Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest amount of respect for the chairman of our committee, the Ways and Means Committee. But I think you're wrong on what you're trying to do today.

Do you remember May 31 of this year, Mr. Chairman? We took a vote May 31. In fact, we took a vote on raising the debt limit. The vote was based upon a resolution introduced in this House by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee; and he said when he introduced the piece of legislation on this floor that he hoped it would fail. He said we're not going to get enough votes to get this done. And so he set out to undermine his own resolution.

Now JFK said: I do not shrink from this responsibility; I welcome it.

I welcome my responsibility today and what I have to do. I'm going to have a pleasure to vote ``no'' because I know what has happened since May 31, a day of infamy. So we'll make it known that the bill couldn't pass so the American people understand that. The American people don't want us to tell them what they need or what they want. They should tell us what they need and what they want. We think we know, and most of the time we don't know on either side of the aisle.

They're choosing to extend the state of political and economic turmoil another 6 months in this bill. We want to go through the holidays doing this back and forth? Won't that be sweet. We'll make people think we're working.

It has been over 200 days and still not one piece of job legislation from the majority on this floor. Decades of the majority's policies exploded the deficit. You know what the cause of it is. The cost of just the Bush tax cuts will be 40 percent of the Federal debt by 2019. And when you add in the two wars, it'll be 47 percent. Who are we kidding here? The Republican budget bill this year added $6 trillion to the national debt.

I rest my case. Live up to your responsibilities. That's what the American people want us to do.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the underlying bill H.R. 2584, a bill which irresponsibly slashes funding for many of our Nation's most important environmental and infrastructure programs. If it's passed, the overall legislation would cause grave harm to the health and safety of our communities and in addition removes protections for our wildlife and environment.

I'll take a few issues at hand.

Clean water infrastructure. Ensuring our families have clean water is under attack in this bill. It cuts 55 percent, almost $1 billion, from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This program enables the States to invest in much-needed repairs and improvements to aging water infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, an estimated 25 percent of all treated water in the United States of America is lost due to leakage from water systems that are in disrepair--25 percent of the water that's already been treated. What a waste of money in supposedly an austere Congress.

We're facing a $500 billion funding gap to bring aging water and wastewater infrastructure back to par. Our pipes are literally crumbling beneath our feet, out of sight, out of mind until the next major water main break disrupts our lives and our towns.

This investment in water infrastructure has the potential to generate thousands and thousands of American jobs since every $1 billion in infrastructure investment supports 28,500 jobs.

Second issue: air quality. The bill that's before us takes us further backwards to an era where polluters poisoned our atmosphere at will by preventing the EPA from implementing two important air quality rules-- the power plant air toxics rule and the transport rule, irresponsibly putting the health of our communities at risk. We're going backward instead of forward.

Air pollution disproportionately impacts the urban areas in my district, such as Paterson, New Jersey, where we see much higher incidences of asthma and other respiratory ailments due to the concentrations of harmful pollutants. It is terrible. Go to our hospitals. It is out of control not just in Paterson, New Jersey, but across the United States. These pollutants can become lodged in the tissues of the lungs and interfere with the respiratory system. This needs to be controlled.

And the National Park Service itself, referred to in the last debate, this proposed legislation would cripple the operation of the National Park Service. This service takes care of our parks. We fought for this, all of us, Democrats, Republicans in whatever State it was in this Union. They want to slash this by $409 million from the President's request. Our national parks are visited by 275 million people each year. They come from all over the world to appreciate our country's natural and historic wonders. In my district, the Park Service is hard at work on the Great Falls National Historic Park right in my home city of Paterson, the only historic park in the entire Nation that has aesthetic value as well as historical importance, as it was the first industrial city of the United States.

The investment we make in our parks pays for itself many times over in economic development in the surrounding areas and the enjoyment and education they provide to Americans of all ages. We must ensure that the Park Service has the resources they require to ensure that parks all over the country are properly operating.

