Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the students, parents, teachers and administrators of the Wake County Public School System, many of whom are in Washington today to accept the National Energy Development Project's ``School District of the Year'' award.

The National Energy Development Project, or ``NEED,'' is a nonprofit education association dedicated to advancing the understanding of the scientific, economic, and environmental impact of energy. This year, after reviewing more than sixty submissions from across the Nation, the NEED National Award's Review Panel chose to recognize Wake County's public schools for their unique and outstanding work.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the students and faculty of the Wake County Public School System. Energy independence and combating global warming are two of the most important and challenging issues confronting our Nation. In the coming years, the goals we set and the choices we make in this area will have profound, irreversible consequences for our Nation and our planet.

More than ever before, America needs informed, innovative and energy- conscious leaders at every level of society. I congratulate the Wake County Public School System for rising to this challenge so impressively, and I commend them, and all the public school systems that participated in this program, for their commitment to this ideal.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as the sponsor of this resolution to support and celebrate the ideals of National Community College Month.

I am very proud to offer this resolution as one of the cochairs of the House Community College Caucus, and I am pleased to be joined with three cosponsors, the other three Chairs of that caucus, Mr. Wu of Oregon, who just spoke, Mr. Castle of Delaware and Mr. Wicker of Mississippi. I would also like to thank Chairman George Miller and Ranking Member McKeon of the Education and Labor Committee, both of whom are also original cosponsors of this resolution, and without whose support this measure would not be before us today.

Madam Speaker, there are now 11 million Americans enrolled in more than 1,200 community colleges across the country; and in the past century since the first community college opened its doors, more than 100 million Americans have taken courses at community colleges. Community colleges have developed a tradition and a purpose that is distinct from that of traditional 4-year colleges and universities.

Community colleges are distinct from 4-year colleges in many respects. They are regionally accredited, post-secondary schools. The highest credential awarded by a community college is that of an associate degree. In fact, Madam Speaker, many Americans who did not get a high school diploma go back to community colleges to get their

Mr. Speaker, the best news for the American middle class is our home ownership rates. Wages are stagnant for the middle class. They are not keeping up with inflation. Health care costs just keep going up. Folks do not know what their health insurance is going to pay for until they get sick. They don't know if their pension is really going to be there when it comes time for them to retire, or their employers take a quick dip in bankruptcy so they can short the promises they made to their employees.

Almost 70 percent of American families own their own homes. We heard Mr. Cummings speak just a few minutes ago, powerfully, of what it meant to his family when he was 10 years old and they bought a home for the first time.

The deed to a home is the membership card in the middle class. For the middle class, the equity they build in their home becomes the bulk of their life savings. What they build by paying a mortgage faithfully month after month becomes the bulk of their life savings.

When they need to borrow money, when they have one of life's rainy days, when they want to send the kids to college, or someone in the family gets sick, or they lose their job or they go through a divorce, or they need to repair their homes or they get in over their head in credit card debt, they have to borrow money against their homes. Too often when they borrow money against their homes, they are having their trust betrayed.

Several Members tonight have talked about subprime lending as lending that goes to those who have problems with their credit. Some is, but more of it, more of it, has to do with who places it with which borrowers, which homeowners put their trust in the wrong people and have their trust betrayed. According to Freddie Mac, a quarter of mortgages, subprime mortgages, are made to people who qualified for prime loans, who didn't have problems with their credit, but they went to the wrong person and they had their trust betrayed.

Subprime loans, or predatory loans, take fees and costs that cannot be justified by the cost of the loan or the risks that are posed that the borrower will not make their payments. Those loans strip equity and steal the life savings of the borrower. Lenders even pay more to brokers who bring them loans where the borrower has agreed to pay more than what they qualified for based upon their own credit history and what they own of their home, their equity in their home.

They put borrowers in loans, in mortgages, they cannot possibly pay back. They will have to refinance again so they can flip the loan. They will have to come back again, often having to pay a prepayment penalty to get out of a bad loan so they can refinance again. They are teaser rates. They are only good for a couple, 3 years, and then the rates are adjusted.

For many borrowers, they can qualify for the teaser rate, but they can't possibly pay their monthly payment when it goes up by 50 percent or more, as happens too often. They refinance again, and every time they refinance, they lose more of their equity in their home. They lose more of their life savings.

People who are in the subprime market for as much as a decade, for as much as 10 years, they have an almost 1 in 3 chance of losing their home to foreclosure. When they lose their home to foreclosure, they lose their membership in the middle class. They fall back into poverty, probably for the rest of their lives.

