Jay Inslee

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. We thank the voice of Iowa. This is important across the country. The jobs that Mr. Loebsack is talking about losing would not have been lost if the Air Force had considered the fact that these companies are receiving these illegal subsidies. And it's not just we three Congressmen talking about it, it is the executive branch of the United States, which has fully evaluated this and come to the conclusion these were illegal subsidies. These were not just small. They received $1.7 billion in launch aid to develop the new A-350. They received $3.7 billion in launch aid for the A-380. That is why our U.S. Trade Representative has started this enforcement action, blown the whistle on these illegal subsidies. Frankly, it has been years later than it should have been. But we have finally done it. It's one of these great sort of black comedies to think in the year period when we finally blew the whistle after all of these years of abuse of these illegal subsidies that disadvantage American workers, that that same year the Air Force ends up giving a contract for $40 billion. These subsidies are not just an issue of dollars, they are jobs in Iowa as well. I want to thank Mr. Loebsack. I would like to yield to Mr. Tiahrt.

Mr. INSLEE. That's most disturbing because of that experience and because of reading that in France, they tell the French they are going to have 76 percent of the jobs in Europe. Then they come over in America and tell us they will maybe have 50 percent. This is one reason, just one of the reasons this contract has to be reviewed. I want to mention one now just before I yield to Mr. Loebsack for a moment. There is another aspect of this that is outraging Americans, and certainly is in my State, and that is that we are issuing this $40 billion contract to a company that essentially one of the partners that the American Government itself says is acting illegally. Because according to our U.S. Trade Representative, who has initiated a legal action against these companies for receiving illegal subsidies, illegal subsidies that violate international law, and by extension, violate United States law, at the same time we have taken this almost unprecedented action to bring a case in the world courts, the World Trade Organization, against their illegal subsidies. That is one agency of the United States Government. Sort of the ``cop on the beat'' blowing the whistle. And at the same time, another agency, the Air Force of the United States Federal Government is bailing them out of jail and giving them a $40 billion contract. That is hard to explain to any American, particularly those in the 300 companies around this country in 40 States that are going to be losing jobs as a result of this. If this isn't a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, one hand attempting to sanction these illegal subsidies, and I think anybody who reviews this would conclude there would have been billions of dollars of illegal subsidies to Airbus over the years, we will talk about those in detail, and then to turn around and reward them with $40 billion. They ought to be receiving a sanction from America, a punishment from America, some type of slap on the wrist, at least. Instead, they get $40 billion of taxpayer money. This is wrong by any sense, the code of the West, international trade treaties. This is something we all ought to be united about. With this, I would like to yield to Mr. Loebsack from the great State of Iowa, who has a concern about this.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, from time to time, we are called to, again, define what it means to be an American. And this is never more so than when security concerns threaten our commitment to liberty. And at those moments, at this moment, we need to be imbued with the spirit of 1776, a spirit against tyranny, a spirit that recognizes that the rule of law is the ultimate bulwark of liberty. A Nation that threw off the shackles of King George should never yield to an executive who seeks to trample on the rule of law. Whether it was inconvenient, whether it was bothersome, whether it was frustrating, we should never yield to an executive who believes himself above the rule of law. We should never yield to an Executive that, instead of coming to Congress to change a law, simply decides to ignore it. We are nothing without this commitment. We are everything with it. Stand for liberty. Pass this bill.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise with Mr. Sarbanes to offer an amendment today that will establish an energy conservation corps program. This will provide green collar training and educational service grants to nonprofit organizations, universities, and State and local governments. This is really an exciting opportunity for us to create opportunities for young folks to be engaged in this new revolution of clean energy in this country. The energy conservation corps we envisioned will help revitalize communities and preserve and restore the environment, while also preparing young people for the responsible and productive lives we know they are going to have. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will create hundreds of thousands of new opportunities for Americans. It will give low- income young people training to fill these green collar jobs that we are now excited about and hope for a prosperous and successful future. The conservation corps will fund energy conservation installations in public spaces, energy efficient green housing for elderly and low- income people, and restoration of historic structures on public lands. It would also provide funding for and repair, renovation, and rehabbing of existing infrastructure facilities, and transportation enhancements and recreational trail improvements. It is going to help a lot of places that we need energy conservation. It also establishes a competitive grant program to fund National Senior Service Corps programs that will involve seniors in providing meaningful volunteer opportunities. Now, there are multiple organizations that can participate in this, one of which just as an example is the Student Conservation Association. Under this grant program, they will be able to deploy sustainable community projects which engage disadvantaged and other youth to help communities learn energy saving and water conservation techniques and strategies to prevent pollution. In this program, SCA corps members will be able to provide a variety of energy-related services to