How about the arts and humanities in this legislation? Besides the huge cited cuts to our health, infrastructure, and environment, the bill before us drastically cuts funding to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. As a former teacher, as a member of the Congressional Arts Caucus, as many of us are, I have seen firsthand the positive impact that arts and humanities education has on the success of our students. In my district, as a result of the economic crisis, many schools have been forced to cut back on arts programs and to lay off arts teachers. They're the first to go.

In conclusion, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that this legislation leaves a lot to be desired. We are seeing our colleagues on the other side of the aisle attempting to legislate through the appropriations process, selectively imposing deep cuts to programs which their special interest constituencies don't approve of. The draconian cuts in this bill are truly unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for all he has gone through in the last couple of years so that people understand that we do need some regulation.

Now today, my friends on the other side--and I mean that--the stock market hit its highest point since 2008. Isn't that wonderful? And yet we are at 9.2 percent unemployment.

Well, I looked at the Treasuries. They're doing very fine. They're doing well. But Main Street isn't; and that's what consumer protection is all about, Main Street. No question about it.

We don't want to go back. We don't want to go back to 2007 and 2008. Why? Because the conditions that led to the mess we have now, we don't want those conditions to exist now, and that's what we've been trying to correct, particularly over the last 2 years.

Now, here's the consensus, whether you are a European financial person or someone in the United States, here's the consensus: Dodd- Frank puts us more on a level playing field with regard to capital reserve, with regard to too big to fail. Regardless of what we are talking about, we are oceans ahead of our European partners and our allies in addressing these issues because we're addressing the causes of the financial meltdown in the United States and in foreign allies.

And if it wasn't for the gentleman from Massachusetts, and the gentleman from Connecticut at the other end of the building, we wouldn't be where we are today, and we'd be saying: Let's go back; we want things to be like they were in 2007 and 2008. Well, things were not good.

In a book by James Stewart, ``How False Statements Are Undermining America,'' he zeroes in on the Madoff situation which became a poster child. No one else has been really brought before us. No one else has really suffered for the pain they provided to the middle class and to Main Street people. We don't want to go back. We want different rules, and regulations do have a part in it. And the person who is struggling day in and day out needs our help.

They don't need it. It doesn't matter who the President nominated, you'll turn it down. It's this bureau you want to destroy, not the nominee.

Madam Speaker, today, July 19th, I unavoidably missed two rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 603, On Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 355. Additionally, had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 604, On Agreeing to H. Res. 355.

Mr. Speaker, ``The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act'' shows yet again how out of step the Majority is with the needs and concerns of ordinary Americans. With over 9 percent unemployment, Congress should focus on growing the economy, lowering unemployment and reducing our deficit.

We can achieve this economic growth through a fiscal policy that invests in our future, creates broad based economic growth and shares the burden of debt reduction. Instead, we are debating an ideologically extreme policy that makes the Majority's budget's treatment of seniors, the middle class and our children look balanced.

This bill caps spending at 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a level not seen since 1966, when seniors made up 9 percent of the population, not the 13 percent they make up today. In 1966, the average cost of medical care was $1,500 a year, not the $8,200 that it is today, and almost no Americans were enrolled in Medicare, whereas over 46 million seniors are enrolled today.

Even more disturbing, the bill holds an increase in the debt ceiling hostage to the passage of a so-called ``Balanced Budget Amendment.'' This Balanced Budget Amendment is more radical than those that have been considered by Congress in the past. Unbelievably, it would require a supermajority in both houses of Congress to raise revenues.

However, you would only need a simple majority to cut taxes on the wealthy and multi-national corporations and slash government programs that our most vulnerable citizens rely on. What type of priorities do we have when we change the Constitution to make it easier to cut Medicare and Social Security, and nearly impossible to end the tax breaks for special interests groups like the oil industry?

We are at a place in our history where the concentration of wealth at the very top has only been matched at the time immediately prior to the Great Depression. This bill will not only continue this trend, but it will act as a catalyst where the people who already have so much, will be given so much more.

And if one thinks that the Balanced Budget Amendment is sound fiscal policy, they would be sorely mistaken. One only has to look at many of the states who have Balanced Budget Amendments on the books to see what happens when you amend your Constitution to promote ideology and politics over common sense fiscal solutions.

