food we eat exists because of pollinators. Pollinator species, especially bees, bats and butterflies, are extremely sensitive to changes in their environment. In particular, Colony Collapse Disorder is threatening entire varieties of bees, including three that have recently been added to the endangered species list. One-third of all bee colonies in the United States did not survive the 2010 winter. As most pollinators are ``indicator species,'' their declining numbers provide cause for concern and should encourage us to examine how changing climate, increased pollution levels, and the increased use of toxic products and genetically modified crops is impacting our environment and our economy. I applaud the goals of National Pollinator Week and look forward to working with my colleagues on the newly formed Pollinator Protection Caucus.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Conference Report on H.R. 4173--the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. This legislation will strengthen our financial system by providing new rules that bar big banks and Wall Street investment houses from the risky practices that badly damaged our economy. The legislation also enacts new consumer protections to block predatory lending practices and financial gimmickry. It was famously remarked by Professor Elizabeth Warren that it is ``impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance an existing home with a mortgage that has the same one-in- five chance of putting the family out on the street.'' With passage of this bill, Congress has ensured stronger protections for families and small businesses by ensuring that bank loans, mortgages, and credit cards are fair, affordable, understandable, and transparent. The bill has been called the ``strongest set of Wall Street reforms in three generations'' by Professor Warren. I am proud of my work with Professor Warren and I commend her efforts in strengthening this bill. The financial crisis cost us 8 million jobs and $17 trillion in retirement savings. It was the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The financial crisis limited investment, cost jobs, put families on the street, and has ushered in a sense of financial anxiety that limits American imagination and opportunity. The Dodd-Frank Act establishes a strong set of consumer protections, including a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that will be led by an independent director appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with a dedicated budget in the Federal Reserve. The Bureau will write rules for consumer protections governing all financial institutions--banks and non-banks--offering consumer financial services or products and oversee the enforcement of federal laws intended to ensure the fair, equitable and nondiscriminatory access to credit for individuals and communities. The bureau will roll together responsibilities that are now spread across seven different government entities, providing consumers with a single, accountable, and powerful advocate. The legislation also establishes strong mortgage protections. The bill requires that lenders ensure that their borrowers can repay their loans by establishing a simple federal standard for all home loans. Lenders also are required to make greater disclosures to consumers about their loans and will be prohibited from unfair lending practices, such as steering consumers to higher cost loans. Lenders and mortgage brokers who fail to comply with new standards can be held accountable by consumers for as much as three-years of interest payments, any damages, and any attorney's fees. The Dodd-Frank Act also disciplines Wall Street. It imposes tough new rules on banks to prevent the risky financial practices that led to the financial meltdown. Taxpayers will no longer pay the price for Wall Street's irresponsibility. The bill creates a process to shut down large failing firms whose collapse would put the entire economy at risk. After exhausting all of the company's assets, additional costs would be covered by a ``dissolution fund,'' to which all large financial firms would contribute. The dissolution of a failing firm will be paid for first by shareholders and creditors, followed by the sale of any remaining assets of the failed company. Any shortfall that results is paid for by the financial industry. The bill requires big banks and other financial institutions, those with $50 billion in assets, to foot the bill for the failure of any large, interconnected financial institution posing a risk to the entire financial system, as AIG did in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. Financial institutions will pay assessments based on a company's potential risk to the whole financial system if they were to fail. Before regulators can dissolve a failing company, a repayment plan to charge Wall Street firms and big banks must be in place to recoup any cost associated with the shutdown. It has been remarked that the markets will discipline themselves, that all that stands between poverty and wealth is some mythical regulatory barrier. But that is not what we found in the financial world and not what recent history illustrated. Instead, the market allowed participants to take wild reckless risks. This legislation reins in these irresponsible risks that cost us millions of jobs, millions of hours of economic productivity, millions of homes that have been foreclosed, and trillions in American savings. I look forward to passing this important legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Geothermal Energy Investment Act. This legislation will extend a 30 percent investment tax credit for geothermal energy through December 31, 2016, providing