homeowners, schools, and businesses, and communities. These services include outreach and education, facility audits, development of energy reduction strategies, and implementation in support of these programs. As part of this program, corps members will receive training, career development, and life skills while helping communities benefit from these sustainable programs. I am familiar with this organization, the SCA. My parents led Student Conservation Association efforts with young people in Mt. Rainier National Park back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and I saw how important these programs were both to help these communities, and to help the young folks themselves. Because what we have learned is, and what I saw firsthand when my folks worked with the SCA kids, once kids get involved in volunteer programs, once they get involved in their communities, once they get involved in clean energy, they are never going to turn back. This is going to be a lifetime pursuit, and there is nothing better we can do to help both kids' lives but this clean energy revolution we are going to launch in this country. So, by establishing the energy conservation corps, we will help make our Nation's volunteer programs into a true 21st century program, and we will also help solve one of the most pressing challenges of this century, global warming, while helping our kids as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to Chairwoman McCarthy.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, Americans across the country are infuriated today that the administration yanked a contract away from Boeing, an American company, for our air tankers and gave it to a consortium dominated by Europe, and they're infuriated for several good reasons: Number one, why are we giving a $40 billion stimulus plan to France? It is our economy that is in danger. Second, why, when we are suing this consortium for violation of international trade laws because of illegal subsidies, do we turn around and award them with a $40 billion contract? One agency says they're illegal; the other agency's giving them $40 billion of our taxpayer money. Number three, and this was an insulting thing when I heard this award, the person making the award says, well, this is an American airplane. It's got an American flag on the tail. Well, you can't just go out and buy a one nickel sticker, slap it on an Airbus airplane and call it ``America.'' We have got to have a policy of procurement that's good for our economy and our security. We need to fix this disastrous administration decision.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, it is not day 11 of FISA. We have passed FISA. It is day 2,593 of the Bush administration that has allowed us to remain addicted to oil, has allowed the price of gas to be doubled during his administration, and has allowed us to continue on a course of being insecure because we are wrapped around the axle of oil because of these tax subsidies. It is time to turn course. This side of the aisle believes the status quo in energy is acceptable. We don't think that's good enough. We believe that Americans are smart enough, creative enough, and innovative enough to launch a new Apollo Project in energy so that we can do for energy what Kennedy did for space, and this bill is step one in that regard. All over this country Americans are inventing a new energy future for us: the OSPRA solar energy company in Florida with clean solar thermal power; the Nanosolar Company that made the first commercial sale of thin cell photovoltaics last month; the Imperium Company in my State of Washington with biodiesel that powered the first jet airliner flight with biodiesel with Virgin Air last weekend; the Altarock Company, the first enhanced geothermal company now growing in the State of Washington; the Janicki Company, which is opening up a new wind turbine blade construction project. We essentially are ready to launch a rocket of clean energy innovation in this country. But this side of the aisle and my friends, unfortunately, have put a hold on the countdown, and we're about 2 seconds away to really having a burst of economic growth in this country. But they are allowing these tax breaks to expire, which are strangling the birth of these new industries. In the last several weeks I've got scores of phone calls from people all over the country ready for these new companies to start. But they're strangling them. We've got to keep this growth going. Launch a clean energy revolution.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, my colleague Norm Dicks and I would like to pay tribute in remembrance of Shannon Harps, one of Washington's finest young environmental advocates. She was killed on December 31, 2007 by an unknown assailant as she was returning to her Capitol Hill apartment in Seattle from the grocery store. Shannon's death is a tremendous loss to our community and the many issues to which she devoted her life. We join with Shannon's family, friends, and colleagues in the Sierra Club in mourning the loss of this wonderful person and fine community organizer. Though her life was cut short, she was able to make a large impact on the quality of the Northwest environment. Shannon came from her home State of Ohio to Seattle, Washington in February 2004 to join the staff of the Northwest Office of the Sierra Club. This move joined two of Shannon's strongest desires--to work to protect our environment and to live in the Northwest where she could more vigorously pursue her strong love for the outdoors. Shannon had a wonderful sense of humor and a style of working with people that immediately put them at ease and made it easy for them to join her in protecting our environment and quality of life. Shannon particularly enjoyed working with high school and college students to help them develop their interests and talents in working to create a better world. While Shannon's work was directly focused on protecting our environment, from wilderness to global warming, her values were deeply embedded in a strong sense of fairness and justice for all people. In the four years that Shannon lived in Washington State she helped to protect some of our finest lands. Shannon worked with several groups in a local coalition effort with Congressman Norm Dicks to add key lands in the Carbon River drainage to Mt. Rainier National Park. She worked with Sierra Club volunteers and staff from the many groups to help move the Wild Sky Wilderness proposal through the various steps of its arduous