Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the rapid rise in the price of oil is threatening American families, our economy, and our national security. Gas prices have more than tripled since 2001, taking an ever-larger bite out of the family budget. On average, transportation costs are now Americans' second largest expense after housing. Most economists as well as most American citizens believe that this is a long-term trend, rather than a temporary situation. We've seen the last of the cheap oil on which we've built our economy and our daily lives. There is no single solution to the complex energy situation we are facing, but we can equip every member of the American family to live better with less oil. The Federal Government can help give families and communities more choices, level the playing field for people who want to be less auto-dependent, and encourage the Federal Government to become a better partner and to lead by example in these efforts. This is why I am introducing the ``Transportation and Housing Choices for Gas Price Relief Act,'' which will provide consumers with, and educate them about, choices in how they get around and where they live that will reduce their dependence on gasoline. The bill will increase commuter choices and support less oil-dependent forms of transportation, help transit agencies cope with rising fuel prices and improve service to deal with increased demand, assist communities in providing transportation options for their residents, increase the availability of affordable housing near public transportation, and ensure that the Federal Government leads by example on these issues. At $4.00 a gallon gasoline, most Americans are already changing their daily behaviors to decrease fuel costs: taking fewer trips, keeping their cars tuned, even trading in their gas guzzlers for more fuel- efficient models. More needs to be done to ensure that consumers have transportation and housing options that reduce their reliance on single-occupancy vehicle trips. These transportation options can include public transit, carpooling, biking, walking, and other alternatives. For example, at $4 a gallon gasoline, American families can save $5.6 billion each year on gasoline costs by using transit. Bicycle commuters annually save an average of $1,825 in auto-related costs, conserve 145 gallons of gasoline, and avoid 50 hours of gridlock traffic. Congress should be a better partner by supporting community efforts to provide these alternatives. While our options to lower gas prices are limited, this bill recognizes that we can provide immediate relief from high gas prices by providing them choices.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, people are right to be concerned about the impact of high gas prices, diesel fuel, and even though it is summer, soon we'll have to be concerned about home heating oil prices as well. This is hurting everyone from truck drivers to nonprofits, like Meals on Wheels, who are seeing fewer volunteers because they can't afford the gasoline. It is clear that American families are struggling after years of this administration's failed energy policies. They need help from their political leaders, but most of all, they deserve to be treated honestly. While it may test well with some focus groups to talk about opening up some of our most fragile and sensitive areas, like the Arctic, for drilling, it fails the more fundamental test of making a difference for our families today or for at least this year. It will take 10 to 20 years before the oil begins to flow from a place like the Arctic, and the benefits will not necessarily be noticed by families even then as we are in a vast global oil market. We hear now that there is a lack of equipment, materials and workers that compounds the problem of getting that oil to flow even if we move forward. Expanding oil drilling as an answer to the current problems is a hoax because it will not make any difference for years, and even then, it will have so small an impact as to not even be noticed by most people. A difference of 2 cents a gallon in 20 years is little solace for people who are seeing gas prices rise 10 cents in a couple of days and oil prices shooting up $10 a barrel in a single day. It is a cruel hoax because there are things that can be done now. An example of something we can do tomorrow which will make a difference immediately would be to release even a small fraction of the oil stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This would squeeze dollars out of the speculative part of the price of oil today. The money from the proceeds of selling this oil could be used to finance badly needed energy and transportation alternatives, and we would still have money left over with which we could continue to fill the Reserve with less expensive oil over time. There are a series of initiatives that are being examined by the House this week that would rein in oil speculators. I don't know whether it's $5 or $50 a barrel. The experts we hear from conflict, but it's clear that there is some impact. If we stopped wasting taxpayer dollars and eliminated the Hummer tax loophole, which subsidizes the purchase of the largest, heaviest, most expensive gas guzzlers on the road, and instead used that money to make investments, that would help families now. We can also help immediately by leveling the tax and policy playing field to give American families more choices about how they get around and about how they spend their money on their transportation needs. That's why I've introduced legislation, the Transportation and Housing Choices for Gas Price Relief Act, that recognizes, while there is no single solution to the complex energy situation we are facing, we can immediately reduce the impact of high gas prices on consumers by providing them with real options. The bill would expand the successful Safe Routes to Schools program, and it would make high schools eligible so children could get to school on their own, burning calories instead of fossil fuel. It would allow self-employed small businesspeople to get for the first time transit commuting benefits currently enjoyed by other employees of larger businesses. This legislation wouldn't force commuters into a one-size-fits-all solution for their transportation benefits. Instead, it would level the playing field so they could access what works for them. The bill recognizes that the housing choices that reduce commuting costs sometimes may be a little more expensive, but it results in a legitimate increase in terms of their capacity to purchase a house, and that should be reflected in policy. It promotes telecommuting as well. It uses current resources better to give people more choices designed to make lives better for Americans today, this year, in 2008, not waiting until 2028. Congress should not spin an energy fantasy, but should deal with things that we can do today to deal with today's energy realities, and I urge my colleagues to look at the options like those in my legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Recreational Performance Outerwear Apparel Act of 2008. This bill eliminates import duties on recreational-use performance outerwear apparel while simultaneously enhancing an established, U.S.