Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Oregon lost a remarkable leader last week with the passing of Wendell Wyatt. He was a man who served his country in the FBI and the Marine Corps. He was a citizen volunteer and a leader of his political party. He also served for 10 distinguished years here in this Chamber. A Republican who could manage partisan clashes as well as chair a Presidential campaign, he was skillful in bringing people together. He shared his progressive insights from the hard-headed perspective of a principled conservative. I will miss his wit, intellect and insight, but will always cherish his friendship.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I just listened to my friend from Colorado expound upon the problems of deficit spending. Well, he's absolutely right about the deficit spending from the Republican administration and Congress. They piled up debt with tax cuts for people who didn't need it, a reckless war in Iraq on a credit card. This package that's coming before us today is actually doing something for the American people, investing in infrastructure and energy. It is looking to a plan for the recovery of the economy, using new technology and new ways of doing business, getting more value out of our investment. I am pleased that the President reached out to the other side of the aisle even as their leaders were saying before the meeting they were against his package. But I am pleased, while he reached out, he was unwavering in his commitment that our package is going to focus on the people who need help the most, revitalizing the economy, and moving us forward. I look forward to the passage today of this legislation and further refinement as we move it through Congress with our new administration.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his leadership in this area. I listened to my friend from Indiana wondering what could possibly have economic impact investing in the arts or climate change. Well, I don't know what is going on in Indiana, but if you talk to the arts groups in Oregon or in Massachusetts or in New York or Illinois, they will tell you that investments there will produce economic activity in areas that are strained and underserved. Investment in climate change and energy research creates jobs, and business is crying out for it, large and small. But I am pleased that they have come forward with their alternative. Listen closely to what the Republicans say: ``If we assume what some economic model applies to the way we would like our legislation to work, it would be twice the jobs for half the cost.'' These are the same people that told us the Bush tax cuts were going to lead to nirvana. These are the people that said that the Clinton economic programs would lead to disaster; they were dead wrong about the economy in the Clinton era. Look at the results of their models when they have been put into place: Exploding deficits, problems with the economy. I am glad, however, that they have offered this alternative, because it puts in clear relief what their priorities are: Reduce tax relief for 95 percent of the American public and give more to the few who need it the least. Take money away from 4 million students who would have this tax relief. My favorite of their proposals is to actually continue to game the alternative minimum tax to purposely push more people into it with tax gimmicks rather than work with us in fundamental tax reform that doesn't subject more people to the ATM and give us this yearly charade. I look forward to the leadership of Chairman Neal in Select Revenue, where we will fix the AMT. I strongly urge the rejection of the misguided Republican priorities, taking away the infrastructure investments that would make so much difference for our communities and undercut our American families.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's recognition. I appreciate Mr. Levin's courtesy. I have been listening to our friends on the other side of the aisle. These are the architects of the Bush economic meltdown, who have given him billions and billions and billions of borrowed dollars, blank checks, to the last administration. All of a sudden, they are fiscally interested. Well, let me just say, we just left a Budget Committee meeting where we had five brilliant respected Ph.D.s from all across the spectrum who said we are on uncharted water, you should err on the side of a larger stimulus, not a smaller, and that one of the most important areas deals with energy. I am proud that we have taken these provisions that we have been dancing around for the last 3 or 4 years and playing Russian roulette with where the private sector couldn't invest in them. It was on again, off again. Now we have made them certain and indefinite. We have encouraged these investments by increasing the level and giving them a longer period of time to cope with them. I think all of us ought to embrace this. These are provisions that are investing in our energy future. They are going to create jobs, they are going to fight global warming, and they are going to help us in the international arena.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot here on Capitol Hill about Otto von Bismarck's old sausage metaphor, that one doesn't want to watch either sausage or legislation being made. Well, for too long, Madam Speaker, the legislative process in this House was a scene right out of Upton Sinclair's graphic novel, ``The Jungle.'' But currently with a new Congress and new Administration I would say that it has been a breath of fresh air watching this legislative process. It has been open. The ingredients have been great. The legislative leadership, the new President and his administrative team, have been involved, talking with people in both parties, in both chambers, and we are moving towards a package that I think people ought to embrace enthusiastically. The economic stimulus is moving into stage II, almost the home stretch. We are putting down positions, principles and guidelines. Any timetable at this juncture is perhaps artificial in nature. The target figure of $825 billion or $800 billion or $850 billion is a little arbitrary and subject to amendment, to adjustment. Such parameters are useful, maybe necessary. They are not