journey through the congressional process. She was a leader in the State of Washington, and worked with colleagues around the country, to help thwart the various ill-considered efforts to open up America's Arctic Coastal Plain to oil and gas drilling. She was a lead organizer in the successful effort in 2006 to pass the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard for Washington State assuring that Washington will be a leader in developing a clean energy future and creating good jobs. And, in the recent two years, much of her work focused on building relationships with local officials and creating public support so they too would endorse the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement making sure we are stepping up to the challenge of global warming. In her all-too-short life, she made contributions that benefited our community, State, and world. She lived her life as an example of living lightly on the planet, and engaged the people and world around her with grace, humor, kindness, and respect. Everyone who worked with her admired her style, tenacity, and sense of purpose, along with her sparkling smile and laugh. Shannon loved living and working in the Northwest. She reveled in the outdoors and nothing made her happier than to participate in a competitive run or to hike the Northwest's high mountain trails. Her death is a loss for us all but her spirit still resides with all of those with whom she worked and walked the trails. We will remember her as we continue the struggle to protect our lands and environment and to create a more just and fair world for us all.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, due to unexpected circumstances, I missed the vote on the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, H.R. 4137, important legislation to reauthorize and strengthen key Higher Education Act programs aimed at making college education more affordable and accessible for American students. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the legislation that will keep America's economy competitive. Overall, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act will address major issues facing our Nation's students from simplifying student aid forms to addressing rising textbook and tuition costs. The bill will increase assistance for Veterans and military families and bolster students' interest in science and technology by partnering with businesses and other stakeholders. I commend Chairman Miller and Hinojosa for their diligent work on the underlying legislation and for their support for my amendment that was passed to improve key education grants by setting higher environmental standards for recipients. The amendment ensures that Sustainability Planning Grants are awarded to projects aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, guaranteeing that Federal funds make a meaningful impact on global warming and requires that certain Federal grantees demonstrate that they meet or exceed American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, ASHRAE, energy-efficiency standards when designing new facilities. Finally, the amendment would add a Sense of Congress to reject the President's FY2009 budget proposal to eliminate the important Perkins Loan Program, a critical educational program for high-need students who will become a modern green workforce. Additionally, I applaud Representatives Blumenauer and Ehlers for their work to include provisions to support green higher education efforts. Many of our Nation's 4,000 colleges and universities are taking action to reduce greenhouse-gas pollution, which currently accounts for 7 percent of U.S. carbon emissions. Federal grants should be available to give a boost to such projects, like the state-of-the- art, carbon-neutral science laboratory being planned at Cascadia Community College in my district.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have helped add a little green idea to our higher education bill. I want to thank Chairman Miller for incorporating an idea that I have proposed into this manager's amendment, which will really help colleges in some of the terribly exciting work they are doing to green up their campuses. I visited Plymouth State University in New Hampshire a while back, which has built the Langdon Woods dormitory. It's a 100,000 square-foot dormitory. It's a beautiful dorm, and they are saving enormous amounts of energy because they built it green with good insulation, co- generation, triple-pane windows. It's a great idea. We have an amendment that has been incorporated that is going to help colleges move forward in three ways. First, it will call for those who use these Federal funds for the colleges to meet or exceed minimum energy efficiency standards for their new renovations or construction as developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers, two other ways we are going to do it. Congratulations to these colleges.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to address the two issues that we have a chance to really move forward on, and that is the difficulties in our economy and the difficulties in our energy policy; and we think we have an opportunity, and I met this afternoon with a good number of my colleagues about how to do something about both, the slow-down in our economy and our need to rejuvenate our economy by adopting some new clean energy strategies for the country. We think this is an ideal opportunity for the House of Representatives to lead a short-term plan economically to help stimulate our economy, while at the same time directing our economy towards a clean energy future which can really grow jobs, millions of jobs in our country. What the group of my colleagues and I discussed is the hope that in our upcoming stimulus package, which is now under development, that our stimulus package can hew to the values set forth by Speaker Pelosi of being timely, targeted, and temporary. We think if we follow those three guidelines, we can do things to help our short-term clean energy revolution really take off in the United States. I have come to the floor to talk about that night, about some options that are available to us. We know that we want to make sure that our stimulus package is timely, that it in fact gets into the economy very quickly, because that is what we need. This is not something that can wait 5 years. We need to have a stimulus now. But we also need that stimulus to be targeted. This is not a moment where it would be wise for us to simply sort of spread butter across