-based training and education program for American textile and apparel workers. The legislation is the result of a successful partnership between importers of performance outerwear and the U.S. domestic textile and apparel industry. In a recent report, the U.S. International Trade Commission recently found that there was no commercially viable U.S. production of performance outerwear used for skiing and snowboarding, hunting and other outdoor activities. This legislation reflects the findings of that report, while also investing in U.S. jobs. It provides duty free treatment for qualifying recreational-use performance outerwear and it establishes the Sustainable Textile and Apparel Research, STAR, fund. The STAR fund invests in a training program that specializes in lean manufacturing technologies and supply chain analysis, including helping companies work towards minimizing energy and water use, reducing waste and carbon emissions and incorporating sustainable practices into a product's entire life cycle. By reducing tariffs, my legislation reduces costs for American consumers and for American companies importing these goods; by investing in the textile industry, my legislation supports American jobs and competitiveness; and by researching environmental aspects of textile manufacture and supply, my legislation improves environmental outcomes.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Trade and Environment Enforcement Act, also known as the Green 301 Act. This bill expands the Section 301 provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 to encompass environmental effects. Under the Trade and Environment Enforcement Act, the Trade Representative must identify those foreign country trade practices causing negative environmental impacts to human, animal, or plant life or health, or the conservation of exhaustible natural resources in the United States, the foreign country, a third country, or internationally. Once those practices have been identified, the Trade Representative must issue a report to Ways and Means and to Senate Finance with its findings. After the Trade Representative issues its report, it must engage in consultations with foreign governments to resolve the negative practices it identifies with in the report and seek to negotiate an agreement between the United States and the foreign country providing for the mitigation, reduction, or elimination of the identified negative environmental impacts. If no agreement is reached, then the trade representative is authorized to take all appropriate and feasible action authorized under Section 301. Additionally, the Trade and Environment Enforcement Act permits petitions and consultations under this process from interested parties, including environmental organizations and the business community, to expand the types and scope of the Trade Representative's environmental review.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it's amusing to listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle decrying Democrats as somehow responsible for the problem of the current high energy prices. The fact is our friends on the Republican side controlled everything, by and large, for the last 7 years. They passed an energy bill in 2005 which was a perfect energy bill for the 1950s. Nothing that they are proposing in terms of draining America dry by opening up more drilling is going to make any difference for 8 to 20 years, according to all the experts, and oil companies already have 68 million acres available for exploration now that we're encouraging them to use. It's interesting that after the Republicans blocked even a study of improved fuel efficiency standards for our vehicles, the Democrats for the first time in 30 years have improved those efficiency standards. We're stopping Government competition with the oil companies by suspending Federal purchase of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We had to pass legislation to force the administration to do that. Now, we're looking at squeezing speculators a little bit, and there are a range of choices to help commuters compete now. It is time for us to talk honestly about the options and what's going to make a difference, not pretending that turning our energy future over to oil companies will make any difference in price or supply for years to come.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I am introducing this resolution to honor an organization committed to the Oregon ideals of leadership, self-reliance, and fortitude. For nearly 15 years the Oregon National Guard Youth Leadership Challenge Program has served the State by promoting self-confidence and fellowship among at-risk youth. More than 3,500 Oregonians likely to drop out of high school or engage in destructive behavior have entered this free and voluntary program. I'm pleased to say that the majority of these cadets have gone on to graduate the program and earn a high school degree or its equivalent. This program has made a positive difference in countless lives and communities. This tremendous success has garnered the Oregon Program high praise, including the United Service Organizations' (USO) award for ``Best Overall Program'' in 2007, 2003, and 2001. Oregonians have a great deal to be proud of. We are proud of these cadets, who are determined to succeed despite adversity, and of our National Guard, which draws strength from our communities and gives back so much. It is my hope that our Nation will learn from the example provided by the Youth Challenge Program and will be inspired by Oregon's success.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate the leadership of the committee. One cannot get back to the committee often enough. And I would look forward to working with you and with the gentleman from Washington to make sure that we get the most out of these resources.