The budget priorities enshrined in this legislation have been soundly rejected by the American people, who have also made it clear that they want Congress to come together and solve our fiscal problems and to stop political posturing. We need to be serious in our attempts to right our fiscal ship, but this Majority is asking our seniors, our children and our middle class workers to take on all the sacrifice while asking nothing of the wealthiest amongst us. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I unavoidably missed two rollcall votes. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 601 on passage of H.R. 33--To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to specify when certain securities issued in connection with church plans are treated as exempted securities for purposes of that Act. Additionally, had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 602, on approving the Journal.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to Title V of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.

Two months ago, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood visited New York to announce that $450 million rejected by the State of Florida would be used for Amtrak high-speed railway improvements in the State of New Jersey. To paraphrase a long time champion of Amtrak, who currently serves as our nation's Vice President, this was definitely a big deal.

This needed funding is going to increase the speed and efficiency of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC) in New Jersey. Specifically, funding has been designated to improve the railroad's infrastructure between New Brunswick and Trenton, allowing for train speeds to be increased from 130 miles per hour, to 160 miles per hour, through improvements to NEC power system, signals, track, and catenaries. As anyone who has ridden on an Acela train during a hot day, or sat on a stagnant train during all too frequent power issues, knows that infrastructure improvements are very necessary for this busy stretch of railroad.

Residents throughout the northeast, including thousands of New Jersey commuters riding New Jersey Transit, will be able to have a more efficient ride with most with a stronger, faster, and more consistent Northeast Corridor.

New Jersey contractors, along with construction and rail laborers, are looking forward to getting to work on this needed project. I know that the people of New Jersey thought that this announcement was a done deal.

That is why I joined their surprise when I learned the Appropriations Committee had decided to divert New Jersey's needed resources and redirect this funding for disaster relief for Mississippi and Missouri River flood events.

I strongly support providing emergency disaster relief. I have great respect for my neighbor to the west, the Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee. His intentions to help Americans who have been flooded out of homes and businesses are certainly laudable. We are both extremely sympathetic to flood relief as our adjoining districts have significant flooding problems that require federal assistance to resolve.

But it is short sighted to take away funding for high-speed rail for this purpose. As China zooms past us at 250 miles per hour, our nation putters along with a transportation system that cannot keep up with growing population and demand. Coming off of another month with anemic job growth, we simply cannot afford to pull funding that would create good paying planning and construction jobs thatNew Jersey sorely needs.

I urge the Committee to find a new offset for this emergency funding. And at the same time, I urge the Department of Transportation to obligate their rail funds quickly, so that we can get past this charade and get this important high speed rail funding out to bid.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Chairman, to engage in a colloquy on the need for traumatic brain injury funding for post-acute guidelines for our returning troops.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that medical treatment guidelines for post-acute rehabilitation of moderate and severe TBI do not exist today. Recognizing this, Mr. Platts from Pennsylvania and Ms. Giffords from Arizona included an amendment in the National Defense Authorization for fiscal year 2012 that would require the Department of Defense to implement post-acute treatment guidelines for traumatic brain injury. This provision was supported by

the cochairs of the Brain Injury Task Force--myself, Mr. Platts, bipartisan. It is my hope that the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences be able to begin the project as soon as possible. Over the years, the TBI Task Force has addressed many gaps for our servicemembers.

I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, may I also clarify that should the authorization bill pass with this provision on post- acute guidelines that the Department then has the needed amount of $1 million to really accomplish this objective which we have.

Mr. Chairman, I would request, as usual, your deepest cooperation. And no one has done more for our troops than you.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I yield to my brother, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 61 Offered by Ms. Foxx

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I believe we are broke, but we're morally broke, that's how we're broke. Let's be straight here.

What's our vision for America? That's got to be the barometer. What do we want this country to be in the future? We can say we certainly don't want it to be fiscally broke, but no one comes to this well with clean hands. This is something we should be sitting down and talking about together, how can we solve America's problems.