America very thinly in the hopes that somehow it will help the economy blossom. We need to target our strategies so that it will be really driving economic growth in the United States and, importantly, make sure that that economic growth takes place in the United States. It won't do us much good to just short of spread a thin layer of relief, because a lot of that would end up buying products from China, frankly. We want to look for targeted stimulus that will really help the growth in the American economy and create jobs in America. If we have a choice between two activities, one of which would be simply to allow buying retail products from China, and one which would really grow jobs in America, we should pick the latter. A group of my colleagues and myself want to make a proposal that will ensure that we target some of the stimulus into a clean energy future for America that really grows jobs in this country and doesn't simply buy retail products from China. So we are going to make a proposal that will suggest that we adopt some measures that in a very timely fashion can inject growth into the American economy this year and will ensure that we target that strategy to the development of clean energy jobs, and I want to talk about some of the things that can accomplish that in our stimulus package. The first thing that we will propose is a very down-to-Earth, extremely commonsense expansion of an existing program that helps low- income Americans weatherize their homes. We currently have a program that is working very well, very efficient, and extremely popular to help Americans put in insulation, fill in cracks, get energy-efficient windows, essentially just quit wasting heat that filters out through the cracks of our homes. That right now is a $250 million program to help Americans do that. We suggest we boost that by $100 million this year in a program that can immediately put people to work. We know we have people that are losing their jobs today because the home construction industry is slowing down, something I am familiar with. My oldest son is in the home construction industry, and he is doing okay in Washington State, but we know in other areas, particularly, they have had a real slow-down in the home construction industry. We can put those people that are being laid off back to work in the home weatherization industry, and we can do that today if we boost the funding in the home weatherization industry. If we do that, and we have checked with the Department and it can easily accommodate another $100 million right away so that we can get that work being done in the next several months. So we are proposing that we add $100 million. It sounds like a lot of money, but in the course of a 50 or $100 billion stimulus package, it is actually a very small amount of money. It can make a big difference for people to make their homes more weather efficient. They reduce their energy costs. At the same time, we are putting people back to work who are being laid of in the construction industry. This is really a golden opportunity for us. It's the first thing we'd propose. The second thing we'd like to propose is that we stop the hemorrhaging that is going on right now in the renewable energy industry. Now, we allowed, in a huge failure by our Congress, frankly, the lapse of some tax incentives which have created thousands of jobs in this country in the renewable energy industry. Those lapsed this past December, essentially. Any project that is not done this year would not be able to take advantage of them. We have projects right now that are just crying out for this tax relief as an incentive in the wind industry, in the solar energy industry, and several of the other renewable energy industries. Because those tax credits lapsed, and I just got off the phone this afternoon with a leader in the solar energy industry who told us we are already seeing a decline already in the number of orders for some of these renewable energy industry projects, and that is a terrible mistake at the very moment where we need to stimulate growth, and we know we need to do it in these advanced energy growth segments of our economy. So we would propose that we have a short-term, a 1-year extension of the production tax credit and the investment tax credit, which would allow these industries to again get on the growth track that they have been on with such great success. These industries are tremendously beneficial in creating jobs. They actually create twice as many jobs. For every $1 of economic growth, they create twice as many jobs. They are very, very labor intensive in growing these technologies. Now, it would be a terrible moment to allow us to go backwards in solar and wind and other associated technologies. The reason is we are just starting to lead the world in these technologies. Last Friday was the first commercial shipment of what we call thin cell photovoltaics by the Nano Solar Company in Palo Alto, California. Thin cell photovoltaics are extremely cost effective. It's a new type of photovoltaic cells. People are now familiar with the silicone-based cell. The thin cell photovoltaic cells, as its name suggests, it's thin, and it can be made with great cost advantages. The very first commercial sale in world history took place a week ago last Friday. So we hate to see these breakthroughs taking place and not see the possible expansion of their application. The very first permit for a wave power buoy, and we have buoys now that can generate electricity as they bob up and down in the waves, the very first permit off the Washington State coast was issued in the last two weeks to the Finavera Company, a company with offices in the Northwest. So at the moment we see these technologies, we'd hate to see a decline in the orders for these technologies taking place, which is now taking place because we allowed these production and investment tax credits to lapse. We should simply restore them and renew them for at least another year, short-term relief, and this is very timely if we do this, because if we do this, there's an immediate, an immediate demand by people when we know these tax credits will be available to go out and order these projects that get these jobs going, putting the pedal to the metal. You don't have to wait. The third thing we would propose is a renewal and partial extension of the solar tax credit for residential homes. That also expired, and it has been historically limited to $2,000. Frankly, it hasn't cut the mustard. It simply hasn't been enough to really get