set in stone, and it is necessary that we do this right. What we can agree upon is to make the economic impact as soon as possible while we help rebuild and renew America to make it better. I am concerned as the process moves forward, particularly as it relates to the infrastructure portion, that we make sure that the money gets to where it needs to go. Primarily, I want to make sure that our metropolitan areas around the country are not shortchanged. The last Surface Transportation Act was held up for 2 years because people were arguing about whether States got an allocation that was fair enough. But the greatest disparity for transportation funding in this country was between metropolitan areas, which seldom got their fair share: 78 cents on the dollar in Dallas, southern California shortchanged by over $1 billion. One of the things we ought to do now, in this package while it's still in the formative stage, is to make sure that we use the existing STP allocation for all funds, not just part of the transportation funding. This formula would guarantee that metropolitan areas get their fair share and not concentrate money unduly in State departments of transportation. The second suggestion I would make is that we not use a lot of onerous paperwork to make sure that people are complying with the use- it-or-lose-it provisions. We have very powerful compliance tools. We could simply make modest reductions in future revenue streams for people that don't make their target--hold them accountable, get the spending, and be able to protect the Treasury. Third, we ought to consider having local incentives for people that are actually going to reach in and put more of their own money into projects, being able to provide some modest incentive so that we reward and not penalize those who will get more money into the economy faster. Last, we ought to assure that States put the money where it can be spent. For example, if the State of New York has areas that can't take advantage of their allocation in time, but there are areas that can, we encourage the shift. The City of New York has almost $2 billion worth of projects that could meet that 2010 guideline. We ought to put language into this bill that encourages States to reallocate to areas that can use it, not risk losing it. We ought to make sure that we don't shortchange transit investments. I think we ought to go back to the marker laid down by Chairman Oberstar last December, of $12 billion; that ought to be a recommendation as a floor for transit. This would assure that we are able to make investments in these transportation activities that actually create more jobs than other types of transportation investments. Transit is very job intensive. A perfect example is a project we have in Portland, Oregon, where we have had stuck in the Department of Transportation a ``small-start'' streetcar expansion project for months. It meets all the statutory criteria, but the Bush Department of Transportation and their FTA and OMB could not figure out how to allocate the money. They couldn't even issue ``small start'' administrative rules that complied with the statute. This is an opportunity to be able to jump start something that would not only be millions of local dollars for the transit project, but it would incent millions more for related development along the alignment. And it's not just Portland, Oregon; it's Tucson, it's Seattle. We have a chance to jump start a new American industry for streetcars for the 80 communities around America who want to move in this direction, even manufacturing streetcars in America for the first time in two-thirds of a century. I urge we move in a positive way. Support transit, support our metropolitan areas, get our economy moving while we revitalize our communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate his leadership on this. I just listened to our new colleague from Wyoming, and I am trying to track her logic. I was one of the people who had deep reservations about the original bailout proposals. I had even more skepticism about the people to whom bailout money was going to be entrusted in the White House. But most, I was concerned that it was not addressing the various things that she is disparaging, like homeowners in economic free fall, people dealing with student loans. We were throwing all of that money at large financial institutions while not dealing with millions of Americans in a desperate circumstance that is, after all, fueling the problem of the economic spiral. I thought that was misguided. I rise today to oppose the resolution which would take away one of the tools to be given to the new administration to address it properly. I have watched, under the leadership of Chairman Frank, as we have tried to redirect, to prod and push and probe to make sure that there is greater transparency and coax greater performance out of the Bush administration while dealing with the criteria by which we will be going forward. This is the work that the Congress should be doing, and I think we are doing it in a reasonable fashion. It's coming in the context of other tools that the new administration has sought and desperately needs. I came to the floor, leaving a markup from the Ways and Means Committee, where we will be looking at several hundred billion dollars of targeted tax relief that's going to make a difference for those American families. There will be a significant package coming forward for economic stimulus dealing with rebuilding and renewing America, energy efficiency, with roads and bridges, transit and bikeways; things that will make a difference over the course of the next few months and next few years to re-start the economy. We are taking stock. We are exercising not just oversight of a new administration--and I have no doubt, no doubt that the Financial Services Committee, under the chairmanship of Chairman Frank, will make sure that the directions, that the accountability, the transparency that has been promised, we will follow through. Most important, before we get to oversight, is this notion of partnership--partnership with the new administration, partnership with Congress and the American public--as we deal with the things that make the biggest difference for Americans; their homes, their jobs, their communities. I urge rejection of this resolution to move forward with giving the new administration the tools they need.