Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the Federal Streetcar Revitalization Act creates a transportation investment program that, under a competitive program, offers grants to transit projects. These projects must be justified based on a review of their effects on local economic development, land use, travel patterns, and greenhouse gas reduction potential. This program will unlock streetcar investments across the country and will fulfill the promise of the Community Streetcar Development and Revitalization Act that I introduced in 2003 and which later became part of the Small Starts program in SAFETEA-LU. Unfortunately, the implementation of the Small Starts program failed to deliver any form of federal partnership to our communities. Communities across the country have struggled to utilize the Small Starts program as the Federal Transit Administration delayed these projects. These delays caused steep cost increases and stalled worthy projects that otherwise would generate investment and development in these communities. For an example of the benefits of streetcar systems, the Portland Streetcar opened on July 20, 2001, becoming the first modern streetcar system in North America. This system has created jobs and spurred development along the streetcar corridor. In fact, the Portland Streetcar has spurred $3.5 billion in new development in downtown Portland. The streetcar system also provides tremendous environmental benefits. The Portland Streetcar is one reason that vehicle miles traveled per capita have declined by 6% since 1990 in Portland, Oregon. Providing sustainable transportation options to our communities can significantly reduce our carbon footprint. These bills will revitalize America's neighborhoods and urban spaces, while providing transit options, reducing sprawl, and curtailing greenhouse gas emissions. I am looking forward to seeing a resurgence of streetcars around the country.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act which will help prevent violence and ensure that justice is served. The special attention that hate crimes require can easily stretch local law enforcement beyond their capacity. Many of these crimes go unreported, allowing the perpetrators to escape punishment. This is unacceptable. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act provides the necessary resources to state and local governments for the investigation and prosecution of these crimes. This kind of commitment to justice is the only way to prevent such random acts of violence from occurring in the first place. In my home state of Oregon, four hate crimes have been reported this year and in 2008, twenty-nine hate crimes were reported. Just last month, a man and his boyfriend were on a spring-break trip over the weekend when they were beaten unconscious on a beach in Seaside, Oregon. Last November, a 20-year-old woman was walking along a street in Aloha, Oregon, when the man asked for a cigarette. He asked if she was gay and when she said yes, he then started berating her about her sexual orientation. Eventually he pushed her and she fell to the ground. She tried to defend herself, but he knocked her back down and struck her in the head with a rock. These violent crimes effectively terrorize the entire community and chip away at our freedoms. We must protect all our citizens--whether they are black, disabled, Christian, or gay.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the reauthorization of the Pre- Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program sends an important signal about the effectiveness of hazard mitigation in ensuring public safety and reducing financial losses in the event of a natural disaster. I am pleased that the House is reauthorizing the program for an additional three years and increasing the minimum amount that each State can receive from $500,000 to $575,000. I have been a longtime supporter of pre-disaster mitigation and the approach adopted in the 1990's by former FEMA Administrator James Lee Witt as illustrated in the `Project Impact' pilot program. The City of Portland, Oregon and Multnomah County, areas I represent, were early partners in the Project Impact program which helped to establish a flood hazard Community Rating System. By taking steps to mitigate potential flood damages in excess of FEMA standards, some area floodplain residents were able to qualify for reductions in their flood insurance premiums. On a national scale, Project Impact helped communities large and small across the country make much needed investments in hazard mitigation. In 2005, the Multihazard Mitigation Council, on behalf of FEMA, found that on average, a dollar spent by FEMA on hazard mitigation provides the nation in about $4 in future benefits. In that regard, the Pre- Disaster Mitigation program is a leading example of how the federal government can be a better partner to local communities by helping to improve public safety and reduce disaster related financial losses. It is the right thing to do for communities that are rebuilding after disasters, like New Orleans, and for those trying to avoid becoming the next victims.