residential customers engaged to get going on ordering these products. If we simply renew that for 1 year, we recommend expanding it to $4,000 per consumer. If we do that, we are going to have an immediate burst of orders and at least continuation of the growth in orders in solar, as we have had historically. Fourth, we propose to essentially extend the otherwise lapsed consumer credit for solar for the same reasons that we just talked about. It just makes a lot of sense. Fifth, we'd suggest extending the expired energy efficient credit both for homes and commercial buildings. It makes no sense to have allowed these tax credits to expire. When they exist, they create this demand for the type of work we talked about in the weatherization program, only it's larger in its application, because this is not just low-income people. It's now the entire United States, folks who can take advantage of it. It creates a demand. It happens immediately, because once people know they are going to be able to have access to these tax credits, they can go out and make the orders right away to get this done. We also hope to propose a Green Fund proposal. Frankly, we are working on this right now to discuss how we can create ``green collar jobs'' in this country, and a ``green collar job'' proposal is something we think we ought to pursue. We want to find a way to do that to make it timely. But as a package, these proposals as a package have the capacity to make sure that our stimulus package is targeted to something that is really going to get spent in America. Frankly, a lot of the other proposals out there are going to get spent buying retail products from China. You know, that is fair and Americans do that. But if we want to stimulate the economy, these proposals we have now proposed have the added advantage of spending money right here. This will happen immediately, and we know it works, because all of the things we have proposed have been tested. These are not avant-garde proposals. These are things we know that work because they have been in the field, we know the economic growth they have produced, we know they create jobs. The weatherization program is doing it today. The production investment tax credits for several years we know created great growth. The most rapidly growing part of the economy right now has been the wind turbine industry, and we hate to see that slow down, and the same can be said about the solar industry. So we simply want to continue apace the success we have had, and we are going to urge our colleagues to include at least a portion of our proposal in this package. We also want to note that we don't want to bust the bank on this. The proposals we have talked about, cumulatively, if this is a $100 billion stimulus package, this would be about 1 percent. We are proposing just maybe 1 percent of the package would include the provisions we have included. If it is $50 billion, it would be 2 percent. So the items we have suggested today are relatively modest portions of this package, but they are very important, because we are going to lose the momentum the United States is starting to develop as a world leader in clean technology. We have just started to gain that momentum. We don't want to give it up. It would be a shame to see these industries start to plateau just when they are on the growth curve of new technological development. That is not the American way. The American way is to innovate, to grow and have a confidence in our economy and our inventive talents. This is part and parcel of that, and in the spirit of the New Apollo Project, something I have been advocating for a long time, that we should have the same confidence that Kennedy had in the original Apollo project that took us to the moon, we ought to have the same confidence in a clean energy economy. I am not the only one talking about this. I was listening to Senator Clinton talk about this the other day in the Senate, about the need for an Apollo project. She has made some proposals about a stimulus package that are very similar to some of the ones we are proposing in the House. I think that is the right attitude we should have, because it is based on confidence. Her larger program for clean energy also tracks the New Apollo Project that I have proposed in the House that would really on a major league basis propose major investments in clean technology. She has proposed a major league weatherization program to weatherize 20 million homes, and that is the scale that we ought to be thinking about. She has proposed 55 mile per gallon standards for our cars, and a $50 billion pool of funds to be financed by transferring some of the tax benefits that have been given to the oil and gas industry and put it back into the clean energy industry and create a multi-billion dollar fund for the research to expand this technology. That is the type of thing we need. We appreciate that going on in the Senate, and we are going to continue to push these ideas in the House. But let's start on the stimulus package. It is one small step for man, maybe not quite a giant leap for mankind, but it is commonsense for Americans that we do this. I appreciate my colleagues working with me, Lloyd Doggett, who has been a long time leader on this, Tom Udall and others. We are going to push this ball. We hope we are successful.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Cynthia ``Cindy'' Harrison for nearly twenty years of hard work and dedication as Bainbridge Island's head librarian. After two decades of extraordinary service, Cindy is retiring from Bainbridge Island Public Library. In 2006, Cindy was recognized with the highly-coveted New York Times Librarian of the Year Award, bringing her library national recognition through her tireless efforts. Cindy was a public face for the library during a period of growth when more than $2 million was raised solely from private donations. Under Cindy's leadership, more than 75 percent of Bainbridge Islanders have library cards, with the Island's 8,000 households, borrowing more than one-half millions books and materials last year. Cindy has made the library a better place in every way. Her stewardship and leadership has ensured that the building and programs have adapted to the changing needs of Bainbridge Islanders. Her imagination and dedication to learning have made the Library a magnet for all the citizens of Bainbridge Island and have endeared her to the community. I offer my praise to Cindy Harrison, for her devotion to the Bainbridge Island library and community.