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate his leadership. It's interesting for us to hear from some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, my good friend from Florida, recounting sort of the history of the Bush administration leadership on energy. I have a slightly different recollection of that. One of the first things this administration did when they came to power was to create 7 years ago a secret task force. They never really fully released what was going on or why, but we know that it was dominated by representatives of the industry. And the Secretary of Energy in March of 2005 indicated that 95 percent of the objectives of the task force were completed. And then 35 months ago, on the floor of the House, we passed their big picture energy bill when they controlled everything, House, Senate, White House, and it was going to envision great changes for all American families. Well, all American families have had some significant changes since the Republican energy bill was passed. Most significant is that gasoline prices have gone from $2.49 a gallon to over $4 a gallon. The changes about altered conservation, for instance, have come over the objections of our friends in the Republican party. Remember, for years, they made it illegal even to study increasing CAFE standards, and lo and behold, now George Bush is claiming credit for what we forced him to do for the first time in 30 years, increasing those fuel standards. But even if we give him credit for going to 35 miles to the gallon standard, it took George Bush longer to get to that 35 miles to a gallon than it took Jack Kennedy to get Americans to the moon. This legislation is part of a comprehensive approach. You've seen it come to pass from our first days in Democratic control in this Congress, where we provided more incentives for new sources of energy, where we've worked to shift incentives from massive oil companies who didn't need our tax dollars. Remember, George Bush said they didn't need subsidies at $50 a barrel. Well, Big Oil didn't need it at $100 per barrel or $140, but that shift to alternative energy support was resisted by the administration and by my Republican colleagues. We have systematically moved forward in areas to give more choices to Americans. I heard my friend from Louisiana talk about how it costs money to explore the 68 million acres already available to them. Gee, ExxonMobil spent $36 billion last year, not in alternative energy, that was $10 million, but to buy back their own stock. Let's get a grip. It's time for us to move forward with choices that will make a difference. This legislation will make a difference for every community, rural and urban, around the country. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and look forward to moving forward on this amendment. I think it balances a potential inequity. But I would hope that as we move forward to reauthorization, that the folks on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, that we might be able to look at more Federal flexibility for the land that is used with these park-and-ride items, because in many cases they are frozen in time. We have inflexible Federal rules about what can be used for that land, and they have a habit of not being at the end of the line. So if we can in the future be able to use them as an anchor for community development and redevelopment where people can live and work at that point, rather than having to drive vast distances to get there in the first place, these facilities can leverage significant redevelopment opportunity, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and be able to reduce the operating cost for the lines. So I have no objection to this proposal as it goes forward, but I would hope that we would be creative as we move to reauthorization that we don't freeze in arbitrarily what local communities can do with transit agencies and the Federal Government to be able to leverage them to get more out of it in the long run so we don't have to unnecessarily force people to drive to use it in the first place.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, the reference was made by my other friend from Florida that there was a related provision that passed last week on a 429-1 vote. I confess to being the one person who voted against that. I had some concerns about how that was framed. I went back and did some research and concluded that my ``no'' vote was ill-advised, although it wasn't determinative, and I wanted to indicate that I personally support what is being proposed here. I think it is a reasonable compromise to deal with issues that need to be taken, and I appreciate my friend's courtesy in allowing me to do my mea culpa while you wait for your other speaker.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I thank Mr. McGovern and my friend from Virginia. This is really important for us, to be able to start equalizing the playing field. I think there is nothing at this point in the game that is more critical than giving people transportation choices. I appreciate the long-term interest and advocacy that you have had in terms of doing this. I think it is an important step to make sure that commuters across the country are treated in a fair and equitable fashion. I am hopeful that the body will embrace this, that we will be able to deal with it in an aggressive sense, both in terms of the Ways and Means Committee, that we can work with our colleagues to find ways in the Tax Code to make the adjustments that are necessary to cushion the commuter cost of transit users, as well as people who use their vehicles; that we deal with some people who have extraordinary costs because of the long distances commute, and I think there are ways that we can adjust this. I would beg their indulgence for one modest potential adjustment, and that is while this moves forward to make a difference for people who are commuting, I would hope there would be some way we could work together to also include equity for people who burn calories instead of fossil fuel, because as yet, the Tax Code and the policies do not provide equity for Mr. Oberstar's friendly, favorite people, the cyclists, although we have passed that three times through the House this year previously. Being able to put cycling communities along with transit and auto communities will make a big difference in the long run. I appreciate this leadership and look forward to working with them to make progress in the future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this rule as I rise in support of this integral part of a comprehensive approach that has been offered by the majority party to deal with the energy challenges we face today. It is important that we think of this in a comprehensive fashion because there isn't one silver bullet that's going to solve America's energy challenges, especially when it has taken years to paint us into this corner. It should be made clear that, first and foremost, this is not just more about increasing supply, not just more drilling. Some of my Republican friends are talking about draining America dry and turning the rest of our energy future over to large oil companies who already, as the gentlewoman from Florida points out, control 68 million acres of land that is available for exploitation. Just ExxonMobil alone had $40 