So what's our vision? It may be a balanced budget, our vision; I could support that. It may be cutting waste and fraud; well, that sounds good, we should all be supporting that. It may be to get Americans back to work. Over 14 million are still unemployed. And the underemployed. It may be to halt the loss of our homes like we did on the Western frontier 150 years ago when people worked together to end those foreclosures. My vision does not include hurting our most vulnerable children and seniors just to make a point. You heard the gentleman from Maryland talk earlier about how little this means in bringing down the deficit for 1 year or 10 years. We've got our priorities screwed up.

So yes, we want a balanced budget. Isn't it interesting that the last President who balanced the budget was a Democratic President? Yes, we want business investment. And isn't it interesting that in the past four decades the only President that reached over a 10 percent increase in business investment was a Democratic President? Bill Clinton; almost three times more than Ronald Reagan. Check your facts. We need a fact check here, a fact check.

The last 4 years, the number of children affected has grown from 12.4 million to 17 million. Have we no responsibility for that? In my district, 109,000 constituents suffer from food insecurity, only half of whom are eligible for Federal food aid programs. What do the other half do? Yet, here we are discussing cuts.

And I understand neither party is privy to virtue on these issues, but you cannot tell me we can't rise above if we have a vision of America that encompasses everyone, not just some and not just the few. The long-term effects of a child struggling with hunger does not add up to any real savings. If a child is hungry, he cannot learn. A child who can't learn will not succeed in school. A child without an education will have difficulty finding a job.

We know the records of those who are unemployed. And the records of how many years they are in school are greatly and essentially connected to how many years they have in school, and that tells you how many people are unemployed.

The children affected by these cuts that you're talking about in the Agriculture bill are our future. If they go hungry today, they will not be ready for tomorrow.

I simply disagree, with all due respect, with the other side's logic behind these cuts. It's shortsighted, and we cannot simply cut the safety net while people are still in that net--seniors, children, the working poor. It doesn't make sense. What have we become as a Nation?

We're not asking for handouts or giveaways. We are talking about people who are working, and many of them are poor. There are many of those, and it took a Republican President to recognize it. The Earned Income Tax Credit was something that your side created. So who would yet take away the incentive for people to keep working?

The cuts that you have proposed to the Food and Drug Administration in this bill are $572 million below the President's request. This means fewer inspectors and fewer inspections, plain and simple. Oh, I forgot. That's the idea in this age of anti-regulation. So what we do want to do is go back to 2008. Let's go back to where we were. I say no. I say we are better than that--we are better than 2008--and if we work together, we can get over that hump.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

First, I want to thank Mr. LaTourette for, as usual, taking on a very, very exquisite subject here and not coming late to the fight. So I am proud to rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment. I want to thank my good friend from Ohio for his leadership and willingness to work across the aisle on this important issue.

To those who say that the Federal Government bears no responsibility about public safety, they are absolutely wrong. On one side of our mouth we say that we must protect and defend our first responders; on the other side of our mouth we say that we have no responsibility whatsoever in talking about our firefighters and our police officers. And that is why, just a short period of time ago in the 2011 CR, both sides came together. The majority of both parties supported putting money back into the budget.

We are debating a bill called the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. It's an ironic title because this legislation, as written, fails the American people and fails the very people who are on front lines of our homeland security. It is our firefighters and our police officers who will respond to a national tragedy before the Federal Government. This is what we said in 9/11. This is what we said in every year since 9/11, and it has not changed.

We understand the financial realities this country faces, and I am prepared to work across the aisle to find common solutions as we did 6 months ago. But what we cannot afford is to sacrifice our country's security at the altar of spending cuts, and that's precisely what the bill, as written now, does.

The FIRE and SAFER programs, these programs, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, reached across the lines, across that center aisle that goes down between us, and said let's work together on the national security of this country. Remember, the FIRE Act was written before 9/11 when places in the far west had to push their equipment to a fire. Simply put, that's not acceptable in the United States of America, the greatest country in the world.

And when we ask our first responders to be ready, to protect us, to protect the community, we need to know that they have the resources necessary. And, as you know, not only in the past

several years have our local communities been unable, small and large communities, to have all of those resources at their hands, now it's even more difficult. What you are asking here is a cut of 57 percent compared to the 2010 and 2011 budget. Unacceptable.