I have introduced in the last two Congresses, with Mr. Watt from North Carolina, my colleague, and Mr. Frank, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, legislation that is based upon successful State laws that protect homeowners from those kinds of abuses, those kinds of predatory loans, and this has not prevented there being good availability of good mortgages, sound mortgages, mortgages that help folks build wealth, not steals their wealth from them.

We need to do a great deal more now to help the people who are facing foreclosure right now, who are facing losing their homes, who are facing falling from the middle class for the rest of their lives. Businesses can go into bankruptcy. They can have obligations, promises they made with their eyes wide open, written. But a middle-class homeowner cannot go into bankruptcy and have a mortgage rewritten, adjusted, mortgages that they entered when their trust was betrayed.

The American middle class needs someone to be on their side. They are facing an uncertain world. They are facing an insecure world where what they need to know is there for them, that they can own their home, that they can pay off their home and live out the balance of their lives in a home that is theirs outright. They need that certainty. They need to know health care is there. They need to know that their pension is there. They need someone on their side.

This Congress needs to be on their side.

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

I think this amendment makes clear how radical an idea the minority party thinks democracy is, whether it is in corporations or in government, and how wary they are of voting, whether in corporations, by shareholders or in politics.

Usually the minority party is very critical, hostile to the idea that regulatory agencies should play a role in our democracy, in our economy. Regulatory agencies play an important role. They work out a lot of details. They address new problems more quickly than Congress can in a way that is consistent with what Congress has done before. But this is not a complicated proposal. This is a straightforward proposal. There are not details to work out. Either we want to do this or we are not going to do this and we are not making it up as we go along.

Britain did this in 2001. We have got 6 years' experience under Britain, the way it has worked in Britain, and it has worked just fine in Britain.

The minority party has come to the curious position, after more than 200 years of experience in American democracy, of thinking the Congress, the Members of the House of Representatives and the other body, elected by the people should be mere advisers, an advisory body to the President, and that anyone appointed by the President necessarily must be wiser and more knowledgeable than the folks who are actually elected by the people.

Mr. Chairman, we were elected by the people. We are speaking for the people. We are acting on their behalf. This amendment will undermine democracy in the boardroom in corporate America, and it will undermine democracy in our government, and I urge we vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I disagree with my friend, Mr. Bachus, who said this bill is not about income and equality. I think it is at least partly about income and equality. And I disagree with Mr. Roskam, who said that corporate executives, the CEOs, are responsible for the growth in the American economy, the increase in productivity in the American economy, and therefore they should be getting paid much more than they are.

Mr. Chairman, I think the American worker is not getting enough credit for the growth in the American economy, for the increase in the productivity of the American economy. They are not getting enough credit on the floor of this House tonight, and they aren't getting enough credit in their paychecks, in how they are compensated, and there is a widening gap.

It has never been a particularly small gap in this country. Fifteen years ago, the average CEO, the typical CEO, made 140 times what the average American worker at that corporation made. Now, 15 years later, it is 500 times what they make. It is a significant part of what the corporation makes overall; it is now 10.3 percent. The aggregate compensation of the top five executives is now 10.3 percent of the corporate profits of major corporations, public corporations in America. That is twice what it was 15 years ago.

Yes, top corporate executives, CEOs, are getting more and more of the benefit of the growth in productivity and the profitability of corporations, and it is wildly out of alignment with what they are doing, how well they are leading the corporations.

In fact, if you allow shareholder democracy, if you let shareholders have a say in how corporate executives are paid, because it is, after all, their company; they are going to insist that corporate performance be in alignment with corporate executives.

We don't have shareholder democracy now, Mr. Chairman. This bill begins to get at that. But right now CEOs pick the boards of directors, the boards of directors pick the CEOs, they answer to each other, they don't answer to the shareholders.

What we are considering now is very similar to what Great Britain has had for about 5 years, and it has worked pretty well in Great Britain. It has inhibited outrageous pay packages that have gone to CEOs and top executives in Britain.

Here is what is happening: The boards of directors know that they are going to have to explain themselves. They are going to have to explain themselves to shareholders. They are going to have to tell shareholders exactly what the compensation is, and they are going to have to explain what it is and what they have done.