billion of profit. Were they spending it on existing leases to increase supply? They spent $36 billion buying back their stock and found, what was it, $10 million to invest in alternative energy. Significant irony here, I think. One of the items that we've been involved with in the last 18 months is to work to give Americans more choices for their energy, to beef up opportunities for wind, solar, and tidal, in addition to those 68 million acres already available. We're working on new technology. Three times the House has passed legislation, I'm pleased to say, that has included my provision to close the Hummer loophole that actually subsidizes the purchase of the largest, most energy inefficient, expensive vehicles like the Hummer and, instead, would spend that money to encourage alternatives like hybrid technology. We need to be serious about not wasting more oil than any country in the world. You know, it's ironic, after the Democrats seized control of Congress we had to fight with this administration and our friends on the other side of the aisle to just increase fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles a gallon, that basically remained unchanged for 35 years. Our Republican friends, when they were in control, actually made it illegal to even study increasing fuel efficiency standards. It is stunning when we think today of the price Americans are paying at $4 a gallon that they refused to allow us to even study making cars more gasoline efficient. Well, we broke through that. The irony is now George Bush is claiming credit for something that he resisted, but even if we give George Bush credit for what we forced him to do, it took George Bush longer to get to 35 miles to a gallon than it took Jack Kennedy to get Americans to the moon. We hear about now, all of the sudden, they're flip-flopping and interested in more offshore drilling. This is interesting. George Bush, the first, put in place an executive order that prohibited it. George Bush, the second, reaffirmed it at the insistence of his brother, Jeb Bush, as my friend from Florida well knows. The President could now overturn that executive order if he wished. The Governor of Florida, since Florida controls the first three miles of State land, could start drilling 3 miles off the Florida coast if they were really excited about doing it. Well, it's important that we've got this legislation today about using or losing oil leases. I strongly support the part of the puzzle that deals with conservation, because with less than 3 percent of the world's oil reserves we'll never be able to drill our way out of this. The irony is that even if we started drilling more today, every expert, every expert agrees that it will take 7 to 10 years for any of this oil to trickle into the system. In this legislation, we are putting more resources to help mass transit, putting more resources to give consumers choices.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. This is part of a comprehensive approach. Democrats have been working since we returned to power to increase fuel efficiency and with other alternatives for energy. I welcome a broad, far-ranging debate about what Republicans did when they were in control for a dozen years in the House, especially the 6 years of the Bush administration, they were in complete control, their energy bill of 2005 when they were running the show, in contrast with what we've already been able to accomplish with just the last 18 months and what we propose to do in the future. Support the rule. Support the underlying bill. I look forward to that debate.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, like the proverbial pig that has been swallowed by the python, the swollen surge of the Mississippi flood waters is slowly working its way down the river. The damage inflicted is not just to the homes, businesses and farms along the way, but it will have serious consequences for the environment at the mouth of the Mississippi, the so-called ``dead zone''--further erosion of topsoil along the length of the river while raising food prices across America and around the world. The consensus of the scientific community is that extreme weather events like the heavy rainfalls are going to make episodes like this more frequent, but even if you do not agree with the scientific consensus, one thing is beyond dispute: The policies and practices of the Federal Government and of our State and local partners are not just contributing to the disaster but are themselves a disaster. For generations now, along the riverbank, we have been increasing the amount of water in the mighty Mississippi River as we narrow its course and reduce its meandering ways, making it much shorter than it was at the time of the first European explorers. Weather events resulting from global warming and resulting from humans having put more water in the river, shortening its course or narrowing it, have a compounding effect. In the State of Iowa, more than 90 percent of the wetlands, nature's natural sponges, have been filled. In vast sections of Iowa, there are tiles under many areas of the farmland, making it this massive plumbing project that is designed to reduce the power of the land to absorb and to retain water. By replacing native vegetation that has deep root systems, with corn and soybeans that don't, covering, some have said, as much as a third of the State, we further accelerate the runoff, and those relatively shallow root systems allow more precious topsoil to erode into the already Big Muddy, which in turn reduces the capacity of the waterways to carry water. All of these greatly enhance the impact of the flood. It's not just our agriculture and land use policies that are a disaster but how we respond to the challenges posed by the river. From levee failures in New Orleans to the upper Mississippi lock and dam project, all along the Mississippi, the Corps of Engineers and its local and state political and civic leadership, at the behest of Congress, are investing in questionable navigation projects while ignoring the problems of the integrity of the existing levees. All of a sudden, it's news now that there are problems with the ability of these levees along the river system to provide needed protection. I have said on the floor of the House when we were debating the upper Mississippi lock and dam project, that there was questionable need since there is steady or even slightly declining barge traffic in the river, this project, the most expensive navigation project in history would be at the expense of protecting public safety. At the end of the day, a critical part of the equation is restoring some of the natural balance so the inevitable floods can be handled as nature intended, into the surrounding fields and wetlands. This is illustrated by what happened