Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, it's a new year and again the Bush budget targets public broadcasting. Year after year, they've attempted to chop away at that investment. Year after year Congress rejects it. This year it is a $420 million reduction, including $200 million that's already been allocated for this year. This assault on public broadcasting is not just undermining the digital conversion, the education and public affairs that we have grown to rely on, it's a direct assault at small-town and rural America where it's more expensive to reach and they don't have the donor base to provide it for themselves. The irony is that San Francisco, New York, Washington and, dare I say, Portland, Oregon will always have public broadcasting. But if this Bush budget is adopted, it's going to decimate public broadcasting in rural and small-town America. Please join the over 110 members of the bipartisan Public Broadcasting Caucus to again reject this assault on public broadcasting.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this; and I particularly appreciate the chairman, Mr. Miller, and the Ranking Member, Mr. McKeon having incorporated into this legislation the committee work that we have been doing for the last several years dealing with sustainability in higher education. I would like this provision to be named after the late Debbie Murdock. She was a leader at Portland State University with whom I worked who tragically left us far too soon, to make sure that we have equipped, to have strong sustainability programs. This is the wave of the future. This is where the jobs are to be found. This is what our companies need to be competitive in a world of global warming and climate change. Only 30 percent of these companies say, they have the people with the skills and information and personnel to meet the environmental, sustainability challenge. This provision will enable colleges to develop sustainability programs, and to implement those sustainability programs, to have the appropriate evaluation to know what works. I hope this is the tip of the iceberg for programs we can work on in the future. I look forward to working with the chairman, looking forward to working with my friend, the subcommittee Chair and our friends on the otherside of the aisle like Mr. McKeon and Mr. Ehlers on this critical bipartisan legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, for the first time in American history, the highway trust fund is running a deficit this year. What is the solution from this administration? Well, instead of having a comprehensive approach to dealing with the shortfall, they just want to steal some money from the mass transit administration account and walk away. This will only delay the problem for 1 year, and it will push mass transit into deficit the next year, instead of a practical solution to fix the looming transportation trust fund crisis. This is consistent with their consistent underinvestment in our Nation's infrastructure. It is why the American Society of Civil Engineers has rated our infrastructure a D minus, and estimates it will cost us $1.6 trillion over the next 5 years to repair water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure, a crisis not just for the Federal Government but even worse for State and local governments. A hundred years ago, Teddy Roosevelt had a vision for a national conference to develop a plan to deal with the Nation's infrastructure. It is time for this Congress to revisit that concept, maybe have a transportation vision for this century.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for his kind words and for his leadership on this issue. I rise in support of this legislation, but, frankly, we've waited too long to get to this point. We have watched as this administration has exploded the national debt. We have watched the growth in the gross domestic product slow 35 percent in this administration over the previous one. Median incomes declined. The savings rates have gone negative, and the trade deficit has doubled. Most important, they ignored the symptoms of the subprime mortgage markets, a failure to exercise reasonable oversight. This legislation is an important first step towards rebalancing the equity. I commend the Speaker for targeting aid for those who need it most. I appreciate what my friend from Massachusetts Mr. Frank has focused on, to make it easier for hard-pressed families to refinance their loans. I hope before we get through this process that we'll be able to add to it unemployment and food stamp benefits, which will have even more stimulative effect. After this bill, we need to deal with issues of infrastructure, making sure that we don't shut down our wind energy production tax credit, and deal with bankruptcy equity so that homeowners get the same protections as people who speculated in property. Last but not least, I hope that this is the beginning of real progress in Congress that becomes a critical issue of accountability on the campaign trail so that next year we won't have to make compromises that compromise what we need to do for the American family.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing, along with Mr. Oberstar, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Petri, and Mr. Farr, a resolution to commemorate the bicentennial of the Gallatin plan for infrastructure investment. This plan built on George Washington's vision of connecting the interior settlements with the markets and ports of the East Coast through a network of roads and canals. As Congress looks at major infrastructure investments for this century, it is worthwhile to remember that the achievements of the past were based on sound planning, and important to note that the value of infrastructure investments is dependent on national planning efforts. As we embark on efforts to improve our Nation's civil infrastructure, we should acknowledge and honor the plans that laid the groundwork for our Nation's greatness.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing, along with Mr. Oberstar, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Petri, and Mr. Farr, a resolution to commemorate the centennial of President Theodore Roosevelt's Conference of Governors. That conference, which included many State Governors, the members of President Roosevelt's Cabinet, Members of Congress, professional organizations, and Government bureaus--and which served as the first meeting of what today has become the National Governors Association--resulted in a report that incorporated the growing interest in conservation as well as articulated the need for future investments in civil infrastructure. The conference laid the groundwork for many of the critical investments of the 20th century and serves as an important reminder that the value of infrastructure investments is dependent on national planning efforts. In the past few decades, our critical infrastructure has fallen into disrepair. As we embark on efforts to improve our Nation's civil infrastructure, we should acknowledge and honor the plans that laid the groundwork for our Nation's greatness.