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, last fall, I opposed the initial round of financial recovery spending on the grounds that there were too many unknowns about what, and who, our federal dollars were financing. Subsequent events, which revealed that many recipients continued to hold back from making the loans necessary for economic recovery, justified my initial position. With H.R. 384, Congress is beginning this process to recover and renew America's economic strength with a new administration. Further congressional action is necessary because the efforts to date have been off the mark. This bill is the first step to providing guidance to the new administration, which has already learned many of the lessons from the past administration's failed effort. I have come to this juncture today with an even greater sense of urgency than even last fall. Thanks to this legislation we can provide hope to American families. This legislation puts stronger oversight mechanisms in place and requires the Treasury Department to reach enforceable and measurable agreements on the use of TARP funds. The legislation also places strong limitations on executive compensation, provides strong foreclosure relief, and includes significant incentives that will aid homebuyers struggling to refinance their loans. For these reasons, H.R. 384 deserves my support.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, last week the Republican leader went on CBS to state that the American people don't want beautification projects or bike lanes in the economic stimulus program. Instead, Mr. Boehner felt American families want larger and expanded highways. He's just wrong on the facts. A 2009 survey by the National Association of Realtors and Smart Growth America reported that three- quarters of Americans believe that smarter development and improved public transit are better long-term solutions for reducing traffic congestion, better than building new roads. An overwhelming 80 percent believe it's more important to repair existing highways and public transit rather than build new highways. The transit, bike, pedestrian and road repair work are more labor intensive and are ready to go in all 50 States, supporting local engineering and construction firms. The Republican leader is wrong; the American public is right. Bikes, transit, fixing-it-first projects make communities more livable, put more people to work faster, and make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Superfund Reinvestment Act,'' which would reauthorize the corporate taxes that fund the Superfund trust fund. This bill will reestablish the polluter pays principle and our commitment to cleaning up the Nation's most hazardous sites. The Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, Superfund program was created in 1980 to provide money to clean up the nation's worst hazardous waste sites where the party responsible for polluting was out of business or could not be identified. Before they expired in 1995, the money for the Superfund trust fund came mainly from taxes on the polluters themselves. The program has contributed to the cleanup of over 1000 sites around the country. Because Congress has not reauthorized the taxes, the burden of funding cleanups of toxic waste sites now falls on the shoulders of taxpaying Americans. Reauthorizing the Superfund tax would ensure that polluters--not the American public--pay to restore public health. Superfund sites contain toxic contaminants that have been detected in drinking water wells, creeks and rivers, backyards, playgrounds, and streets. Communities impacted by these sites can face restrictions on water use, gardening and recreational activities as well as economic losses as property values decline due to contaminated land. In the worst cases, residents of these communities can face health problems such as cardiac impacts, infertility, low birth weight, birth defects, leukemia, and respiratory difficulties. Until they expired in 1995, the superfund taxes generated around $1.7 billion a year to clean up these hazardous areas. The ``Superfund Reinvestment Act'' would simply reinstate the taxes as they were before they expired. This will provide a stable source of funding to continue cleaning up sites around the country as well as give the EPA the tools it needs to clean up sites and then recover the costs from liable parties who do not undertake the work themselves. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to strengthen the Superfund program and ensure that it continues to help keep our communities and our families safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the rule and of the underlying bill. This is the first step in this Congress that sends a signal of hope to people around the country. It is not just going to make a difference for 70,000 children in my State of Oregon and for 11 million children across America who will get health insurance. It was important in the last Congress that we had passed this bipartisan legislation, but unfortunately, the roadblocks in the White House and Republican Congress made that impossible to be enacted into law. If it were important in the last session, it is critical in this session with the economy in a free-fall, with families in desperate conditions and with health care fraying at the edges. This action today is showing the difference of the new leadership in the House, in the Senate and in the White House. Beyond the 70,000 children in Oregon and 11 million children across the country, this is a signal to America about where our Nation is going. This signal of hope can come none too soon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to support two important workplace civil rights bills addressing pay discrimination-- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. In the years since the 1963 Equal Pay Act, women have made enormous advances toward economic equality. However, the goal of ``equal pay for equal work'' is not yet reality. Today, the average full-time working woman earns only 78 cents for every $1 a man makes. Women of color are worse off. African-American women make 69 cents on the dollar, while Hispanic women make only 56 cents. A recent study of college graduates showed that in their first year after graduation, women earned only 80 percent as much as male graduates, demonstrating the gender pay disparities only compound over time. These pay disparities equal a significant loss of income--anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime--which has a tremendous impact on lives of women and their families, especially as so many are struggling with the economic turndown. In 2007, the Supreme Court made it virtually impossible for victims of pay discrimination to go to court to vindicate their rights, holding that any challenges to pay discrimination must be filed within 180 days of an employer's initial decision to discriminate. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Fire & Rubber Co., and restore the long-standing interpretation of civil rights laws that employees can file pay discrimination claims within 180 clays of each discriminatory paycheck they receive. The Paycheck Fairness Act strengthens the Equal Pay Act to ensure that it provides effective protection against sex-based pay discrimination by closing loopholes and barring retaliation against workers who disclose their wages. Additionally, it also allows women to receive the same remedies for sex-based pay discrimination that are currently available to those subject to discrimination based on race and national origin. This meaningful legislation will help further advance American women and families' economic security and I am proud to support both.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the widespread concern for the crisis unfolding in Gaza since December 27. The recent conflict in between Palestinians and Israelis is as tragic as it was predictable. The fundamental lesson in the Middle East is clear: without political processes that strive continuously for peace, events and the acts of extremists can overpower the desire of people across the region to reject violence. I voted ``present'' because words matter and this resolution did not express adequately the scope of the humanitarian crisis. To that end I am joining other colleagues in urging the administration to work to meet the immediate humanitarian needs while we work for a cease-fire. Any country facing such attacks would wish to respond firmly and decisively, yet it is frustrating to witness the region locked into a downward spiral of conflict. This path will give neither side what it wants, but will continue to destabilize the situation and further impede efforts at a resolution. This cycle of violence must be broken. Yet, nearly a decade of failed Bush policies has left America in a weakened position at the table, less able to help deliver peace or improve the humanitarian situation on the ground. At least the administration declined to vote against a January 8 United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. Forceful U.S. diplomatic reengagement now is critical. Though a secure Israel and an independent Palestinian state living side by side seems remote today, I have high hopes that the new Obama administration will exhibit a strong reversal of course and reengage the region. Our efforts here today are inadequate to this task. We must not only work for a cease-fire that halts this backslide into chaos, but move forward toward an ultimate solution that recognizes the legitimate needs of both Israelis and Palestinians. We know where we need to go, we must have the will to achieve it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to prohibit interstate commerce in nonhuman primates as pets. The Captive Primate Safety Act, CPSA, would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to treat nonhuman primates as prohibited wildlife species under that Act and to make corrections in the provisions relating to captive wildlife offenses under that Act. Nonhuman primates kept as pets pose serious risks to public health and safety. They can transmit diseases and inflict serious physical harm. These risks are increased by interstate transport of the animals. Currently, twenty states prohibit keeping primates as pets, and many others require a permit. Even in states where it is legal to keep primates, most people cannot provide the special care, housing, and social structure these animals require. Although the importation of nonhuman primates into the United States for the pet trade has been banned by Federal regulation since 1975, these animals are bred in the United States and are readily available for purchase from exotic animal dealers and even over the Internet. Because of the importation laws, there remains an active domestic trade in these animals. The CPSA would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to add nonhuman primates to the list of animals that cannot be transported across state lines. It would prohibit the import, export, transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce of nonhuman primates in order to safeguard public health and safety and protect the welfare of monkeys, apes (which include chimpanzees and orangutans), marmosets and lemurs. The bill is similar to the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, CWSA, which Congress passed in 2003 to ban interstate commerce in lions, tigers, and other big cats for the pet trade. The CPSA would not affect trade or transportation of animals for zoos, research facilities, or other federally licensed and regulated entities. In the 110th Congress, the CPSA received strong support in the 110th Congress from Dr. Jane Goodall, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, and The Humane Society of the United States. It easily passed the House of Representatives. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this bi- partisan legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I was introduced about 40 years ago to Ned Look. I was a college student at the time and we were organizing a campaign on this goofy idea to allow young people to vote. Very quickly, a number of the arrows pointed to Ned Look as somebody I should sit down and talk with in order to understand how the community worked. Even then, Ned was an institution. He was well known in the Portland City Club and a leading member of the Portland Development Commission, spearheading redevelopment and the Civic Auditorium. He was a tireless volunteer, somebody who drew strength from civic activities. He was a busy guy. At that time he was still a banker, but he had the time to sit down and talk through whatever was on your mind, giving you a sense of the community's vitality. It was a marvelous experience for me, learning not just about a campaign, but about the community I grew up in. I found I didn't really know much about my community until I had a chance to interact with Ned. At that point, Portland had two big banks, several corporate headquarters, a couple of timber companies and utilities. and a single phone company. ``Tech'' meant Tektronix. There was a core of community members who made contributions, who moved with civic and political activities; Portland even had two political parties at that point. Ned was conversant and connected with them all. A reformer, Ned was obsessed with the notion of coaxing more value out of government investment. At that point, city-county consolidation was all the rage. It had happened in other parts of the country-- Indianapolis, Nashville, Davis--and Ned was part of the civic drumbeat that was going to bring city-county consolidation to Oregon. We were going to take the largest city and the largest county in Oregon and merge them to create all this extra efficiency. It was a brilliant plan supported by all the powers that be and the newspapers--and it lost two-to-one at the polls. But typical of Ned, he was convinced that something else was at work here, that we could do better. and he wasn't going to give up. He was part of the effort coming out of the City Club and other hopeless do-good organizations that envisioned and ultimately led to the creation of Metro, the only directly elected regional government in the country--a one-of-a-kind idea that is so good that no one else in the United States has seen to replicate it in the last 30 years. This was typical of Ned and his energy and his involvement. Ned was always in the vanguard of the community foundation movement around the country. I had vaguely heard about community foundations from a friend of mine in Cleveland, Barbara Rossin, who helped set up the Cleveland Foundation. But it was Ned who made it happen in Oregon; it wasn't just his profession. it became part of the expression of who he was. It became larger than life. When I think about the changes that have taken place in our community in the last 40 years. I recall that we didn't have any organizing principles then; we didn't have large companies. But we were able to establish a framework in the community that encouraged people to get things done. We organized around a community foundation, but it went far beyond that. Today, you see the evidence of these efforts from the caliber of people are much more connected and reaching out and making things happen in a more entrepreneurial way. Just as we're the only city in the United States with a directly elected regional government, we are unique in the way we go out and solve problems. And much of this unique quality is due to people like Ned Look. There simply are not a lot of people like Ned in any city, nor have there ever been. The Harvard University sociologist Robert Putnam wrote ``Bowling Alone'' a few years ago, exploring changes in our society by asking why, if there were more people bowling, there were fewer bowling leagues. His book got a lot of attention, and appropriately so. But his second book. ``Better Together,'' which focused on the resurgence of citizen participation, didn't get quite the attention it deserved. He has a whole chapter about Portland; he called it ``The City that Meets.'' Now, I know that all this ``meeting'' drives many of you crazy--especially those of you who try to do business here or get anything done in civic organizations--but we are inclusive, we reach out to one another, even as we work in different patterns. These are the qualities Ned Look expressed better than anybody I've ever met. For years. we've had a parade of people who come to Portland looking at what we do and how we do it: Portland State University, streetcars, land use, even bicycles. They see the development patterns that have strengthened our neighborhoods and restored vitality to our community. We can show them our plans and talk about our government structures; we can talk about how we have constructed light rail and street car--but the single ingredient that is hard to express, the one that is more essential to that success than anything else, is our people. Ned was always there, front and center at the City Club, ready to give me advice, whether I was speaking or not. His antenna was always out; he was always gravitating toward conversation, eager to be involved. Ned was the personification of why, in the words of Professor Putnam, we're ``better together.'' Thank you, Ned.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted to support H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, having determined that it was the best compromise given the current circumstances. I supported the restructuring because it meets the standards that I used in voting on previous bailout proposals. First, this is a relatively small sum compared to the trillions that have been devoted to stabilizing the financial industry. Second, the taxpayer is protected by the smaller sums and stricter controls employed in these loans. Finally, unlike the financial services industry, this legislation offers a lifeline to people making a real product. Unfortunately, that real product is not of the nature and quality that Americans need and demand. The auto industry leadership is ultimately responsible for their failure. New management should be put into place, along with a new direction. It is paramount that Congress takes this opportunity to move the domestic auto industry towards greater environmental sustainability. Providing resources and direction to the automakers to accelerate the development of fuel efficient vehicles and other environmental technologies will improve the position of those companies to meet future market demands. There is no doubt that a serious change in direction and downsizing is necessary. There will be