when some of the levee failures reflooded farmland, relieved the pressure and thus reduced the magnitude of flooding downstream. This, obviously, needs to be built into the system. Yet there are cries now going out to remove land--106,000 acres of conservation reserve in Iowa. Now, this is a program that pays farmers to protect the environment and to enhance wildlife habitat and to provide a safety valve, that sponge effect. Some in Congress are making serious proposals to take this land out of protection and to plant it with the very crops that will help make this situation worse. I have worked for 10 years to reform our flood insurance program so that, instead of repeatedly putting people in harm's way, we use the money to relocate them or to flood-proof their properties, making them less susceptible to damage. We ought to extend flood insurance coverage so that all responsible property owners will protect themselves, and it will be a signal of the costs of living and of doing business in these risky areas. As this disaster unfolds, there are actually letters circulating in the Senate that would eliminate the requirement of reform legislation for providing flood insurance inside these levees despite further proof positive that people need it. The Federal Government needs to get its policies straight. Some of the vast sums we spend in the bloated farm bill should be redirected to pay farmers to restore the environment rather than to make it worse. Our long-term investments should be to make people safer and slowly reduce support for repetitive flood loss, paying to protect and relocate rather than simply put them back in harm's way. Responsibility, common sense, and sustainable economic and environmental practices can help repair our disaster policies which make the events, which have occurred for centuries, worse and more expensive. In so doing we make our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier and more economically secure. Either way, the farmers will be paid. Doesn't it make sense to pay them to make things better? I strongly suggest that it's time to increase the capacity of the land to absorb water, to get people out of harm's way and to do things in a way that's fair for us all.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to support H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. This legislation addresses issues within Medicare that have been too long ignored, including preventing the pending 10 percent payment reduction for, enhancing preventive and mental health benefits, improving and extending programs for low-income Medicare beneficiaries, and extending expiring provisions for rural providers. By addressing the critical issue of physician payment under Medicare through 2009, Congress will have the time to study and develop the systemic, sustainable reforms necessary to preserve patient access to physician services under Medicare. And the 18-month delay in implementation of the flawed competitive bidding program for Durable Medical Equipment, DMEPOS, allows Congress time to evaluate and improve this policy. I am heartened this legislation passed with such overwhelming bipartisan support, demonstrating that we can come together with thoughtful solutions that better the lives of Americans.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hard work put in by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers. For the past year we've participated in substantial and sometimes heated debate on the issue of surveillance and foreign intelligence. I appreciate the good faith efforts of our leadership, particularly Mr. Hoyer, as we try to craft legislation that keeps both our liberties and our persons safe. For the past seven years I have been highly critical of Republican wiretapping legislation. I voted against past efforts to expand this administration's ability to intrude in the lives of unknowing and innocent Americans. I supported the expiration of the disgraceful Protect America Act. And I remain confident that the dedicated members of the intelligence community do not need to violate the rights of Americans in order to protect them. I have heard some say that the enemies of America take on many forms. To them I say: Let us be sure one of those forms is not our own government. Ultimately this is a compromise that falls short. Any gains in security that may be achieved are temporary and are more than outweighed by the longer-term loss of civil liberties and oversight. Although this bill is comparatively better than the Senate's version, I am troubled by the lack of robust government oversight, the absence of meaningful court review, and the risk to American liberties. Of particular concern is the granting of de facto retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the administration. A `doctor's note' from the Attorney General cannot be allowed to circumvent the entire judicial process. I am equally concerned with the timeline of this bill, and strongly oppose authorizing this legislation for four years. This will extend the Bush legacy throughout the next administration and the next two sessions of Congress. Frankly I see no reason to rush into a compromise that comes up this short. The American people would be better served if we continued to debate this issue and took up a bill after we have seen the last of this administration. Americans demand and deserve protection of their basic civil rights and this can be accomplished while providing the means necessary for our intelligence community to do its job.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate you zeroing in on this, Congressman Inslee, because you, as much as anybody in Congress, have been spending the time looking at the consequences of our current use of energy. I think the evidence is not only in terms of the percentage that you referenced, almost a quarter less over a 40-year period, the evidence would suggest that the trend line for energy costs are likely to be understated. Who would have thought, frankly, 6 months ago that we'd be bumping up against $140 a barrel oil and with the likelihood that it could go to $200 before it gets down below $100? So the costs are magnified over time. And given the fact that these planes have actually stayed in service far beyond their design life, that that is further--what if these are going to be operational for another 50 years? I think that projection just pales; it makes it all the more important that we do that. I appreciate your focus. And I appreciate having a chance to join you in this discussion.