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, from April 12-18, 2009, our nation celebrated National Library Week and the vital role that these institutions and their dedicated staff play in supporting our communities. On April 22, 2009, the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 336, supporting the goals and ideals of National Library Week and encouraging Americans to take full advantage of these wonderful public resources. In Oregon, we pride ourselves on our strong community and a commitment to quality of life and education. Public libraries are a vital piece of this fabric and, in fact, Oregon has the second highest circulation of public library materials in the nation and the only 5- star library in the Northwest. As the economic downturn has pushed family budgets to the brink, these resources are more important than ever. In addition to public reading and visual materials, libraries offer Internet and computer access for all, free of charge. Many also serve as community spaces for gatherings and events. Another library that deserves recognition is our very own Library of Congress. In 2008, to highlight the world-class work of this institution I formed the Library of Congress Caucus, now nearly 50 Members strong. I have the distinct honor of co-chairing this bipartisan organization with my friend Congressman Zach Wamp. Our goal is to draw further attention to the nation's library, its collections and curators, and to encourage further use by Members of Congress and the public alike. The Library of Congress not only houses the much-appreciated Congressional Research Service, it also offers 1.6 million visitors access to 15 million primary-source documents and operates the Veteran's History Project and the Surplus Books Program. One of my favorite programs, the Surplus Books Program is an innovative book donation program, through which Members may send library materials to the schools and libraries in their home district. At a time when funding for libraries is scarce, this is a simple way to reduce book waste and distribute excess resources to our communities and schools where they are needed most. I strongly encourage members to take advantage of these extraordinary programs and resources, and congratulate all our nation's libraries, librarians, and library-enthusiasts.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased, along with my colleague, Betsy Markey from Colorado, to offer this amendment to create a wastewater and storm water reuse and recycling technology demonstration program within the Environmental Protection Agency. I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Gordon and to his staff for working with us to refine the amendment. This is important work that's being done. I appreciate the debate and the energy, and we are pleased to offer this small element that, I think, makes a big difference. Water reuse involves taking wastewater or storm water, giving it the appropriate level of treatment for its intended use and using the resulting reclaimed or recycled water for a new, beneficial purpose. These beneficial purposes can range from agriculture and landscape irrigation, to industrial processes, to toilets, to replenishing groundwater. It's clear that this is not necessarily a new technology. According to the Water Reuse Association, reclaimed water has been used for crop irrigation for more than 100 years and for landscape irrigation for more than 70 years. The Earth has recycled and reused water for millions of years through the natural water cycle, but the amount of water that we reuse and recycle is just, if I may use the phrase, ``a drop in the bucket'' compared to what we could be doing, which is why I think a new demonstration project is in order. Across the globe, water consumption has tripled in the last 50 years. According to the EPA, at least 36 States are anticipating local, regional or Statewide water shortages by 2013 even under non-drought conditions. As communities grow and water supplies decrease, they will be forced to seek alternative sources of water. In an era of climate change and water stress, water reuse and recycling has a great deal of potential to help alleviate pressures on water managers and to help communities become less dependent on ground and surface water sources. A demonstration program will help reduce the costs of these technologies, and it will also help communities overcome the technical and social barriers to water reuse and recycling. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I don't see my cosponsor here, so I'm the last speaker. I'm prepared to close if you have no other speakers.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I respect my good friend and colleague, the ranking member, and I appreciate what he mentioned in terms of the prior legislation, but I would say that was just research. What we're attempting here is to be able to have demonstration projects. The EPA has done a great deal of work in this area in helping communities across the country undertake recycling and reuse projects. What we're doing here is having a coordinated program in the agency rather than just a few projects here or there that would allow the EPA to do the monitoring, evaluation and documentation necessary to promote the new technologies nationwide. Reclaimed or recycled water is highly engineered for safety. Indeed, the quality can be more predictable than some existing surface and groundwater sources. Right now, only about 5 to 6 percent of municipal wastewater effluent in the United States is reclaimed and beneficially used for any purpose. In addition to enhancing water supplies, these technologies can help the environment by reducing the diversion of water from sensitive ecosystems, reducing nutrient and pathogen loads from wastewater discharges to waterways and reducing pollution from storm water runoff. So beyond research, we really need a coordinated program of demonstration. I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment to create a program to pursue technology demonstration projects at the building, site, neighborhood, and watershed scales.