parity with the solar investment tax credit. This longer-term incentive will support substantial growth in utility scale geothermal power, distributed on-site power generation, and heating for buildings and commercial processes, while using clean and renewable American energy. Geothermal energy facilities supply environmentally-friendly baseload power while producing very low emissions. Once installed, geothermal power is incredibly reliable, with average availabilities of 90 percent or higher (compared to about 75 percent for coal plants). The United States has more geothermal capacity than any other country. In fact, if we could recover this entire resource base, our domestic resources are equivalent to a 30,000-year energy supply at our current levels of consumption. Geothermal energy resources are present in all 50 U.S. States today, and in California more than 40 geothermal plants provide nearly five percent of the State's electricity. To access this capacity, however, developers of this power source need assistance ameliorating the risks associated with geothermal energy investment. While the costs for electricity from geothermal facilities are declining, these installations are complex, long-term projects. There are significant costs involved with the exploration and development of these installations, and significant risks that the forecast resources are unavailable. The short-term incentives currently in the tax code limit long-term efforts to develop these resources. The legislation also seeks to encourage growth of new geothermal technologies, in particular small power production and direct heat uses. New technology allows geothermal power to be generated and used on-site, such as the new power generation equipment installed at Oregon Institute of Technology. Small, distributed geothermal power generation is being explored in many new areas, from Oregon to Texas and North Dakota. This proposal will encourage the development of those technologies by extending the 30 percent credit to them as well. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in reluctant opposition, but I want to acknowledge the hard work of my friend and colleague, Chairman Berman, in piloting this legislation through difficult times. He made some important improvements, and I appreciate his willingness to delay final action while the administration negotiated far-reaching multinational sanctions against the Iranian regime. I'm also reluctant because I understand what animates this legislation. We are all appalled at the repressive behavior of the regime towards its own people, the destabilizing effort it has in the international arena, and we all recoil at the prospect of nuclear weapons falling in the hands of this regime. The problem is the legislation is not likely to accomplish these ends and poses problems for this--indeed, any--administration to be able to conduct the foreign policy of the United States. I would also oppose restrictions of this nature on the Clinton administration or the Bush administration. The irony is that Congress seeks to impose its will at exactly the time the Obama administration has secured significant diplomatic success. I am concerned that enacting the legislation undercuts our credibility going forward. As long as the global economy runs on oil, Iran's massive reserves continue to make them a player. The world will buy their oil and the world will sell them refined oil products. Even with additional sanctions, the question is not ``will it work?'' but ``who is profiting and how?'' It stands likely that the Revolutionary Guard and countries like China will benefit, and not one member of the Iranian elite will lack for gasoline, while ordinary Iranians will go without. This is particularly counterproductive when one notes, by all accounts, that everyday Iranians still like Americans. Yet this legislation allows the regime to rally support by blaming the United States for hardships. They will use this as an opportunity to end their current unsustainable subsidies for petroleum products, which they would have been forced to do anyway, only now they get to blame America. This approach has been a failure in the past, notably with Cuba, where our unyielding aggressive sanctions policy, if anything, has propped up a regime that would have fallen into the dustbin of history years ago. They didn't stop North Korea from nuclear weapons. The sanctions policy against Iraq produced suffering for the people but made no difference to Saddam Hussein. Most recently, years of harsh sanctions in Gaza, much easier to enforce than against Iran, did not topple Hamas but strengthened it, while it created a very difficult humanitarian situation. This legislation will undoubtedly pass. While it makes some people feel better to seem like they are doing something, I strongly suspect it will have little constructive result on Iranian behavior--perhaps undercut support of the Iranian people for the United States and our principles--and is setting a precedent for Congress seeking to direct the conduct of American foreign policy. This goes beyond Republicans and Democrats, beyond the Obama administration. It's a path that I think we should all be reluctant to take, and it's why I am voting ``no.