I support adequate funding for all of the agencies funded in this bill, but we are shortchanging the very people who ran into the burning buildings on September 11. You can't tell me those folks weren't on the front lines that day. I don't believe you if that's what you are telling me, and I know you don't mean that, but then don't say it.

The FIRE Act was signed by President Clinton before September 11. We are talking about basic equipment needs for our fire departments to protect all of our constituents, and hasn't that changed since 9/11. What their responsibilities are and what they need to respond to is much different than 9/11.

September 11 changed the relationship we had with our first responders, solidified our decision that no longer would this funding be a solely local issue. Firefighters and police officers are an integral part of homeland security, and ensuring they are well staffed and equipped would be partly a Federal responsibility.

Since they were originally authorized back in 2000, these programs have provided nearly $7 billion to our local fire departments in nearly every congressional district in this country. The fact is that our firefighters rely on this funding for the equipment, for the training and for the personnel, especially in these tough economic times.

An independent evaluation of the FIRE program, Mr. Chairman, published by the U.S. Fire Administration, concluded it was highly effective in improving the readiness. And this is the most efficient Federal program in the entire Federal budget. Hear me.

Mr. Speaker, we better not forget how we got here in the first place. The President, when he raised his hand in January of 2009, inherited a $10.6 trillion debt. Let us not forget history. I know this is like a Kabuki dance today.

You're not only not sincere about this, but this is all process. The American people, the folks in my district, are not interested in process. They're interested in results. What are the results? How does this help the guy or gal on Main Street? That's what we should be talking about.

This bill we know is going to fail. You already told your Wall Street friends, ``Don't worry about it. Don't take it serious.'' That's just like a reality show. The Republicans have warned their Wall Street friends, and as The Wall Street Journal said today, they are in on this ``joke.'' But as in poker, they're not all in.

Alexander Hamilton, who founded my city of Paterson, New Jersey, understood that good credit is integral to being a world power. It is by no means a joke.

Failure to act will have immediate and dire consequences. Now, the world is not going to collapse this afternoon or tomorrow when this legislation goes down in a few hours. The majority is willing to risk all of that in order to play political games to force their failed economic policies. It didn't work in the last 10 years. It's not going to work now.

Mr. Speaker, this is serious business. This is not a joke.

Mr. Chair, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, for the last ten years I have fought for patients with brain injuries. Traumatic brain injury (TB!) is the signature wound of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. While we made great progress on ensuring our soldiers have the best care, today we must make two corrections to better identify and treat our service members with brain injuries.

My first amendment addresses a February GAO report which found major problems in the management of the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury (DCOE) by TRICARE. My amendment would require the Secretary to transfer this agency to another appropriate branch in order for it to be more effectively managed.

My second amendment will help identify the soldiers with brain injuries who have slipped through the cracks as they returned home from the battlefield. Prior to June 2010, the Department had a disjointed screening system in which a pre-deployment service member received a computerized test, but post-deployment they filled out a paper questionnaire. My amendment today would require the Department to come up with a plan to identify, refer, and treat service members that did not benefit from the new policy that was implemented in June 2010.

We have made a promise to our men and women in uniform that we would take care of them when they returned from the battlefield. In order to do so, we need to at least identify these service members. This Memorial Day weekend we must honor our veterans by protecting the benefits they have earned and deserve. I ask that my colleagues support these amendments for their service members who are struggling with invisible wounds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the life of a truly outstanding individual, Mr. John Paul ``Bucky'' Pizzarelli, who is recognized as an exceptional and influential jazz guitarist. Bucky Pizzarelli hails from my hometown of Paterson, New Jersey, where he was honored by his admirers at Paterson Day on Saturday, May 21st, 2011.

Bucky was born and raised in Paterson, where he learned to play guitar and banjo at a young age. He truly has music in his blood, as he learned his craft from his uncles, who were musicians. His first professional engagement came at the ripe age of 17, when he joined Vaughn Monroe's Dance Band. He honed his skills with Monroe's ensemble for several years, although his career was briefly interrupted when he was called to serve his country in Europe during the Second World War as a member of the U.S. Army.