Mr. INSLEE

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

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, as much of America now knows, yesterday in a split decision, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to approve new media ownership rules that in many ways are far worse for the public interest than anything previously revealed by FCC Chairman Martin. Prior to yesterday's vote. Chairman Martin had attempted to portray his proposal as a ``moderate compromise'' that would allow one company to own both a daily newspaper and a low-rated broadcast TV station in only the 20 largest media markets. But research from Free Press-- collected in the Devil in the Details report--exposed how the loose and ambiguous ``waiver'' standards in the proposal left a giant loophole for companies to sidestep the ban in any market and for any station. The final rule, rewritten in the middle of the night before the hearing, retains all of the original loopholes and adds additional loopholes that appear to allow cross-ownership mergers in virtually any market. While I had held out hope that the FCC would delay this vote given the outpouring of public commentary opposing the rule changes, it is clear that the Chairman of the FCC is not listening. I see no other choice than to push for congressional action, and to that end, yesterday I introduced H.R. 4835, the Media Ownership Act of 2007, in the House to stop these new cross-ownership rules from going forward. I am pleased to have been joined by my Washington State colleague Representative Dave Reichert in this bipartisan effort, and it is my hope that we can move swiftly to prevent these new rules from going into effect. This effort is the companion to work being done in the Senate Commerce Committee where a bipartisan group of Senators have led the effort against these changes. When Chairman Martin was before the Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this month, I asked him how he could ignore the public outcry he heard when he visited Seattle, Washington, where--despite less than 5 days notice--thousands turned out and stayed until 1 a.m. on a Friday night to voice their concerns. I asked him how we could believe that he had thoughtfully considered the public's concerns, when less than 3 days later, the Chairman published an op-ed in the New York Times outlining his plan for media consolidation. Clearly, Chairman Martin is not listening to the American people, and now we need to step up and ensure that their voices are heard. I hope my colleagues here in Congress will join me in this eftort, and I hope this legislation moves swiftly.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, yesterday I introduced The National Diabetes Coordinator Act, H.R. 4836. As some of my colleagues who have worked on issues relating to diabetes may be aware, the Federal Government spends over $80 billion per year treating diabetes and its complications. Since 1980, the number of Americans suffering from diabetes has doubled to more than 20 million, and that number is projected to double again by 2025. The serious complications stemming from diabetes--including heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, blindness, amputation and renal disease--are well documented and even more importantly, they are largely preventable with proper management and treatment. To that end, H.R. 4836 would establish a National Diabetes Coordinator to coordinate research and prevention activities throughout the federal government, including agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense. We need this kind of comprehensive approach to get our hands around what is rapidly becoming an all-encompassing epidemic. A recent study found that one out of every eight Federal health care dollars is spent treating people with diabetes. The total amount of money spent on diabetes is nearly equal to the entire budget for the U.S. Department of Education, roughly $80 billion. While we expend vast resources on this effort, of that $80 billion, less than 1 percent is spent on direct diabetes prevention. When you also consider that 18 of 21 Federal agencies spend money on diabetes, there is a clear need for a National Coordinator to establish a strategy to prevent and reduce diabetes and its complications. We have seen evidence that this approach can work. A recent Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, study demonstrated that Medicare and Medicaid could save $2.5 billion a year by presenting diabetes and its complications with appropriate primary care. The city of Asheville, North Carolina saved $2.000 per employee with an innovative diabetes management program. The NIH-sponsored Diabetes Prevention Project proved that we can prevent and delay diabetes and its complications by 58 percent. A National Diabetes Coordinator will provide the Federal leadership necessary to maximize the funds the Federal Government is currently spending to save money and lives. Further, a National Diabetes Coordinator with specific responsibilities to work across agencies to prevent and reduce diabetes and its complications will be a model for how the U.S. can deal with other chronic diseases such as heart disease. As we consider how to move forward in the fight against diabetes, I encourage my colleagues to think of these statistics: one in three kids born today will get diabetes, and that figure rises to one in two in minorities. Further, 32 percent of the Medicare program is spent on the 18 percent of beneficiaries with diabetes. We need Federal leadership provided in H.R. 4836 to help reverse these trends and make a difference for future generations.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today the Federal Communications Commission may do violence to its own name. The idea of communication is that you speak, but you also listen. And in a stunning act of bureaucratic arrogance, the FCC today may refuse to listen to the thousands of Americans who have told them to listen to America and not change the media consolidation laws. The FCC went out and held these hearings, including in Seattle, Washington, where thousands of people came and told the FCC in no uncertain terms that their arrogant effort to remove these productions for the first amendment could not stand, and yet they refused to listen to Americans who told them that. We know that when we lose access to information, democracy suffers. I hope the FCC today might have second thoughts and decide that part of their job is listening to the American people, in fact, the highest part of their job. And we're going to do everything we can, if they do this today, to stop in the tracks this effort to undo protection against media consolidation.