significant management and labor concessions. This proposal will allow the United States to see the automakers' survival is possible. If the industry cannot follow through on their promises to rebuild and restructure, it is very unlikely that I will be supportive of subsequent efforts. This is their chance to demonstrate that they can and will make significant changes in a new and better direction. Finally, I am pleased that the legislation includes a provision that protects transit agencies from the consequences of the collapse of insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG), which guaranteed many lease agreements that transit agencies entered into to pay for buses, trains and other equipment in the 1990s. During a year of record ridership, our transit agencies need these resources. For example, the transit provider in my district, Tri-Met, is reporting a 5.47 percent year to date growth in ridership--a substantial figure for such a mature transit agency. Without this provision, Tri-Met could face the loss of $200 million in FTA-approved financing.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I do not support this economic recovery bill. While it is imperative that Congress act to address this financial crisis, this mixed bag of legislation is not the appropriate immediate or long-term solution. The hard work done by the Democratic leadership over the past week has made it better, but it's still not good enough. It doesn't go far enough to protect taxpayers or to help homeowners stay in their homes. I have been very vocal on the floor of the House of Representatives about my concerns that this proposal won't help our financial situation and may be beside the point. There are some extremely important provisions in the bill for which I have fought during the past 2 years. For example, the bill extends the production tax credit for wind energy and investment tax credit for solar energy. It includes legislation I drafted to provide a tax credit for the purchase of small wind turbines. And it provides tax fairness so employers can offer the same transportation fringe benefits for bicyclists that they offer to employees who commute by car and public transit. I'm pleased that this bill will reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools program, which is so important to Oregon. I'm pleased that it will prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from impacting millions of hard- working, middle class families. The bad news is that, at a time when our national debt is at its highest point in over 50 years as a percentage of GDP, Senate Republicans chose not pay for most of the good things in this bill. I'm disappointed that the Senate also added a number of provisions to the bill that will provide incentives for coal-to-liquids and oil-shale fuels, which take us in the wrong direction in our battle against climate change. I hope this bill works to protect our commercial system, but I fear that it won't. I will continue to fight to deal with the consequences of added debt and poor energy investment choices. I look forward to closely scrutinizing the choices that the Treasury Department makes as a result of this legislation and working to improve the position of ordinary homeowners, American taxpayers, and our environment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his leadership. And thanks to the leadership of Mr. Frank, Speaker Pelosi and the House Republicans, we have part of this bill before us today that is somewhat better, but it sadly adds $150 billion of largely unpaid for tax breaks, frustrating for me because many of these provisions like alternative energy too credits and secure rural schools are provisions I fought for for years and are very important. Madam Speaker, as members of the public and Congress learn more about these problems and the solutions, I must say I have never seen more diametrically opposed opinions, and even people explaining about the facts in their business. But if this bill passes, which it appears that it will today, it ignores the underlying problem of a housing market in free-fall, and it ignores the plight of six million homeowners who are facing foreclosure in the next 2 years. If there was ever a time to give the same bankruptcy protection to American homeowners that Donald Trump will get the next time he takes bankruptcy for his casinos and for his fourth vacation home, that time is now. It needs to be in this legislation, and I'm sadly disappointed that it is not. In makes long term recovery harder and more painful.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6867, the ``Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008.'' We have seen the United States economy lose jobs every single month of 2008. Today we were greeted with the news that 159,000 more American jobs were lost in the month of September, the worst job loss in 5 years. In my home State of Oregon, the unemployment rate is up over 6 percent, and families are hurting. Extending unemployment benefits for those who are looking for jobs in an increasingly contracting economy is the right thing to do. It is not only the moral thing to do, it's a good stimulator for our economy. Most families have exhausted their benefits and still need help paying their bills and putting food on the table. Moody's Economy.com estimates that every dollar of unemployment benefits provides $1.64 in economic stimulus by being put directly back into the economy. We have just voted to pass an enormous financial rescue package which lends a helping hand to the financial services industry. I voted against that legislation because it didn't do enough to help consumers and taxpayers. Our unemployment rate is at a 5-year high, and claims for benefits have just hit a 7-year high. It's time to lend a helping hand to the more than 65,000 Oregonians who would benefit from extended benefits under this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation to help get our economy back on its feet.