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to join my colleagues in designating the week of June 13th as High-Performance Building Week. Green buildings present an important opportunity: we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, help people lead healthier, more productive lives, and spur vital economic development through retrofitting, redevelopment and new development of high performing buildings. As I travel around the country, I have seen the importance of green buildings in communities everywhere. People are realizing that not only do green buildings decrease long term maintenance and utility costs, improve the health of their residents and workers and reduce our impact on the environment, they play an important role in spurring economic development and centering livable communities. I am particularly excited by the work of Mr. Anthony Malkin, who is taking on the bold and visionary plan of retrofitting the Empire State Building. When it was built, the Empire State Building marked the beginning of a new era in American cities. It's a testament to the pioneering American spirit that we're taking what was a 20th century engineering marvel and turning it into an example of what is revolutionary and necessary in the 21st century. By the time Mr. Malkin and his team are done, the Empire State Building tenants will use 49 percent less energy and provide a cleaner, healthier space for all who work there. I'm glad to see that this American landmark will help lead the way to a cleaner, greener economy. I can't talk about the green economy without discussing what's happening in my hometown of Portland, Oregon. Officials there are currently finalizing designs and plans for one of the first major living buildings. The Oregon Sustainability Center will be net zero for both energy and water, will be built and operated without using any toxic chemicals common to building materials, and will source materials and workforce from the local area. It will serve as a collaborative hub for Oregon's sustainability industry, encouraging collaboration between organizations, local governments and research facilities, and will show the rest of America showing what's possible. The Oregon Sustainability Center will be the first of the next generation in high performance buildings and I am proud that Portland is leading the way. I am proud to support this resolution today and hope that my colleagues will join me.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Nelson Wallulatum, chief of the Wasco Indians, who died on Sunday, June 13, 2010 at age 84. His tenure on the Warm Springs Tribal Council lasted 50 years, during which he oversaw many major tribal undertakings including the construction of a key hydro project, fishing rights litigation, and habitat restoration. His knowledge of the tribal way of life earned him the respect and honor of all who knew him. I found repeatedly that his presence at a meeting added dignity and perspective, to the benefit of everyone around him. Chief Wallulatum was an expert in Tribal government and the Constitution, and a scholar of the 1855 Treaty in which the Wasco and Warm Springs Tribes ceded most of their lands to the United States. He served in the U.S. Navy from November 1943 to June 1945. He was also founder of the Museum at Warm Springs and educated younger tribal members in ceremonial customs and prayers. As an advocate of returning the sacred condor to Oregon, Chief Wallulatum named the first chick born in the Oregon Zoo's condor recovery program. Chief Wallulatum, defended Tribal sovereignty, fishing rights and way of life, and inspired the next generation of tribal leadership and stewardship. His legacy is written in the land, water, and people that he loved.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. This is part of an ongoing effort which is making a difference. The job losses peaked the month that President Obama took office--not his fault. They had been building for 22 months. Now we are making some progress. Is it enough? All of us agree that it is not, but I would suggest that dismissing this because they think it doesn't solve everything would be, I'm afraid, disingenuous. I don't think it's helpful. I strongly urge the support of this legislation and then for us to continue with the task of rebuilding and renewing America, of reforming the Tax Code, and of coaxing the most out of these investments.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is personal for me. We've watched our country come back from the brink in the fall of 2008. In my State of Oregon, helped by Recovery Act funds of about $6 billion, we've been able to stabilize and make some progress. Is it enough? Absolutely not. But I've had a steady parade of people coming to my office thanking me for the investment that was made in terms of infrastructure, in terms of health care, in terms of making sure that we didn't have layoffs of public employees. Now we have a provision here that is an opportunity to focus on small business. It is a package, as the chairman mentioned, with two pieces. It's ironic that our friends are telling us that it's just not enough. These are small pieces, yet they were saying, on the other hand, the legislation we had that CBO has scored over 1.2 million jobs to as much as 2.8 million saved or created was too big. Well, we ought to be chipping away as we can on this. Having $30 billion for a small business lending fund, being able to provide a couple billion dollars of tax exclusion for small business capital formation are positive items. You know, one of the things that strikes me as ironic is that our friends on the other side of the aisle ignore the fact that the Recovery Act legislation that we had previously, 42 percent of it, was for tax cuts and for preventing the impact of the alternative minimum tax from hitting middle and upper middle-income families. Every family in America which made under $250,000 a year got tax cuts last year, and they are getting tax cuts this year. We have tried tax cuts to help move things forward. Now, this is small business lending.