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Congressman Inslee. It's a pleasure to join with my colleagues from Illinois and Kansas for this conversation this evening. This is serious business, and in a time when energy impacts are devastating our airline industry and when there is no part of the costs for the Air Force going up faster than fuel efficiency, I think we could spend the rest of the evening talking about the relative merits there and the advantage that this means in terms of operation and in terms of budget. But I really wanted, if I could, just to circle back here for a moment because I appreciate the focus that we're hearing from my colleagues about the merits of the issue. Now, I come from a little sliver of the northwest. We're not the epicenter of that, but there's 1,000 high paying, family wage jobs just in my little district that are involved with this and is going to make a difference. But candidly, the way that the other proposal was structured, there would be a little residual benefit. It was sort of politically engineered, and there was a little bit, not nearly as much as the Boeing proposal, and Congress can and should consider that. It has huge impacts in some parts of the northwest, in the Midwest, and it has ripple effects throughout the economy. And at the end of the day, this is something I think policy-makers have an obligation to be aware of and comment, and I appreciate my friend from Illinois talking about pending disputes with the WTO. There are serious allegations about unjustified subsidy for Airbus that really do need to be resolved, because we are in an anomalous situation where if we rush ahead with this and grant the award, perhaps on a basis that wasn't justified, we could end up further undermining the position of American industry by somebody who's not playing by the rules and further undercut us, which is something that, going back to the drawing table, allowing that challenge to work its way out, I think has great merit. But I appreciate what my colleague from Kansas was talking about in terms of the end of the day we're talking about a critical component of our defense establishment. And while there's lots of complaints, and some that I think are merited that we need to review our military approach to make sure that we're not spending too much money fighting the Cold War, clearly there is no argument, no argument that we can afford to not have a robust and effective exercise of our air power, and the air refueling is essential to warfare today, things that are going on today and are going to go on tomorrow. And when we're looking at a strategic, critical component of our ability to supply our troops, that is already averaging almost half a century, and before anybody could move forward it will pass that critical 50-year mark, this raises I think to a critical level. And I hope that every single Member of Congress in the House and the Senate takes the time to review this GAO report because I think it's going to raise serious questions in their mind, as it did with GAO. We want to make sure that that evaluation is done in the most cost- effective manner--big questions about whether the bid does that--and we want to make sure we are treating, given the troubled history of this project--and some of us, Congressman Inslee, we've been around a little bit. We've watched the bumpy ride to get to this point. This has got to be done letter perfect. We can't afford to have any questions or errors. And boy, any objective reasoning suggests that what we've heard, the way the Air Force handled it doesn't meet the bill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate, Mr. Inslee, your continued advocacy, being on message, moving legislative initiatives, and helping educate the American public about the potential of the New Apollo Project, the potential for our economy, the potential for a new era. I want to conclude because I guess we only have half an hour, so I've got a few minutes left. So I'm going to conclude by just running through what we didn't hear this evening. I want to be very, very focused on this because what we didn't hear was an honest explanation of what the problem is and where we're going to go. If for some reason we have a few more moments, I'll be happy to flip back to my friend, but let me just finish my thoughts here. The notion that we are going to somehow surrender our energy future to the Big Oil companies, allow them to lease everything else, and have it their will to take some of our most precious, sensitive places and run roughshod over the will of the people in California or Florida or elsewhere, New Jersey, I mean, a whole host of places that would be affected by this and somehow get $2 a gallon gasoline is poppycock. And I think my good friend from Washington said hooey. But you look at any independent, honest, objective expert, and they will say, you may be able to affect things 7 to 10 years from now a penny or two below what the price otherwise would be because we're caught up in a global initiative. It is as phony as Senator McCain's proposal for a gas tax holiday which would only give the holiday to the Big Oil companies, and we'd rely on their magnificent generosity to trickle a little of that down. No indication that that would happen. We didn't hear one word about global warming, which even Senator McCain and Senator Obama agree on and we are going to be dealing with a carbon-constrained economy. Not one word about conservation. We can't afford to continue to waste more oil than any country in the world. We heard an attack on cap-and-trade, which is where the United States and every other developed economy is going. We're going to have a carbon-constrained economy. We're not going to enable people to continue to pollute the environment with massive amounts of carbon, slowly cook the planet, raise sea levels and temperatures with extreme weather. That's not going to happen. The American public understands that. The evangelical community, the environmental community, organized labor and business are moving in this direction. It was George Bush the first's decision to issue many of these protections via executive order, and George Bush the second--if he had been serious about this, would have done it years ago. He would have changed his father's decision if he was serious about it before he was running in Florida and California. He hasn't. It will take 7 to 10 years for this to get to market. We will, as Mr. Inslee has mentioned, we will deal with closing the Enron loophole and squeezing the speculators. We need to use what we have now, the use-it-or-lose-it. Sixty-eight million acres are now open to the large oil companies right now, an area the size of Georgia and Illinois combined. We're going to advance legislation that says they we're going to use that before we mortgage the rest of our energy future for them, or we'll give it to somebody who will. I'm amazed that my friends continue to come to the floor and attack bicycles. I find that somewhat amusing because I've been working for a dozen years on bike