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, in honor of the 39th Annual Earth Day celebration, I am introducing the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009, with Representatives Donald Payne, Dana Rohrabacher, Jesse Jackson Jr., Zach Wamp, Peter Welch, John Boozman, Dan Burton, George Miller, and Jeff Fortenberry as original cosponsors. The purpose of this Act is to empower the U.S. Government to respond to the pressing poverty, security, and environmental threats presented by the dire mismanagement and shortage of global freshwater. Today, one-fifth of the world's population relies on freshwater that is either polluted or significantly overdrawn. A lack of safe water and sanitation is an ongoing threat to global security and remains the world's greatest health problem, accounting for 2 million deaths a year and half the illness in the developing world. At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa the United States and 185 other countries agreed to the goal of cutting in half the percentage of people without access to safe water and basic sanitation by 2015. I worked with the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos, and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders Bill Frist and Harry Reid to enact the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005. This landmark bipartisan legislation established investment in safe and affordable water for the world's poorest as a major goal of U.S. foreign assistance. We are halfway to the 2015 Millennium Development completion date and we must redouble our efforts. Although progress is being made through innovative partnerships between the U.S. Government, NGOs, businesses, and local partners, nearly 900 million people worldwide still lack access to safe drinking water and 2 out of 5 people on the planet lack basic sanitation services. By 2025, climate change and rapid population growth will further stress water resources and are expected to leave 2.8 billion people in more than 48 countries facing severe and chronic water shortages. The United States cannot sustainably meet its poverty alleviation, global health, or development assistance goals without addressing the issue of safe water and sanitation. This legislation answers the call to act. The overarching goal of the Water for the World Act is to provide 100 million of the world's poorest with first-time access to safe drinking water and sanitation on a sustainable basis by 2015. To accomplish this goal the legislation builds upon the Water for the Poor framework for investment, expands U.S. foreign assistance capacity, and recognizes sustainable water and sanitation policy as vital to long- term diplomatic and development efforts. The Water for the World Act complements legislation introduced recently in the Senate by Senators Richard Durbin, Bob Corker, and Patty Murray. Through this legislation we will help the U.S. government focus its efforts and fully implement a smart and efficient global water strategy that meets our commitment to extend safe drinking water and sanitation to over a billion people in need.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest environmental threats in the entire globe is the supply and quality of water. In honor of the 39th annual Earth Day Celebration, I'm proud to introduce the Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009. The purpose of this act is to empower the United States Government to respond to the pressing environmental, poverty and security threats presented by mismanagement and shortage of global fresh water. Today, one-fifth of the world's population relies on fresh water that's either polluted or inadequately supplied. The lack of safe drinking water and sanitation remains the world's greatest health problem, accounting for 2 million deaths and half the illnesses in the developing world. The bipartisan ``Water for the World Act'' builds upon the framework of our 2005 Water for the Poor Act, expanding United States foreign assistance capacity, elevating sustainable water and sanitation policy, and investing in low-cost, high-impact solutions. There are lots of things that divide us here in Congress, but one of the things that brings us together is a commitment to make the world and its environment better. And I deeply appreciate the leadership of my colleagues, Congressmen Donald Payne, Wamp, Rohrabacher, Boozman and Burton in joining me on this Earth Day to enact this important legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Spratt, for the courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, and thank you for your leadership, providing to the House of Representatives a budget blueprint that was reflective of the challenge that President Obama laid before us all a scant 3 months ago in his first State of the Union speech. The budget outline we have before us is an opportunity to do something constructive for those who want to legislate. There are some that say some Members of the House shouldn't be legislators; they should just be communicators, throwing up speed bumps and ignoring the reality of the problem that we face that the President inherited from a former dysfunctional administration that was enabled by my Republican friends when they were in charge: massive budget deficits, serious problems hollowing out the economy, a housing