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5486, the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act and H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010. These bills will help small businesses grow, create wealth in our communities, and create new jobs. As we often hear, small businesses drive our economy and create the most jobs. I have heard from businesses across my district that have had trouble accessing capital to expand their businesses, to weather this economic storm that Oregon faces, and to add to their workforces. Thousands of jobs have been lost, millions of dollars of savings have evaporated, and dreams have been cast aside or deferred for far too many Oregon families. The legislation that we will pass today will ease these challenges. The legislation establishes a $30 billion fund to boost lending to small businesses by community banks. To ensure that the additional funding is deployed, the recipient community banks will owe the US Treasury a variable dividend. The more they lend to small businesses, the less they will owe to the Treasury. If they fail to lend, then the dividend obligation increases. The legislation also makes important tax changes that will benefit the small business community. The legislation reduces capital gains taxes on the small business community. Under the Recovery Act, Congress excluded seventy-five percent of capital gains tax on the sale of small business stock during 2009 and 2010. This legislation continues and expands that policy by increasing the exclusion to one hundred percent for 2010 to 2012. The legislation also improves the ability of small businesses to deduct start up costs. Under current law, a start up may deduct $5,000 of start up costs; this legislation will expand that deduction to $20,000. These costs include market surveys, initial advertisements, training costs and other costs associated with starting up a business. Oregon is still struggling with a near record unemployment rate of 10.6 percent, a percentage point above the national average. In April 2010, over two hundred thousand Oregonians remained unemployed. It is imperative that we do all that we can to improve the economy and to put Oregonians back to work.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would like to pivot, if I could, just on the last point that you made, which I think, at the final analysis, is the most important. It is important to understand history. It's important to not allow people who got us into this mess to rewrite it, to point fingers, to obscure, to try and get partisan advantage from something that they, sadly, helped create in the first place. That would be a tragedy in and of itself. But it is where we go from here, what we learn from these lessons, what we understand is required. It is outrageous to me that the spill off the Santa Barbara coast that inspired the first Earth Day was fought with essentially the same technologies that we have available today. All the time, all the energy, the resources that were thrown at it by the Federal Government was used basically by the industry to have more and more esoteric, sophisticated deep-drilling opportunities, not dealing with making sure that it was safe. So we are trapped in time 40 years at the negative end of this equation, when the ultimate disaster, which was predictable, perhaps not avoidable, but is much worse because of the focus. But it is the transition to clean energy technology that I would conclude my remarks. I see we've been joined by our friend we have referenced earlier, our colleague, Congressman Holt, who has some great legislation moving. But I would just conclude my observations that we don't want to be in a position where we continue to be tethered to the oil spigot, to have the United States consume 10 percent of the world's oil supply going back and forth to work every day, that it is past time for us to move forward. I appreciate the leadership of both you gentlemen in our livable communities issues, where we provide more tools to local government and more choices to people so they don't have to burn a gallon of gas to get a gallon of milk, that there are more sensitive land uses, that we fight against mindless sprawl, that we give people an alternative to the automobile in case they don't want to drive or can't afford to drive or maybe there are some people that we all know who probably shouldn't drive--giving them choices to walk and use transit, cycles; be able to make a system that is more sustainable, that is complemented by a clean energy future with tidal, wind, solar, geothermal, and investment in making our facilities now more energy-efficient. We have the capacity right now, with what we know how to do, things that we have off the shelf or almost ready for installation, we could be completely Kyoto-compliant, save consumers and taxpayers money, and preserve our national security. I hope that this is one of the lessons we carry away, not just understanding history, not just taking some of this terrific legislation that will help a difficult situation be a little better and take the taxpayer off the hook, but make sure that we are not in this dependency in the future. Thank you. And I really appreciate your leadership in presenting this today and your courtesy in permitting me to take part.