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy and her leadership on this. Madam Chairman, I come from a community that took almost 500 units of World War II-era public housing and replaced it with almost 1,000 units, including 230 that were unrestricted market rate. It was an anchor for revitalizing the community. It leveraged three-to-one investment from the private sector, and it was built according to environmentally sustainable standards. I cannot say how strongly I support this legislation to be a blueprint for how HOPE VI can make a difference for public housing and community revitalization around America. I strongly urge support for this legislation and rejection of efforts to water it down. Use this model. Make it work. You will be proud.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy, as I appreciate her leadership on this, and that of my friend, Mr. Olver. There is a difference between flexibility in green building standards and gutting the provision altogether. Having green building standards should not be merely one factor that is considered, as will be proposed by the gentlewoman's amendment later in the game. The manager's amendment provides flexibility and allows the Secretary to deal with compliance. It does not have strict LEED certification, but still retains that environmental green building standard. Frankly, the notion that we just dismiss this as merely one factor to be considered is going to be regarded in the years to come as an embarrassingly shortsighted proposal. As I mentioned earlier in the debate we in Portland used HOPE VI to create an environmentally-sensitive community that actually provided twice as many housing units as had been on the site before, using HOPE VI as an anchor for more investment and as a development model. The provisions that are in the underlying bill and the manager's amendment will provide more environmentally-sensitive construction and, frankly, the costs are going to be recovered in relatively short order, as my friend from Massachusetts pointed out, in savings, not just from energy, but also water and sewer as well. These costs are going up exponentially over time. Having this wired into the HOPE VI provision means that it is a better investment for the community and a better investment for the Federal Government. It's going to save the Federal Government and the tenants money over the long haul. There is absolutely no reason to water it down. I strongly urge approval of the manager's amendment and rejection of the subsequent amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr Chairman, today I will vote in favor of H.R. 2768, the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act. This comprehensive legislation addresses the many short-comings of the MINER Act of 2006, which Congress passed in the wake of several fatal coal mining accidents. I voted against the 2006 legislation because it did not go far enough to prevent these tragic, avoidable accidents, instead focusing exclusively on emergency response and rescue. It is a national disgrace that S-MINER is the first legislation in over 30 years that addresses preventing mining accidents and illness. We have witnessed far too many needless disasters and I am proud to support this comprehensive legislation which will not only further improve emergency response, but also reduce health risks to workers and enhance prevention efforts.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate his leadership. I voted against the last mining reform on the floor of the House, even though it represented some progress, because, frankly, it didn't go far enough and it didn't do it quickly enough. The treatment of our miners compared to what is going on in other developed countries who take mine safety seriously is a national disgrace. I am pleased to see a comprehensive piece moving forward. This is going to help reverse that course. I heard some say that this administration would veto the legislation. I would consider a veto of mining legislation by this administration a badge of honor, an administration that has put the wrong people in charge, has been not zealous in dealing with the problems that have come forward, that have taken tragedies to at least seemingly get their attention. I hope that each Member of the House spends a little time looking at this legislation comparing it to what's going on in the rest of the world. I'm confident that they will then support the legislation, and if by some reason the administration chooses to override it, I'm confident that people of good conscience can override it to give the miners the safety they deserve.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, there's a certain irony: As the country is slipping towards recession, the Bush administration is backing away from its own study on infrastructure finance. The answer is simple. It's not a gimmick. Think of the subprime mess that got us into this situation in the first place. The solution is more money to invest. There are examples of where money may be available. For example, the carbon-constrained economy that we are moving into will create a great deal of value, some of which could be captured to help pay for infrastructure. It is critical, however, that we have a new vision of cleaning up the environment, rebuilding America, and making it more energy efficient, because people are not, nor should they put a lot of money into yesterday's plan. A new vision for investing in America in this century is a key, not just to fighting this temporary recession but making our communities more livable and making our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate his leadership. One of the most important things the United States did in the aftermath of World War II was to help returning veterans with housing. In my home State of Oregon, in 1945 we established a veterans home loan program which, for over 60 years, has provided over a third of a million loans, a value that is approaching $8 billion, which has changed the lives of the veterans and their families as it has helped revitalize