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that I oppose this bill. I am concerned that this bill is a continuation of the lopsided ``sanctions-only'' approach to Iran that only undermines the potential for constructive engagement through diplomacy. Iran poses a particular challenge because as much as we are horrified by the regime's support for terrorism, threatened by its nuclear adventurism, and troubled by the lack of democracy and human rights, we also know that the Iranian people are as opposed to foreign manipulation as they are to authoritarian rule and that both the Iranian and American people want to avoid war. The steps that the Iranian regime should take are clear. They should stop their support for terrorism, end their development of nuclear weapons capability, and begin the process of free, fair, and open elections. But it is naive to think that the United States can merely tell them what to do, sanction them for not doing it, and expect success. We need, instead, to develop a smart, strong and constructive plan to deny Iran nuclear weapons and halt its support for terrorists, to help keep us and our allies secure. The first place to look for lessons is our success with Libya, where a unified international front convinced one of the world's most dangerous state-sponsors of terror to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for the benefits of membership in the international community. Iran must be given a similar choice and we must provide both credible incentives for negotiations to work and muscular sanctions if they fail. This bill offers a piecemeal approach: sanctions without credible negotiations. I oppose it and other short-sighted efforts in our approach to Iran.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I credit his mastery for bringing this bill before us today. Thanks to his leadership, the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, and the cooperation of the Republicans, it is a far better bill. But, unfortunately, this is not likely to be the end of the bubbles. We must with our actions be extraordinarily careful if we don't want to compromise the next rescue. Remember Long-Term Capital Management, the hedge fund? What happens if the hedge fund industry is next? The article in today's New York Times wasn't very comforting. Any real rescue must include bankruptcy equality for homeowners. This is not just a moral issue. Fairness to our Nation's homeowners is the key to stabilizing home values currently in free fall. We cannot continue to bail out failing industries with borrowed money. No bill should be enacted without a payback from the financial services sector to be rescued, not merely a hint of a promise to pay back in 5 years. At the core, we are ignoring the fundamental question about the size and scale of the financial services industry in trouble not just because of a lack of regulation, but because we had too many people pursuing unsustainable business practices. We have seen change from an irresponsible White House proposal into a responsible bill. But it's not as good as it should be. And sadly, may be besides the point if more bubbles explode. I will vote ``no,'' reluctantly hoping I am wrong, but fearing that I am right.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act of 2008. Advances in health care have led to an aging population facing increasingly complex end-of-life health care decisions. Too often, these decisions are avoided until a crisis occurs, resulting in inadequate planning, unknown patient preferences, and families left struggling with the burden of determining their loved ones' wishes. In response to this, health organizations in Oregon came together in the early 1990s to develop what became known as the POLST form, or Physicians Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment, to help seriously ill patients identify their treatment preferences using a clear, standardized template. Written as actionable medical orders and signed by a physician, these forms help communicate patient preference regarding intensity of medical intervention, transfers to the hospital, use of antibiotics, artificially administered nutrition, and resuscitation. National interest in Oregon's POLST program has blossomed and Oregon has become the national resource for states and communities interested in developing similar programs. Recently California and New York enacted orders for life sustaining treatment programs and 23 other states have adopted or are developing programs. While Medicare currently pays for acute care services provided to beneficiaries, it does not recognize the important benefit of informed discussions between patients and their health provider about care preferences for their last months and years of life. The Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act provides coverage under Medicare for consultations regarding orders for life-sustaining treatment. These discussions add quality and value to patient care, but they often require significant time, proper training, and great delicacy, which merit compensation through Medicare. Programs for orders for life-sustaining treatment provide valuable services to patients, their families, and health care providers through educational materials, professional training on advance care planning, coordinating and collaborating with hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, hospice programs, home health agencies, and emergency medical services to implement such orders across the continuum of care, and monitoring the success of the program. The Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act creates a grant program to support the development and expansion of these programs, providing necessary resources to states and local communities. To be effective, advance care plans must ensure that treatment preferences are elicited and presented in a way that is recognized and respected by the health care community--orders for life-sustaining treatment programs do just that. These programs have a track record of promoting patient autonomy through documenting and coordinating a person's treatment preferences, enhancing the authorized transfer of patient records between facilities, clarifying treatment intentions and minimizing confusion, reducing repetitive activities in complying with the Patient Self Determination Act, and facilitating appropriate treatment by emergency personnel. Oregon is nationally recognized for our exemplary end-of- life care and orders for life-sustaining treatment have played a critical role providing quality, patient-centered care for those in their final chapter of life. I am proud to introduce the Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act, which will lay the groundwork so all Americans have the tools to make informed medical care decisions, convey their care plans as clearly as possible, and feel confident their wishes will be respected by health care personnel.