partisanship. I know there are many Members on the Republican side of the aisle that don't believe the rhetoric of their extreme Members and their leadership who belittle the role that new technologies can play or the application of old technologies. You know, today, if you go down to the G2 entrance in the Rayburn building, you can't find a place to park a bike. Members and staff are coming here in droves. At $4 or $5 a gallon, you bet it makes sense. Making an opportunity for our children to walk or bike to school safely, you bet it makes sense. Would we be talking about morbidly obese, 300-pound sixth graders if more kids could do that? Yet somehow the Republican leadership has chosen to try and belittle the most effective form of urban transportation ever designed and, in fact, is supported by many of the Republicans themselves. At the Republican convention and the Democratic convention, Mr. Speaker, we're going to have 1,000 bicycles, and you watch these people who try and belittle cycling. You watch delegates line up to use it, to travel around Minneapolis and Denver, to actually see the community at 10 miles an hour, to get through security and parking hassles, to be able to get a little exercise and save some energy. But that is symptomatic of their approach to try and score political points, to make fun of things that make a difference, and ultimately, it's why their approach is doomed to fail. Democrats, since we assumed control, have been working on initiatives to give the American consumer more choices, to protect the environment, to encourage conservation, to give them more fuel-efficient cars, to give them mass transit, to give people in rural and small town America and our urban centers more opportunities about how they move, where they live, to get more out of the energy that we've got and develop new technologies that are more sustainable, that will lead to the revitalization not just of the environment but to our economy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I have enjoyed listening to the last hour from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle give their version of what we should do to deal with the energy problems that we face. You know, I found it amusing what we didn't hear in the course of their discussion. They were able to talk for one solid hour, and there was no mention of conservation. The fact that the United States has less than 3 percent of the world's proven reserves of oil, that we consume almost 25 percent of it, that we waste more than any country in the world, that it has taken George Bush longer to get to 35-miles-per- gallon fuel efficiency than it took Jack Kennedy to get to the moon, not one word about something that was going to make a difference. We didn't hear one word about how long it would take if they got everything they wanted, if they surrendered America's energy future in toto by giving all of the remaining oil and gas leases going to some of our most precious and sensitive areas that was highly speculative, and is in fact opposed by some Republican governors like Governor Schwarzenegger of California. If you just turned all of that over, they didn't talk about how long it would take to produce. And our friends at home can do a little bit of research from independent analysts, and they'll find that that's 7 to 10 years into the future. They didn't talk about how long that would take. You didn't hear one word about popping the speculative bubble. If they had been attending the hearings that we have had here in Congress in the course of the last couple months, we would find that experts, including people from the oil industry, have testified that up to $50 of this increase in the price of a barrel of oil is due to speculation. And we haven't heard one word about what they would do to pop the speculative bubble, which much faster than anything you can talk about draining all our resources and turning available land over to the oil companies, this would make a difference immediately. We haven't heard from them about all of the flip-flopping that's going on. You know, we heard this land is off-limits. George Bush I issued an executive order that declared areas off limits to drilling. George Bush II and the Republican Congress for the previous 6 years didn't do anything about this. But George Bush, by a stroke of the pen, could reverse what his father put in place. Yet our friends didn't have anything to say about that. It's interesting watching the flip-flopping that's going on in the Republican party. John McCain was against drilling in these sensitive areas when he was a candidate for President in 2000. In fact, he's maintained a position against drilling in the sensitive offshore areas until a few days ago when he's decided to change. Of course, he does not agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle that we should go into the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Maybe he understands that that's the last place we should drill instead of the next. We're finding that it is fascinating watching the jujitsu here where people are flipping around changing positions and there is no consistency, there is no honesty in terms of how long it would take, there is no effort to deal with some of the things that are actually running up the prices. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats in Congress have been passing initiatives since we regained control to improve fuel efficiency that was approved over the objection of the Republicans and over the objection of George Bush and was delayed. We have had initiatives to improve efficiency to give people more tools, to shift from lavish subsidies to the most profitable corporations in the history of the planet, the oil companies that really don't need extra subsidies, and give it to alternative sources of energy like wind and solar that do need it now. We are very concerned that we use the resources that are available now. It is absolutely facetious to suggest that we have locked up all of America's energy resources. What you didn't hear from my friends that have been talking for an hour is the fact that there are 68 million acres already under control of the oil and gas industry that they have chosen not to explore. They're not in production. 