In 1952, Bucky became a staff musician for NBC, eventually joining the house band for famed television host Johnny Carson. He has played alongside major acts such as Dion and the Belmonts, Benny Goodman, and his close friend and fellow guitar great Les Paul.

Bucky is no stranger to Washington, DC. He visited the White House several times, performing for President Ronald Reagan, fellow musician President Bill Clinton, and former First Lady Pat Nixon.

In addition to his professional successes, Bucky is a committed family man. His sons, John and Martin, his daughter, Mary, and his daughter-in-law, Jessica, have all carried on the Pizzarelli legacy as musicians. Bucky has collaborated with them on many of their recordings.

Later, Bucky returned to serve his hometown of Paterson as a member of the music faculty at William Paterson University, passing on his talents to the next generation of New Jersey musicians. His tireless energy and enthusiasm for his art should serve as an example for all Americans.

Today, Bucky resides with his wife, Ruth, in Saddle River, New Jersey, not too far from his roots in Paterson. A true renaissance man, he continues to be an avid painter in addition to his musical talents.

The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is rewarding, yet nothing compares to learning about and recognizing individuals like Bucky Pizzarelli.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Bucky's family and friends, all the musicians and fans of his music whose lives he has touched, and me in recognizing Mr. John Paul ``Bucky'' Pizzarelli.

Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. Look, we have preserved millions of acres in Alaska. We want to preserve the shores of New Jersey. Now if you don't understand that, there are even more major problems.

Since last night, my friends on the other side have voted down no fewer than four amendments dealing with the safety of drilling. You could be for drilling. But I think it's common sense that we preserve and not take the chances that large companies are taking, and we saw what happened in the South. The Gulf of Mexico is still recovering from billions of dollars in economic and environmental damages caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

It's almost unbelievable. When you watch it, one blamed the other, and

those folks still don't have relief. It's almost unbelievable; in the wake of such a tragedy, this bill is before us today. There are 60 million acres of public land already under lease to drill, and I wouldn't give 1 more acre up until those companies drill on the land that they already have. You blame everything on the President. You're going to blame the plague on the President. That dog doesn't hunt anymore. Forget about it.

If we can't come together on issues like this, the one that the American people are disgusted with when they do pay their gasoline bill--you want to expand offshore drilling to vast new areas of our oceans, including the Atlantic coast, without taking any of the commonsense steps that the President's bipartisan oil spill commission recommended.

An oil spill on the Atlantic coast, which the Federal Government would be required to lease under this bill, would devastate the economy.

Tourism at the Jersey Shore supports jobs for over 500,000 people, generates over $50 billion in economic activity every year. These people depend on the responsible stewardship of our waters and coasts for their livelihoods.

Let's set the record straight. This legislation does nothing to address the current spike in gas prices. What we need to do is:

Stop wildly fluctuating oil prices. And that's up to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is writing the regulations as we speak right now.

Cap America's oil reserves. For a short period of time, we can afford to do that.

Crack down on gas gouging, which is happening and the U.S. Attorney General is correct in investigating this.

And, finally, evolve to a clean energy economy. It's not just that we need to depend less on foreign oil, we need to depend less on domestic oil. We know it's going to take time. We need to be reasonable about this and be safe about it as well.

Mr. Chair, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1230. Just over one year ago, the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank, taking the lives of 11 workers and releasing millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of learning from the catastrophic economic and environmental consequences of last year's spill, H.R. 1230 would speed up leasing without introducing new safety standards and throwing environmental review to the wind.

One of these leases would be located off the shore of Virginia, just 75 miles from the shores of my home state of New Jersey. Drilling operations could potentially devastate the economy of New Jersey in the event of a spill,

since the tourism and fishing industries support hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of economic activity across the state and region.

Furthermore, this legislation does nothing to address rising gasoline prices. Instead of giving more handouts to Big Oil, we need to crack down on speculators and oil companies who post record profits on the backs of the American public. We should be investing in alternative energy sources such as wind power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, not subsidizing Big Oil.