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, we are starting a clean energy revolution today. It is not the end of that revolution, it is not perhaps even the beginning of the end of that clean energy revolution, but it is the end of the beginning for two important points. First, we are starting a revolution in transportation today in the United States, and exhibit A in that regard is the GM Volt. The GM Volt, which GM hopes to have in mass production, is a plug-in hybrid car. You plug it in at night, you drive it for 40 miles just on electricity, zero gasoline, and after 40 miles you use a hybrid train with gasoline and someday cellulosic ethanol for the remaining part of your range. Our corporate average fuel economy standards, which we make the first strides in in three decades, will enhance the opportunity for Americans to have not just a few miles here or there per gallon, but a revolution in transportation. This car will get over 100 miles per gallon of gasoline. This car will operate all on electricity for the first 40 miles. It is this revolutionary attitude that we need to have in America, and we make the first steps, and the first shots in that revolution are fired today. But it is not the end of that revolution, because we have much more to do. We did not succeed this week in advancing renewable energy to have 15 percent of renewables. We did not succeed this week to advance tax relief for those emerging new businesses. But exhibit A, on the renewable energy front, is a picture of the solar thermal array produced by the Austra Energy Company. This company this last month signed enough contracts for 500,000 homes to be heated by solar thermal energy which, within the decade, will be price competitive with coal-based energy if we succeed in our next steps in this clean energy revolution. That is why we will be back next year to have the true clean energy revolution America deserves.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. What is neat about this is a lot of these things are happening in areas that have previously been quite depressed. This is an area that has really been hurt when the timber industry has had some tough times. And now we have got this, and there are two other very green industries that have developed in Grays Harbor, Washington. You look around the Midwest where the ethanol plants have gone up, these communities have really revitalized. A lot of them have been using co-ops. This is not all money from Wall Street. These are co-ops where people have banded together and built their own industry. It is a very unifying experience when these communities do this. We see this happening in the inner city where we are developing green collar jobs, where we are improving the efficiency of older buildings. When you have a green collar job to rebuild a building to make it energy efficient, that job doesn't get shipped to China. It is right here. It is a local green collar job. That is why we are excited about that. We talked about the five steps we took last Thursday: number one, auto efficiency, which we are calling for; number two, commonsense tax fairness to move some of these things away from oil and gas to these new businesses and consumers to help them; number three, the renewable energy standards so we can have clean energy electricity; number four, the efficiency standards that Mike and Meg Town used to such effect to allow your home to be efficient; and, number five, the renewable fuels standard where we are calling for advanced fuels. And by the way, our renewable fuels standard requires these advanced biofuels. It requires about two-thirds of this to be from these advanced forms, not just corn ethanol, but advanced forms of ethanol in the future. So those are five significant steps. Just to note how significant they are, there has been an independent group that evaluates energy policy that has evaluated a very similar plan to this and concluded that when this plan is implemented, it will save more carbon dioxide from going into the atmosphere, the principal global warming gas, than all of our cars and trucks are putting into the atmosphere today. This is a big, big deal. We know we have to reduce our carbon dioxide by probably 80 percent by the year 2050 to prevent carbon dioxide from going over twice preindustrial levels. This is about maybe 35 or more percent of the way we need to go. So it is a very significant first five steps on that path. For those who are interested in this subject, I want to congratulate Vice President Al Gore for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I read his acceptance speech, which anyone who is interested in the subject I would recommend it to them. It is available on some Web site somewhere. It is a brilliant statement of the planetary emergency we now have, and I would encourage people to take a look at it because it will give you a sense of urgency that we have.

Mr. INSLEE. And what we have found, the genius of this, like you said, once the demand is created for these renewable energy prices, there is a very, very tried and tested rule that kicks in, which is, they become cheaper over time. And people say, well, gee, some of these things cost more than coal right now or oil and gas. Well, that's true right now, but look at what the experience has been over the last two decades. These are graphs from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the renewable energy cost trends over the last 25, 27 years, and there is remarkable consistency. Wind energy started out in 1980 about 30 cents, 32 cents a kilowatt hour. It came down dramatically, until now it's down to in the range of 6 to 8 cents in this graph, that actually might be a little optimistic, in the year 2000. Look at this enormous reduction over the last 20 years because of improvements in technology, and the fact that once you have scales of economy, you manufacture more of these, they cost less. Same thing with solar thermal technology, that type of technology I showed earlier with the mirrors, heating up the water, started out at 60 cents a kilowatt hour in 1990, gone down to about 8 cents a kilowatt hour now in the year 2000. Again, these are, frankly, a little optimistic. These charts are a little less than the numbers I've heard quoted, but you get the general trend that it's incredibly down. Photovoltaic solar energy, that's the kind most of us are familiar with, which you have a silicone panel, and it just takes the sun's energy and spins off an electron and creates an electrical current, started at 100 cents a kilowatt hour, now it's down to 22, 24 cents a kilowatt hour. And what we find in these charts, in almost all these technologies there is almost this kind of law, I don't know if it's got a name yet, when you increase by a factor of 10 the number of units of these renewable sources, the price comes down 20 cents. Now, what does that tell us? We know two things for sure; the cost of fossil fuels is going up, and it isn't coming down. China is coming on like gang busters. They're demanding. They want to start buying the oil for their cars, too. And as their economy grows, that demand is going up. And we know we're not producing, we're not keeping up with the pace of demand for the increase in our oil production, so fossil fuel is going up over time. We know these renewable sources are coming down over time, including geothermal, which is coming down dramatically again, from 1 dollar in 1980 down to about 26, 28 cents now. So, we know these are coming down. These lines are going to cross. And if we're going to hitch our economic star to some technology, let's hitch our star to the technologies that are getting cheaper, not the ones that are getting more expensive over time. And that's what this bill has done. I yield to Mr. Klein.