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate his leadership, and I think it is important for people to understand the genesis of the problem that we are facing here now. We've heard some of our friends on the other side of the aisle come to the floor somehow trying to lay this at the feet of the President of the United States, but sadly, what has happened here in the gulf is a direct result of policies that we have seen implemented by our friends on the other side of the aisle when they were in charge, particularly under the watch of President Bush, where it was routine to come to the floor repeatedly in efforts to undercut environmental protections, where agencies that were supposed to regulate the industry were stopped with refugees from the very industries, from lobbyists and association executives who are going back now and looking at from whence they had come. We had situations that, by the end of the Bush administration, it was clear in the MMS that there were people in that critical agency tasked by law with the protection of the public interest who were not only avoiding that responsibility, they were literally in bed with the industry. I look forward to an opportunity in the course of the next few minutes to discuss with you further the genesis of the problem that we face and approaches that we should be taking to make sure that we're no longer held hostage to what even President Bush referred to as our addiction to oil.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. As I am listening to your presentation, talking about what could have happened, what should have happened, and looking at the magnitude of the devastation that we are facing in an ongoing disaster, I was reflecting on my experience here in the House under Republican control and the Bush administration where their first instinct--the gentleman will recall because he was an important elected official just across the Potomac and had a front-row view of what was happening here--that the Vice President convened a secret energy consultation group, his energy task force, which to this day has not been revealed in terms of who were the members--although we're most certain that there were people from BP, for instance, that were there-- that from the outset it was all about trying to cut through these red tape items, the environmental protection, things that got in the way of energy production, and not focusing on priorities that would have reduced our reliance on fossil fuels. Indeed, there were 105 recommendations. Only 7 involved renewable energy. We watched, in the year that followed, the Bush administration actually propose cuts in the renewable energy budget and had tax breaks that they worked on with the Republican leadership to provide incentives for more dirty oil production and consistently fought against efforts that we brought to the floor, including in some instances bipartisan amendments to raise the fuel efficiency standards that hadn't been increased in a quarter century. I'm reflecting on that and saddened that that was the thrust for most of the last decade, instead of putting us in a position where we would be less reliant and have better protection.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I do appreciate our friend from Colorado talking about the history here, because we hear people come to the floor to somehow lay this at the foot of President Obama, who has been busy since the moment he took office dealing with a series of disasters that he inherited. But the approach that has been taken by the Republicans when they were in the majority actually set the stage for this. In 2003, they added an exemption for all oil and gas construction activities from the provisions of the Clean Water Act. They had a stipulation that the BLM had only 10 days to make drilling permit decisions. They had new authority for the Department of the Interior to permit new energy projects in the Outer Continental Shelf without adequate oversight or standards and then providing, on top of that, $2 billion for already profitable companies to drill in ultradeep water. It is absolutely scandalous that we have had this steady assault. Luckily, we stopped that in 2003 when the other body used the filibuster constructively. But we faced it in 2005, as they actually were able to put those provisions in place, which our friend from Colorado and you, sir, Mr. Connolly, have pointed out. It continues to bedevil us. Sadly, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle simply haven't gotten the point. In this Congress, the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Mrs. Bachmann, who has no shortage of opinions on this, introduced legislation that would have required, would have required that the Secretary of the Interior waive any application of Federal law that requires a permit under lease for drilling. It would require a waiver from all of those nagging little requirements any time oil got expensive, over $100 a barrel, throw it all out the window, and yet has the audacity to try and shift responsibility under this. I think it is something that we all need to be focusing on and not allow the people who helped create this problem to rewrite history.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your putting in context not just the potential threat to your State of Virginia, but to all of us here who work and celebrate our capital region and the Chesapeake Bay, having those precious resources at risk. I appreciate your exploring a dimension that I must admit I really hadn't thought through adequately: the threat unregulated, indiscriminate, offshore oil drilling could pose to military readiness. Your point about what could happen in terms of naval operations and training is one that I don't think has been given voice in this debate. I have been spending a lot of time working on it. This is new information to me, and I deeply appreciate your putting it out before the American public this evening. I think this issue that we are wrestling with has many dimensions that require us to step back and expand the scope of inquiry, the need for our fixing a broken regulatory system. We have referenced the fact that the