bubble that burst, problems overseas, and ignoring climate change not just in this country but global leadership. What we have seen in 3 short months is an opportunity in this Congress to do something about it. There is a positive choice that is brought forth in the budget resolution that would be undercut by the motion to instruct to give almost $100 billion over the next 10 years to students instead of bankers, to students instead of bankers. In States like mine with an unemployment rate of over 12 percent, and I know my colleague and friend from South Carolina has a high unemployment rate, we have a chance to help students and their families that are struggling, putting more money in their pockets, not into the pockets of bankers. This budget resolution gives us more leverage to deliver on that promise. It is a blueprint to work with the President and the legislators here who want to legislate, not just talk, to provide alternative choices to American families dealing with health care. Already in the first 100 days of the President, we have acted to extend health care to 11 million children across the United States. We have dealt in the economic recovery package with bridge financing to help them keep their health insurance if they are laid off. These are things that are part of a constructive program that's available to all who take seriously their responsibilities to roll up their sleeves and legislate.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate that. Madam Speaker, there is a concern that is talked about time and time again about reconciliation instructions dealing with climate change. I'm one of the people that would like to have strengthened the hand of the House of Representatives in this vital debate on the future of the planet and the health of our economy to give more leverage to deal with carbon pollution and to put more green jobs into the economy and money in the hands of consumers, not utilities that are polluting. But that's not there. I would strongly urge my colleagues to reject this motion as they rejected an ill-considered 5-year freeze on some of the most important spending on behalf of our constituents that the Republicans offered up. We rejected that, wisely, and I'm pleased that many Republicans voted against it because it was so ill considered and draconian. It is time to reject this motion and get to work.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Absolutely spot on, and I hope that you can stay with us. We have been joined by a number of our colleagues here, and I would like to be able to move as quickly as I can to include them, because we have truly outstanding leaders. I want to turn next to John Hall, with whom I have been privileged to serve on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Our colleague, Congressman Hall, has been a leader in the environmental movement long before he came to Congress. In fact, my wife has music that he recorded, a song that maybe he will sing here from the floor, but a man truly ahead of his time, multitalented and passionate about how we save the environment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it was enjoyable to listen here to my colleagues from the other side of the aisle with their version of what they would like the debate to be about. I do hope that the American public zeros in on what we are saying here tonight, listens to my friends on the other side of the aisle, and draws their own conclusions. This is the most important discussion that we are going to have in this session of Congress. Now, my good friend, the gentlewoman from Minnesota, doesn't think there are any problems with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's interesting to listen to her say that something that was naturally occurring simply couldn't be harmful, ignoring the fact that we have the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for two-thirds of a million years. The consensus of the scientific community, not people making things up on the floor of the House, is that this has been profoundly influenced by human activity starting with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, where we started consuming huge quantities of coal, burning fossil fuels, accelerating that over time. The consensus of the scientific community is that this is, in fact, a serious problem. The debate is going far beyond sort of the modest disputes that people may take back and forth from one another that it may not work. The new Secretary of the Department of Energy has likened it to somebody who has been given an assessment by an engineer that their house is in danger of falling down, that it has an 80 percent chance of falling down or burning up because of faulty wiring. And the response, before a rational person spends huge sums of money, they might get a second opinion. And if that second opinion says, yes, that house is going to burn up or fall down in the not too distant future, it would be not irrational to maybe get a third or a fourth. But as Secretary Chu points out, it's pretty risky business to run through all the engineering professionals until you find one outlier who says forget about it, don't worry, your house isn't going to fall down. None of us, none of us, would treat our family that way. I am embarrassed for them that they continue to trot out the number of somehow a $3,100 cost on the American public according to an MIT research analysis. Well, as I pointed out during the debate on the budget before the floor of the House of Representatives, that is a