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Nancy Neighbor Russell, an extraordinary Oregonian who passed away last week. More than 20 years ago, Nancy co-founded Friends of the Columbia Gorge and was the driving force behind the passage of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act in 1986. Nancy's efforts on behalf of the once-threatened Gorge have preserved it as one of the most magnificent natural and scenic landscapes in the United States, and a recreational mecca for visitors world-wide. Nancy loved the Gorge, and thanks to her, future generations will have the same opportunities to enjoy its beauty. The Gorge Act designated more than 292,000 acres as federally regulated land, aimed at protecting and enhancing the Gorge's scenic, cultural, recreational, and natural resources. But that was just the start for Nancy. Over time, she purchased 33 parcels of property--600 acres--and sold many to the Federal Government for open space. Her vision of a network of public hiking trails, parks, and vistas is part of the Columbia River Gorge's enduring legacy. Nancy's contributions to conservation have inspired comparisons to John Muir. Oregonians who love all that the Gorge has to offer, including hiking, scenic driving, wildflowers, and waterfalls, have Nancy Russell to thank. Her last visit to the Gorge came just 3 weeks before she passed. Her legacy of sweeping views, rugged rivers and mountains, and pristine beauty lives on.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the Water for the Poor Enhancement Act of 2008, with Representatives Donald Payne, Donald Manzullo, Sheila Jackson Lee, Chris Shays, George Miller, Steve LaTourette, and Walter Jones as original cosponsors. The Water for the Poor Enhancement Act complements legislation introduced today in the Senate by Senator Richard Durbin. This bill enhances our Nation's commitment to addressing the global water crisis. Every 15 seconds, a child dies from lack of access to safe water and sanitation. Across the globe, 900 million people live without access to safe drinking water and 2.5 billion people are without access to improved sanitation. Millions of girls can't go to school because they must spend hours walking to collect water for their families. As half of the people in the developing world are sick at any given time from a water-related disease, water and sanitation access is a major barrier to fighting poverty and increasing economic productivity. 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 responded by working with Reps. Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde and Sens. Bill Frist and Harry Reid to enact the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005, which established water and sanitation as a cornerstone of United States foreign assistance efforts. We are now halfway to the 2015 date, and we must redouble our efforts. By 2030, 4 billion people--almost half the world's projected population--will live in water-stressed areas. Three days ago the U.N. Secretary General convened a High Level Event on the Millennium Development Goals in New York, urging governments to translate their commitments into actions and aggressively work to meet these goals. This legislation answers the call to act. The Water for the Poor Enhancement Act is a bipartisan, non-ideological approach to making our government more responsive to this crisis. This legislation would increase U.S. Government capacity to coordinate and streamline clean water and sanitation development activities and foster strategic investments in on-the-ground expertise and low cost, high impact technologies. Through this legislation we will help U.S. Government pull together the pieces to implement a smart and efficient global water strategy and to meet our commitment to extend safe drinking water and sanitation to over a billion people in need.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my friend from Utah. I am from the West, although my district is not impacted as intensively as some. The county schools program is something that I have been working with the entire Oregon delegation and others to try to remedy, to keep it alive. Because it is so important I am sorry that our Republican friends in the prior Congress allowed the legislation to expire. It is not authorized because the Republican-controlled Congress and the Republican administration allowed it to die. We have been playing catch-up ever since. I deeply appreciate the work of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Speaker Pelosi, and others, who worked to help us with funding last year. I want desperately to achieve funding this year. But I understand the concerns of my friend, the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, about wading into this issue.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Yesterday on the floor we had the tax extender bill, and my Republican friends attempted to attach this despite the fact it is not germane. It was a tax bill, not an authorizing bill. Yet during that debate, we heard the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee say that he would work with us in conference because he understands it is important if it came back from the Senate in the bill. Mr. Rangel said he would accept it in conference where the germaneness would not apply. We heard the majority leader sympathize and say he would work with us. I would suggest that rather than go down a path that is a dead end and unfairly attack people for things that aren't in their control, that people get over the fact that they failed in the last Congress and killed the program. Instead work with us to take ``yes'' for an answer. Work with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, get that proposal coming back from the other body, and hopefully we can have the funding that we are all concerned about restoring.