68 million acres. Indeed, the majority of the land that is available right now they have chosen not to use. We have legislation from a number of my colleagues that I am proud to cosponsor that would simply require that the oil companies use it or they lose it. If they are going to have these leases, they're going to have to explore it. And if they don't, then they will lose the opportunity to tie up even more land. That simple expedient of using it or losing it would spark far more exploration than anything my colleagues talked about for an hour and would do it much sooner. Second, we need to pop the speculative bubble. They haven't said anything about that. Not one word, other than one of my colleagues, to acknowledge that the speculators are at work. But no focus about what we're going to do about it. As I mentioned, we have heard, including a top executive from ExxonMobil that testified before our Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, that speculation, along with weakening of the dollar and geopolitical risk, is responsible for driving oil prices up to $50 a barrel. Now, I don't know whether the speculative bubble is $5 a barrel or $50 a barrel, but that is something that this Congress should do something about. It's something the administration has turned a blind eye to, and it's something my Republican colleagues have nothing to say about. We have legislation to deal with that. Congressman Larson from Connecticut has legislation that is pretty straightforward that if you are going to speculate in oil futures, you have to be willing to take delivery. Now, this is supported by people who are in the oil--it wouldn't affect anybody who is in the oil and gas business who's producing or delivering, but the people who are simply there to profit from speculation would have their wings clipped a little bit. The Enron loophole which excluded this speculative activity in energy which was approved under the watch of this administration and the Republicans of Congress, excluded it from supervision from the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. We think it's time to close the Enron loophole. We think it's time to have more oversight rather than less. Let's deal, for instance, with the amount of margin, the leverage that people who are doing something that's perfectly appropriate trying to make a buck, but we want to make sure that we don't have yet another speculative bubble that is hammering the American economy like we've seen with the housing bubble, what we saw in the stock market bubble. People turn a blind eye to it. We suggest we shouldn't do that. It is important to ramp up efforts at conservation. As I mentioned, it's taken George Bush, who sat in before us speaking from the podium immediately in front of me and declared that we were addicted to oil, the same George Bush who said at $50 a barrel the oil companies didn't need subsidies to be encouraged to develop oil resources but yet has consistently fought our efforts to shift unnecessary subsidies when oil prices were twice that. It's taken this administration longer to get to 35 miles per gallon than it took Jack Kennedy to get to the moon. We need to help provide consumers with more choices. We need to accelerate our efforts dealing with alternative fuels. I see my colleague, Jay Inslee, has joined us here in the Chamber. Congressman Inslee serves with me on the Speaker's Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming who's done a great deal of work and research and has listened to the testimony that I have heard that there are a vast array of entrepreneurs ready to go right now with plug-in hybrids, with electric cars, that we should be accelerating this effort. And before I turn to my colleague to elaborate on that, somebody who speaks with great passion, authority, and conviction, I would mention that the Federal Government itself, under the Republican administration, continues to have a vast fleet of gas-hungry SUVs. We're spending $3\1/2\ billion through GSA for hundreds of thousands of vehicles and millions of gallons of gasoline. Wouldn't it be nice for this administration to get serious about not competing with the rest of American consumers by moving to more fuel-efficient cars ourselves, more biodiesel, alternative energy sources, plug-in hybrids, to be a leader rather than making the problem worse? Congressman Inslee, I appreciate your taking time late at night to join me. I appreciate your leadership and advocacy, and I wonder if you might want to talk a little bit about some of the choices, based on your research and work, that should be made available to the American consumer.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. And I appreciate your pulling these pieces together, Congressman Inslee. I think you hit the nail on the head. I am hopeful that throughout all of this, that we can conduct this debate from this point forward by being honest with the American public. There is no one single cause for what we've seen happen with oil prices--speculation, world market, increased demand, hiccup here, there are a whole host of things that we see. Likewise, there is no one single solution. We need a comprehensive array. We do want to restrain speculation, whether it's $1 a barrel or $50 a barrel. It's unfair to the American consumer. It's unfair to the industries and small business people, and homeowners that rely on fairly priced petroleum products. We need to encourage using the energy leases that are out there right now before we consider surrendering our energy future by turning over even more leases. Use the 68 million acres that are available now. We have to stop wasting more oil than anybody else on the planet. Three times I've had an amendment that has passed in our legislation to close the Hummer loophole, but with our tax code, we're still subsidizing, with your tax dollars, the purchase of the largest, most fuel-inefficient, expensive vehicles, costing the Treasury hundreds of millions of dollars and working against ourselves. We need to change that; something that we have been unable to do with the current configuration, but it has passed the House. We need to develop new energy sources, not just drain petroleum dry. But we need to be serious about solar, wind, tidal. We need to be serious about new technologies, as you point forward. We need to work on how the land use system is in place. In too much of America it's illegal for somebody who works in a drugstore to live in an apartment above that drugstore. We artificially separate uses. We have too many long commutes. Too many people have to burn a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk. We need to have a more rational and thoughtful approach to a land use system that will make transportation work better. And last, but not least, we need more transportation choices for Americans, whether it's Amtrak revitalized, streetcars, buses, light rail, heavy rail--God forbid bicycles and pedestrian. They're all part of a mix. And every American ought to have a wider range of choice, and the Federal Government ought to be working to do this. Mr. Inslee, I appreciate your joining me this evening. I appreciate your analysis and your leadership. And if you have any concluding thoughts, I would turn to you at this point before yielding back.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well said.