hopelessly tortured interpretation of some decent scientific research. The author of that study, John Reilly, sent, on the 1st of April, to John Boehner a letter setting the record straight. Mr. Reilly indicated that it was wrong in so many ways, it's hard to begin. The fact is that they totally misrepresented the thrust of the research and they assumed that none of the benefits would flow back to the economy or the families in question. Professor Reilly pointed out that that's a bogus number, that it is perhaps, at most, one-tenth of that amount, according to their research. And yet the Republican leadership and Republican members keep coming to the floor citing erroneous information, but it is symptomatic of the approach that they have taken to this critical issue. They ignore the fact that we are facing dramatic changes to our economy, to the health and future of our family, to our way of life, to the environment, if we continue down this path. Sir Nicholas Stern issued a report on behalf of the British Government that indicated, according to their analysis, that the cost of inaction is five times greater than the threat of moving forward and making a change. So it's one-fortieth of what Boehner is talking about and the other Republican talking points, but they are not comparing it to what is happening to our environment now and where this path is going with rising temperatures, with permafrost that is no longer perma, roads buckling, changing patterns of disease, insects, problems with forests that are infected, coastal areas washed away, drought, loss of snowpack. These are things that we are facing right now in the United States. The high likelihood is that it is a result of our dependence on fossil fuels, greenhouse gases, failure to act. And if we follow this path, we are going to pay a much greater price over time. But it is not true that there are no benefits to this alternative. You know, if our friends on the other side of the aisle would ignore the advice of the Republican leadership that they not be legislators, that they be communicators, if they would ignore that, roll up their sleeves, work in the committees of jurisdiction, we would have an opportunity to have the give-and-take. We would be able to focus on optimal ways to make sure that the fees for carbon pollution are channeled back to the American public and incent new matters of economic development. We are seeing an explosion in solar and wind energy. We have an opportunity to not only create new industries, but of making America no longer the greatest waster of energy in the world. We waste more energy than any country in the world at great cost to American families. If the Republicans join with us, roll up their sleeves and look at alternative ways of dealing with the fees on carbon pollution, we would be able to provide opportunities for a whole host of new products, techniques, buildings and at the same time we can reduce the energy costs of American families. It is true that if the massive polluters of carbon pollution into the atmosphere, if they are finally charged a fee, if it is no longer free for them to pollute the atmosphere with carbon like we did with sulfur dioxide, like we did with CFCs--and, I must note, at that time industry analysts, the Republicans, apologists, some of the business associations, claim that acid rain, the trading, was going to wreck the environment. They claimed that the health benefits were not supported by science. Well, the OMB has found that the acid rain program accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits in history: $70 billion annually, more than any federally-implemented program in the last 10 years with benefits exceeding costs more than 40-1. Likewise, when we were concerned about ozone-depleting chemicals, DuPont warned that the United States' costs would exceed $135 billion and ``entire industries would fold.'' Well, the actual costs were almost 100 times less, and not only didn't DuPont fold, but they made millions of dollars selling substitutes for phased-out chemicals. Mr. Speaker, I hope that there will be some attention from the American public, attention to what the consequences will be for a fee on carbon pollution, the benefits for stopping the progress of global warming, the benefits for a whole new array of industries and practices, ways to make families safer, strengthen America, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and move us into a path in the future. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I am joined this evening by a number of my distinguished colleagues who are leaders in the efforts to protect the environment and the American public and to chart a new direction for environmental protection and the revitalization of our economy, creating jobs and saving the taxpayer money. One that I would like to turn to right now is my friend Paul Tonko from New York, who came to Congress recently, but he has over two decades of administrative, legislative and policy experience. I have been pleased to work with him on these initiatives to share the program with him, and I would yield to my friend to provide some of his insights into this issue.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I deeply appreciate your comments, your insights. We'll worry about the music later. But it is something that you have helped me with, some of the insights that you've offered on our work on the Global Warming Committee, and I appreciate your joining us. General Leave