communities. Unfortunately, in Oregon, as in other States like Alaska, Wisconsin, California, and Texas, we are bumping up against limits in dealing with this program. We do not have the bonding capacity to be able to deal with the flood of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, who are every bit as worthy of our help and support as veterans from Korea or World War II. The House legislation that went forward corrected this situation, adding an increase in the bond cap; and it made a modification for eligible veterans of more recent wars to be included. Unfortunately, the other body, inexplicably, following rules that Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun would recognize today, allowed a minority to strip away these important provisions. It is important for us to repass this legislation that affirms that we are going to do right by veterans in Alaska, Oregon, Wisconsin, California and Texas, raise those limits, and extend the coverage to warriors that are returning from these conflicts. I strongly urge my colleagues to not just pass this legislation but to make clear to our friends in the other body that this is one of our go-home items of legislation that we are going to insist upon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. We are watching fiscal chickens come home to roost with this housing bubble that is slowly working its way through the system. As my good friend from Connecticut mentioned, we are looking at perhaps 2 million foreclosures looming. There is another 2 million figure to keep in mind, and that is the number of loans that are going to reset in the next 18 months. And many of these people were not particularly sophisticated. There are a number of folks that appear to have been lured into subprime loans that actually would have qualified for conventional, fixed-rate mortgages. And this is a ripple effect that can have a very profound consequence for people. If we see a 15-percent drop in housing values, which is projected by Goldman Sachs, we are talking about millions of families who can be in this situation of having phantom income. If it is a 20-percent drop, it is 3.7 million. And some people feel that 30 percent correction is not beyond question, and that would put almost 20 million American homeowners in this negative territory. It is important for us to make sure that people are not paying taxes on phantom income. Frankly, I am a little disappointed that the legislation that came back to us from the Senate is only 3 years because I fear that this is going to be a longer-term problem. And, frankly, I can't foresee any circumstance where this Congress would like to apply tax rates on phantom income when anybody is under water, getting a loan forgiveness. We have put careful provisions in this to make sure that it is not unlimited, it is not for wild speculation, but for typical, average everyday homeowners. I hope we pass this bill, but I also hope that we look at a long-term adjustment so that no one who is in this unfortunate circumstance ends up making a tax payment on phantom income when they have lost their home.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I listened to my friend from Michigan, and in one respect I think she is right: there will be people who will be haunted by the bill that we are voting on here today, but not because it goes too far, but because it doesn't go far enough. I am confident, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the commitment that we have by the American people, that we will go back to the comprehensive energy bill that we had a few moments ago. I find it ironic talking about the CAFE standards and the problems. Now we see the American auto industry is reluctantly accepting to do in this country what they are already doing in Europe. And, frankly, if they don't get it right in terms of fuel efficiency, there is nothing that we are going to be able to do to bail them out, and they will continue to lose market share to foreign companies that are more energy efficient. I am pleased that this bill contains provisions I have worked on to align the interests of the natural gas companies to promote energy efficiency rather than penalizing them for conservation. I am pleased that we are going to have increased energy efficiency for light bulbs, appliances, buildings, and government agencies. All of these are starting to lay the foundation for legislation that is long overdue. I am sad that it does not include the renewable energy portfolio standard which half American States, and the public is already represented by States that have galloped ahead of us, and it is unfortunate that the Senate could not deal with the tax provisions that would have put government subsidies for emerging renewable technologies that need that government support to turn a profit and come to scale, and instead continue to lavish subsidies on the petroleum industry that frankly doesn't need it to turn a profit. But these we will return and address. I am pleased that this is an important step in the right direction and urge support of the rule and the legislation today.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that after failing to reauthorize our Intelligence programs for the past 2 years under Republican leadership, the Democratic majority has taken the health of our Nation's intelligence community seriously. I support the critical improvements to this bill: strengthening the offices of the Inspector Generals, authorizing increased attention to climate change, and strengthening contractor oversight. Most importantly, I support this bill because of its torture prohibition. Torture violates not only the laws and values of our country, but all standards of decent human conduct. I have consistently spoken out against the stonewalling and equivocation surrounding this administration's ``interrogation'' of prisoners. It is clear that the American people will not get satisfactory answers from the administration, and that it is now Congress's duty to set interrogation standards worthy of our great Nation. Extending the rules of the Army Field Manual to intelligence personnel is a significant step. I am proud that Congress will send the message to our Nation and the world at large that Americans do not approve of, and will not stand for, torture.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Doesn't the Bush administration budget assume the CBO numbers that include the alternative minimum tax for the next 10 years?