administration, despite the previous administration talking about the addiction to foreign oil, did nothing about it, and, in fact, even after we regained control, worked against our efforts to try and increase efficiencies. It's going to take time. I agree that the administration needs to move quickly to weed out the MMS. I wish they could have cleaned house earlier, but obviously these things take time. It's hard to undo 12 years of running roughshod over safety and environmental regulations in 17 months. But it is also a vivid call for a new energy future in which the deepest water is the last place we look, not the first, for new energy sources. I would look forward to discussing that further, but I know you have, Mr. Connolly, some specifics in terms of some of the legislative provisions that we have been working on as Democrats in Congress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I am intrigued with my colleague from Ohio's approach, because when the other team was in charge, we had a series of programs that undercut the ability to have government equipped moving forward: the scandals in the MMS, the appointment of people literally from the industry to sort of look at their former colleagues, people who were literally in bed with the people that they were supposed to regulate. A series of efforts, the litany that we have heard from our colleagues when they were in charge was to cut back on regulation, to move it faster, to do more drill, baby, drill. And with all due respect, I think looking at the history of 10 years of moving in the other direction, to now somehow fault the administration, who inherited an unparalleled economic collapse, problems with EPA, with MMS around the whole array of areas that are a consequence of policies that were put in place by our friends on the other side of the aisle. I feel it's somewhat ironic that we are celebrating Ocean Day on the 51st day of the disaster. I am hopeful that it is an area that we are not somehow going to spend--I am happy to go toe to toe with my friend in terms of what the Republicans did and their policies to strip the Federal Government of the ability to move forward, but I think what we need to do is talk about where we are going forward to reduce our reliance on imported oil and domestically produced fossil fuels. We need to move to a cleaner, greener approach, where we have more energy efficiency. We absolutely need to be aggressive in making sure that the laws are enforced. We need to have people who stop being apologists for the industry, whether it's BP or mining disasters, and move forward with a new era of more efficient-energy use, and respect for the oceans. I am honored to be on the floor with my colleague Mr. Farr, who has been a champion for as long as I have been in Congress in this area that deserves far more attention, far more resources, far more work on the part of the Congress. I would hope that respect for the oceans, that research and protections would be something that brings us together so that not only do we avoid disasters like this in the future, but we are able to do a better job with the wide range of areas that are going to make such a difference for the future of the planet.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Green Railcar Enhancement Act of 2010 with 49 of my colleagues. This legislation will help save a critical domestic industry, create 32,000 to 50,000 family-wage jobs, enhance the fuel economy of freight rail, and reduce the carbon emissions of the freight and logistics industry. As a result of the financial crisis and subsequent recession, the freight railcar industry neared collapse. New car deliveries declined from 75,000 in 2006 to fewer than 10,000 in 2010. Only a handful of suppliers remain operating today and there is great concern that several of them may not survive this downturn. Without any action to pull forward some future market demand, the potential loss of the American rail supply base is at great risk. The Green Railcar Enhancement Act provides a 25 percent tax credit for replacing or rebuilding old, inefficient railcars. The tax credit is limited to cars built in 2010 or 2011 and requires a minimum 8 percent increase in capacity or fuel efficiency. In effect, the legislation shifts market demand from 2012-14 to this year and the next, which will help the rail supply industry survive these two treacherous years. This bill will continue to improve the great efficiency of rail transportation, which currently gets 480 ton-miles to the gallon. In fact, if 10 percent of the long-distance freight currently moved by truck switched to rail, then the national fuel savings would exceed one billion gallons each year. Requiring increasingly efficient rail cars will improve these figures. Upgrading our fleet of railcars will also make the rail industry more competitive, reduce costs for consumers, and will help relieve our congested highways. In fact, one freight train can carry a load equivalent to that hauled by 280 trucks. Shifting the movement of freight to rail clears congestion from our roadways, eases wear and tear on our commercial corridors, and clears our air. In addition to these environmental and system capacity benefits, rail transport continues to be a leader in worker safety, with one of the lowest worker injury rates in the transportation sector. Finally, by helping to pull market demand forward, our Nation will maintain the strong railroad supply industry and manufacturing base necessary to the Nation's defense. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, as we prepare to observe Memorial Day, the House passed a measure that makes a significant investment in our armed forces. In addition to much-needed additions in equipment, mental health care, and health services, the FY 2011 Defense Authorization Act includes a significant step forward for human rights. I am proud to say that this Congress has taken action to end the outrageous ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. By the end of 2010, it is my hope that all members of our armed forces will be able to serve our nation proudly and openly. I am also pleased that the Committee has taken my request for additional environmental cleanup funding seriously. This bill provides $20 million over the President's request, which is a small, but important first step. Our nation has tens of millions of acres of land that are contaminated with toxins and munitions left over from military training. Much of this now serves as parks, housing, or business development where Americans work and play every day. Yet the last of these sites won't be cleaned for another 250 years. It was my hope to include a provision, which I submitted to the Rules Committee as an amendment with Representatives Brown-Waite and Farr, to require that the military notify families and businesses living and operating on these sites. I am disappointed that this simple and commonsense amendment was not made in order, and it is my intention to offer it as a stand-alone bill. Americans have a right to know. The continuous commitment to the escalation in Afghanistan concerns me greatly. The money and effort is misplaced and ultimately ineffectual. I am also disappointed that the House voted to preserve funding for the extra engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. I have opposed this program for years, as have President Obama, Secretary Gates, the Army, Navy, and Marines. This is a sad reminder of how parochial interests can overwhelm good policy, and I will work with my colleagues to remove this funding in conference with the Senate. I also look forward to working with my colleagues to clarify the Department's role with respect to the siting of wind energy projects, and to clarify the bidding process with regards to the Army's M915 truck. No bill is ever perfect, and I will work to refine and strengthen this legislation through the conference process.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. We are watching the harsh reality of governing without any meaningful Republican participation. It would have been an opportunity as we were moving forward to act as if they were actually legislating. People who were part of the party could have been able to zero in on some of these things. I personally am absolutely committed to deal with the SGR problem. This bill is a step forward to deal with it. It is not as good as what we had passed earlier in the House. But it is interesting that our friends on the other side of the aisle just took a hike, decided to be negative. One of the best examples is their hypocrisy or willful ignorance when it comes to the stimulus. I talked to hundreds of people who were here in town, and I'm sure some of them made it to Republican offices as part of the construction industry fly-in. All were thankful for the investment of the economic recovery package that kept people working in construction. Not just the thanks from teachers, firefighters, energy industry who have benefited from the jobs that have resulted, but they heard that particularly from infrastructure companies, if they cared to listen. I find a certain amount of disingenuous argument here when people are saying, well, we can't use emergency funding to help unemployed people in America. It should, instead, be funded by raising taxes or cutting programs. These are the same people that funded not billions of dollars, but hundreds of billions of dollars year after year after year in emergency spending for the war in Iraq, which was absolutely foreseeable, predictable, and they paid for that ``off the books.'' But when it comes to Americans unemployed, well, all of a sudden, then, we want to be more stringent. Last but not least, I appreciate what is done with the committee in terms of infrastructure. The Build America Bonds, lifting the caps on sewer and water financing, that will put people to work. Is this a perfect bill? No. But I think it's an important step forward. It keeps the principles moving, and it ignores the hypocrisy that we're hearing on the other side of the aisle. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy. I rise in support of the rule. I am pleased that we are going to be allowed to debate the wisdom of having two jet engines for the Joint Strike Fighter. I strongly hope the amendment that I have cosponsored along with Mr. Larsen is in fact approved, adding $485 million to reduce the deficit. It is an issue that I feel deserves debate, and I think people looking at it on the merits will understand that we don't need a second engine, that we can agree with the Secretary of Defense of the administration, and indeed the previous administration. I am, however, a little frustrated that we continue to shortchange our efforts to deal with the toxic legacy of unexploded ordnances from military operations in the United States on our soil for the last 200 years. I had attempted to have a minor amendment to at least have the Department of Defense tell people in the community what the risks are from these toxic chemicals, from fuels, from unexploded ordnance. People who are building schools, child care centers, and housing developments have a right to know what could happen, particularly since we are underfunding cleanup. The gentlelady who is managing the rule is going to have another 50 years before the last site is cleaned up in her district--better than waiting for 200 years. We can do better.