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Congressman Himes, a new Member of Congress, but somebody who has been involved with community development and finance for a number of years at the local level in Connecticut, has already hit the ground running, being actively involved in these debates and deeply appreciate your willingness to enter into this discussion this evening.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very, very much. And I appreciate your point about the cheapest kilowatt is the kilowatt that we don't expend, that we don't have to build the coal-fired plant or even a solar collector. And we have watched what has happened over the course of the last 30 years because business now in the United States does produce more product per kilowatt than it did before. This is not going to be easy. And it's not going to be without cost and consequence. But I am absolutely convinced that the hardest part is not going to be the technology, but it's cutting through the misrepresentation and the misunderstandings and, in some cases, I think, willful misrepresentation of the facts. I was stunned to hear the gentlelady from Minnesota, from the floor of the well tonight, declare that carbon dioxide concentrations were not a problem because carbon dioxide appears naturally in the atmosphere; this coming after the EPA has finally owned up to its responsibilities and acknowledged the fact that the concentration, the greater concentration of carbon dioxide is, in fact, a threat to human health. Mercury occurs naturally in the environment. But when it is concentrated in the wrong places, it can be deadly. And we need to just be able to get to the heart of some of these issues and sweep aside some of these misrepresentations that, frankly, are dangerous, if they're not refuted. We've been joined this evening by my colleague, Congressman Massa from New York, a Naval Academy graduate, a retired Navy commander, serves on a number of committees, but important for the discussion this evening, he's on the House Agriculture Committee, and on the subcommittee that deals with conservation, credit, energy and research, both in his committee assignment and the work that he's done, in his area of upstate New York, or not upstate, I'm not saying it right. I know where it is, to the west. And Congressman, we welcome some observations and comments that you would have.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, and I appreciate your bringing this home in very real terms about what the upside has been and what you have seen in Corning as making a difference. Your point about some of the newer Members of Congress, I think, is well taken. I am struck by the range of talent that we've seen here this evening in terms of people who have been legislators, policymakers, businesspeople, musicians. We're about to hear from another colleague, Ben Ray Lujan from New Mexico. In a prior life, he was one of those people charged with actually getting it right in terms of regulation. He was chairman of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, and as commissioner, he worked to develop the renewable portfolio standard in New Mexico to increase their renewable energy production by New Mexico utilities to 20 percent by 2020. I'm hopeful that he can give some insights based on his experience as somebody who has been on the ground, working on it, bringing that knowledge to Congress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. We appreciate you making a critical point about the difference between the price in what people pay on the bill and your notion of how we are more energy efficient, we're smarter, we have competition and the benefits that you, through your leadership, did in New Mexico and now over half the States have gone ahead following. And hopefully it's time the Federal Government is able to do that as well. I wonder, turning to Mr. Tonko, if, based on your experience, actually on the ground with work in the leadership in the legislative assembly of New York, chairing the committee and your work with the entity in New York dealing with energy efficiency, if there is something that stands out in your mind as an example that illustrates this principle that you think would give us a path of what we can expect in the future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. As we're winding down, I would like to turn again to my colleague, Congressman Hall.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Congressman Himes, any last words?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your providing that context. I have been involved in the political process all my life. I have watched people meet challenges. I have watched people come up to the edge and simply not have the wherewithal to follow through. This seems to me to be one of the areas that is most exciting because of the leadership that has been articulated here on the floor. We are finding that actually we have to run to keep up with the public. We have 906 cities across America that have decided they weren't going to wait for the Bush administration, they were moving forward. Each of us have cities, college campuses, churches and synagogues in our district that are rolling up their sleeves and willing to move forward, and I find that a truly exciting development. As we are winding down, I see Congressman Massa. I appreciated your earlier eloquence and focusing in on what difference it made to your hometown. Do you have any concluding thoughts?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, you go, indeed, Mr. Massa. Congressman Lujan.