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the admonition. That's why we've had a $3.4 billion increase in the national debt in the first six years of the Bush administration as opposed to a surplus, budget surplus from the Clinton administration, which I think the majority leader will be talking about. This is not a tax increase. The Federal Government will collect exactly the same taxation over the next 10 years under our proposal as under the Bush budget proposal right now. The difference is they're spending 23 million taxpayers' alternative minimum tax for the next 10 years. That's how they deal with the budget. We stop that.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I understand after what the gentleman just said that he would like to stop debate and move on because, with all due respect, that's turning it on its head. He's right. When they were in charge, they did offer up a fix that President Clinton mercifully vetoed because if it had been in place in 1999, their proposal would have required almost $800 billion more in deficit spending. But when they were entirely in charge for the last 6 years, they ignored this all together. In fact, they have used every dime that was projected by CBO to fuel their massive spending increases. Go back and look at the record. Your record for increased spending has been far above the rate of inflation, far above the Clinton administration. It embarrassed your fiscal conservatives. Even Mr. Ryan on the Budget Committee kind of gets embarrassed about your performance for the last 6 years. That's why you have increased in the Bush---- Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for years I have spoken out and voted against wasteful Defense spending that often serves to make us less safe and takes money from more useful programs. I am concerned that there is still too much money in this legislation for unnecessary weapons systems and other outdated holdovers from the cold war and too little to deal with the challenges of today. However, I am pleased that this bill takes some steps in the direction of reform, and I hope that it provides a platform for further progress. I support this bill because it includes provisions from the ``Responsibility to Iraqi Refugees Act,'' which I introduced in May and which were added in the Senate as an amendment by Senator Kennedy. This bill will provide 5,000 special immigrant visas for each of the next 5 years to Iraqis at risk because they helped the United States, require the Secretary of State to establish refugee processing in Iraq and other countries in the region, and direct the Secretary of State to designate a special coordinator at the Embassy in Baghdad. We need a wholesale change in attitude that puts the needs of Iraqis at the forefront of our Iraq policy, rather than using them as pawns in political games. It is ironic, to be generous, to hear President Bush repeatedly talk about the humanitarian crisis and massive out-flows that would follow what he called a ``precipitous'' withdrawal. This only illustrates the state of denial over the humanitarian crisis currently happening. This is one area where our moral responsibility to these unfortunate people can be used to bring together those of disparate viewpoints in a cooperative effort that might serve as a template for how we solve greater problems associated with the war. One of the burdens of those who would be world leaders and the responsibility of those who make war is to deal with the consequences of their decisions. Innocent victims of war and civil strife are too often the invisible and forgotten casualties.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. My good friend from Washington talked past the point. Those budgets assumed the alternative minimum tax. President Bush's budget assumes the alternative minimum tax. And I want to make clear that this is something that we are simply not going to do. We do not want to continue their practice of assuming this tax to be able to finance other priorities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate we are sort of finalizing history here, and I appreciate your referring to that past. But is it not true that for the last 6 years when you were in control, you made a decision to have other tax cuts that were financed in part by the assumption that we are going to collect this AMT?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I listen to my friend from Washington repeating the same lame line from the talking points of my Republican friends. They knew this was coming. Yes, President Clinton vetoed a flawed tax measure back in the previous administration. What have they been doing for the last 6 years when they controlled everything? They decided not to deal with the alternative minimum tax. They made a cynical decision to cut taxes for those who are the most fortunate in this country and be able to use this money in the budget calculations to be able to justify these massive tax reductions. They spent this money and they count on spending this money for years to come. It is in President Bush's budget. We reject that cynical effort. We implored them time and time again when they were having their tax reductions to deal with the alternative minimum tax, this fiscal tsunami that is going to sweep away middle and upper middle-income Americans. They refused. They bet on the other side. Now we are coming forward not with a tax increase but with a tax adjustment. The Federal Government will get the same amount of money; it is who are you going to benefit. We are going to save 23 million Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax, making some reasonable tax adjustments and not putting the cost of this patch on the credit card of our children.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the largest humanitarian crisis in the world continues to unfold in Iraq. Over 4 million displaced people, more than the crisis in Darfur, two million or more, have fled their country; and the rest are displaced within. They have fled to Syria, to Jordan, throughout the Middle East and beyond. It is brutal, not just for the refugees themselves, and the displaced people, but it places a great strain on the host country.NOTICE If the 110th Congress, 1st Session, adjourns sine die on or before December 21, 2007, a final issue of the Congressional Record for the 110th Congress, 1st Session, will be published on Friday, December 28, 2007, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through Thursday, December 27. The final issue will be dated Friday, December 28, 2007, and will be delivered on Wednesday, January 2, 2008. None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event that occurred after the sine die date. Senators' statements should also be formatted according to the instructions at http://webster/secretary/cong_record.pdf, and submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ``Record@Sec.Senate.gov''. Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerk.house.gov/forms. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT-60. Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by contacting the Office of Congressional Publishing Services, at the Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. ROBERT A. BRADY, Chairman. Late last summer, Ambassador Ryan Crocker pointed out the problems that this refugee crisis is posing for the United States itself when he expressed deep concerns that if we don't do a better job of helping to protect the people whose lives are at risk because they have worked for the United States, if we turn our back on them when they flee the country, than people will be less willing to work with us, and we won't be able to rely on those who make such a difference in terms of services of interpreters and guides and others providing essential services for United States activities in Iraq. I have been deeply concerned about this problem over the course of the last year, finding out how far we have fallen short of the mark when I was working with a group of high school students in Oregon and returning U.S. Oregon National Guard troops. They were fighting to bring to the United States their interpreter, a young woman who had been marked for death in Iraq because of her cooperation with the United States. It was frustrating over the course of the months that we worked with them because I really had no good explanation for these young people, the Guard and the high school students, about why it should be so hard for the United States to help people who helped us. It is not just people who had helped the United States who have fled the country, it is not just those that are concerned about Sunni and Shia violence; the Mandean, an ancient people, a small Christian sect, are caught in the crossfire of this civil war in Iraq, and they are at risk of being wiped out in their entirety for all time. Having been inspired by these young Oregonians, having been inspired, by other dedicated advocates, for example, Kirk Johnson, a former AID staff member, who chronicled the plight of over 600 people at risk, of whom less than 10 had been resettled, we introduced legislation to deal with the mismatch between the scope of the problem and the limited resources the United States Government has put into addressing it. Indeed, after we ``won the war in Iraq,'' the situation became worse on the ground, and we witnessed the explosion of this crisis. For 2005 and 2006, the numbers of people we helped were miniscule. Out of the 4 million people who have left their homes, we allowed 198 Iraqis in the United States in 2005, and 202 last year, almost entirely people who were being reunited with their families, who had been made refugees in 1991. There were glimmers of hope this year, with the administration promising, to allow 25,000 people into the United States, which was the same number of refugees that the Prime Minister of Sweden told me that Sweden was willing to accept. Later, the U.S. number fell to 7,000, and then ultimately we only let 1,800 Iraqis in throughout the entire last fiscal year. Even that was after a last-minute rush, because the first 6 months we had only allowed 69 Iraqi refugees. There is good news, however, because due to an amendment by Senator Kennedy that was adopted in the Senate for the Defense authorization bill, largely taken from provisions in our House legislation, we are actually going to be able to make some real progress. We will be able to process some of these refugees in their own country. Until now, people had been forced to leave Iraq. Even though we have the largest embassy in the history of the planet, they had to leave Iraq before they could apply for refugee status. We have an opportunity to increase to 5,000 a year those people who are at risk because they have helped us. These are important steps, and I hope they are approved. But much more needs to be done. First, we have to actually do what is authorized. Second, we need to put some real money into it, not just the $250 million for refugee assistance that is currently pending. That is rounding error, given the billions that we have spent in Iraq that we can't even account for. It is important for us to scale our commitment to make sure that we meet the humanitarian crisis in the aftermath of our war in Iraq.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, his leadership on this bill and for yielding me this time. Listening to the debate here on the rule, as I sat through the hearing last night in the Rules Committee, I am, frankly, more than a little disappointed in the discussion that has taken place. First of all, this is a very large and complex bill, but the vast majority of this bill has actually already passed the House at least once, some of it twice. We have had 11 committees that have been involved in this process. It has not somehow been ``sprung'' on people. There is a large stack of paper that represents the bill, as is the case in most complex legislation. But most of it is familiar to the staff. It is familiar to the Members, if they choose to have been involved with this issue. It has been here before. The process that has taken place is not one that we would have desired, but the Republicans in the Senate decided that there would not be a conference committee. But there has been a process that has gone on which I don't think it has been fairly characterized, frankly, where there has been extensive back-and-forth, where House and Senate staff committee members from the various jurisdictions met since September, have met in the same room going over these details. And, in fact, you can verify this is you talk to staff members on both sides. Republican staff members have been able to influence what has been going on here. Indeed I think majority staff members will acknowledge positively the technical expertise that has been provided and print out changes Republicans have influenced. But all of that is sort of swept away and ignored. That is wrong. Fundamentally, we want to talk about what we are for. This deals with a significant increase in CAFE standards. There is lots of new energy here because we focus the alternatives on the energy sources that need tax support. And we pay for it, although it is scaled down from what has already passed the House. I think people ought to look at the Record.