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I hope that that occurs. And I'm really excited about power off our coastline as well. We have a little coastline off the Pacific coast which actually has the potential to generate power from waves. Mr. Klein talked about power from currents, where you can have turbines that turn, like a windmill or rotary moving mechanisms, but we also have huge power from waves that simply go up and down that are generated by the wind. And off our coast right now, we have some buoys going into the water, and as they bob up and down, they compress water, and that generates compression that turns the turbine that generates electricity. And this is a technology that is in its infancy, but there is enormous power in our wave power. In a 10x10 mile stretch off the Pacific coast, there is enough electricity for all the electrical needs of California, for instance. So, here's another technology. I want to compare this technology to wind power. I've got a picture here of the largest wind farm in the western hemisphere, it's in southeastern Washington, in my State. These are, I think, almost three- quarters to one megawatt. That's enough for 1,000 homes, each one of these turbines. They are somewhere between 250 and 300 feet high. And what that power represents now is absolutely clean power, which today is the least expensive power that we can buy in the Pacific Northwest. If you want to get the cheapest power you can buy right now, this is the cheapest power essentially that you can buy, cheaper compared to even coal fire, or as cheap as a coal fire plant. That's why there is huge demand for these turbines. Actually, the pricing has gone up because there is so much demand for them, people want to buy them. The reason I mention wind in conjunction with wave power and tidal power is a lot of people think that wave power and tidal power is sort of where the wind industry was about 20 to 25 years ago, in its infancy. When this started, people laughed at it. They thought it was like a big tinker toy with a bunch of folks living in a teepee that were dreaming up. And for a long time it was ahead of its time. Now it is commercially viable, it is supporting thousands of jobs. The Speaker's State of Pennsylvania has a company called Gamesa that is manufacturing these turbines. In Iowa, the Clipper Turbine Company is manufacturing. We want to make these and put them out to the world. That's why the third step, we've talked about the first two, the auto efficiency standards, the tax fairness provisions, and now the third step we've taken is what we call the renewable electricity standard, which requires 15 percent of our electricity to come from a combination of renewable energy, clean energy sources, wind, solar, wave, enhanced geothermal, and efficiency. And we believe if we simply create those demands for these technologies, if you demand it, they will come. And these technologies will take off once we have these demands. So, this is an important part of the package. Some of our colleagues across the Chamber and in the Senate are balking at this. If we don't get this through now, we will next time. We will make some adjustments to it and get it through, because once people find out about these technologies, they're ready to rock and roll. I yield to Mr. Klein.

Mr. INSLEE. Well, this is why this is something that can unify us, because it is an economic growth plan, it is something that can unify us, red State, blue State, urban, rural, all of us can get behind economic development. And we have seen instances of that tonight when we have talked about that. I think the bill that we have promoted ought to be able to promote that economic development in rural and urban areas, red and blue States. I really think it is a unifying message. We mentioned these five steps, but there is a giant leap for mankind that will be on our plate when we return in January, that is, we have to find a way to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that is going into the atmosphere. And the ultimate way to do that is what we call a cap- and-trade system, which we hope to embrace and pass in this House next year. A cap-and-trade system does two things. First, it caps the amount of total carbon that goes into the atmosphere, the total amount of pollution, the total amounts of carbon dioxide and methane that contribute to global climate change. And we have done this in a variety of pollutants, particularly sulfur dioxide, which we have a cap on. Previous Congresses have put a cap on sulfur dioxide. But we have a giant loophole in that there is no cap today for carbon dioxide and some of these other global warming gases. So next year, we will be working on a plan to cap the total amount of these global warming gases that go into the atmosphere and give the Americans the confidence and the security to know that their grandkids aren't going to be exposed to runaway climate change associated with global warming. And then we are going to insist that polluting industries that put that pollution in the air have to pay for that. They can't do it for free any more. Essentially, they have been using the atmosphere like a private garbage dump, like they back their truck full of junk and dump it into your county park. We don't let them do that, dump their junk in our county park, and we are not going to let them dump their CO2 in the atmosphere any more with zero cost. So there will be a charge associated with that and that will be tradable amongst industries to make it efficient. So when we adopt this cap-and-trade system, we will truly have the ultimate incentive for the geniuses of America to create these technologies, and we will be looking for people's input on this. We hope to have a bipartisan bill to do this, because there is no Republican or Democrat, or shouldn't be in this debate. We want to have something that all our kids can have a future on and we hope to do that. So, Mr. Klein, I wonder if you have any final comments.

Mr. INSLEE. Well, we have a ways to go, but we have made five maybe not- so-small steps for a few people here in Congress and in America. We have one giant leap for mankind to come. But we have got a great start, and this is going to help Americans, both their environment, their security and their economy, and that is three bold steps. Thanks for your participation, Mr. Klein.