That has inhibited what they have done. And they have gone back to the CEOs and said to the CEOs, look, we know you are worth every penny of what you are asking. But you know what a Bolshevik rabble our shareholders are. We will never be and to explain it to them. So they scale it back a little bit. And executive compensation in Great Britain has not gone up in the last 5 years the way it has in the United States, and the performance of Great Britain's corporations has been every bit as strong as what we have had here.

Mr. Chairman, if we let corporate shareholders vote, if we allow corporate democracy, they are going to insist, they are not going to throw out every pay package. In fact, it has only happened one time in England in the 5 years. GlaxoSmithKline was embarrassed pretty badly, and they went back and they renegotiated their pay compensation for their CEO. But it has inhibited their conduct, and shareholders have voted for very generous pay packages where it is justified by the performance of the corporate executives.

This bill makes a very modest change. But by simply requiring corporate boards of directors to explain what they are doing, to say right out in front of God and everybody what they are paying the CEO and why they are paying him that much, it has had an important change in corporate conduct in Great Britain, and it should here as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I originally introduced as an amendment to the Energy Bill, what is now section 917 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Then Chairman Boehlert accepted that amendment in the 108th, and then made it part of the base bill the next time that it came through this committee in the 109th. H.R. 85 makes improving changes to section 917, to make it an even more effective program.

There has never been a partisan divide over this program. This committee passed the language in this bill as part of a broader energy bill that Mrs. Biggert introduced in the last Congress. I thank the Chairman for working to get this bill to the House floor and thank Mrs. Biggert for continuing to work with me on the issue of energy technology transfer.

The purpose of the program is to encourage the use in the real world of energy efficiency technologies that have been developed with, often, federally funded research, the Department of Energy, but that has sat unused on the shelf. Using those energy efficiency technologies offers the promise of immediate help with our problems, with our energy needs, our dependency, and we should be using every effort to try to make ourselves more energy independent.

This bill would extend those ways of delivering energy conservation and efficiency programs to include cooperative extension services, which is a definite improvement, and important, that these energy efficiency technologies make their way into rural America.

And I hope that these improvements to Sec 917 of EPACT really do make the program much more comprehensive and will send a message to the Department of Energy and to the appropriators that this program should be funded.

The President's budget request failed to request funding for this program this year. In the 109th Congress the appropriators failed to include funding, despite my best efforts and many efforts to tug at someone's sleeve and get their attention, to try to include it in the appropriations bill. And I hope with a strong bipartisan effort this year, this program can be funded, and we can begin to make sure we get into practical use the energy efficiency technologies that we have developed.

Mr. Speaker, like most Members of Congress, I have visited our men and women in uniform in Iraq. I have visited our wounded in the hospital at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany and at the hospital in Balad Air Base in Iraq; and I have offered my condolences to grieving families who have lost loved ones in Iraq. I respect and appreciate our men and women in uniform in Iraq. They have served nobly, and they deserve our prayers.

Mr. Speaker, they have done their duty, and now we must do our duty. Our duty to the Constitution, our duty to our country, our duty to our men and women in uniform is to look with clear eyes at the facts and to exercise independent judgment.

For 4 years, this Congress has failed in that duty. For 4 years, this Congress has passed one resolution after another, offering uncritical support for the President's policies in Iraq.

In June, Congress passed a resolution finding that we were well along the path to a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq and the Iraqi Security Forces were operating independently of our forces and were increasingly leading the fight to secure Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, that is what Republicans did when they were in the majority. They played make believe.

Americans knew better then, and we certainly know better down. The Iraqi Study Group report, just a couple of months ago, described the situation in Iraq as grave and deteriorating. The most recent National Intelligence Estimate, just a week ago, described the

situation in even starker terms, ``The violence is now feeding on itself, and it is too complex to be called simply a civil war.'' The estimate concluded that all of the likely outcomes are grim.

For 4 years, patriotic Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, have anguished over events in Iraq and have given deep and prayerful thought to alternatives, but the Bush Administration dismissed and insulted dissenters and often made fierce attempts to discredit them.

Not even General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, or James Baker, Secretary of State for the first President Bush, was spared; and the Bush administration has treated criticism by Members of Congress as meddling, as sticking our nose in their war.

House Democrats have offered plan after plan to alter our course in Iraq, and House Republicans have greeted every plan with strident attack.

Let's consider the new plan that President Bush has proposed.

The force initially committed to Iraq was well short of what General Shinseki said would be required to secure the country. When I visited Iraq 3 years ago, the presence of our forces in Baghdad may not have been enough to secure order, but it was more than enough to remind every Iraqi every day that there was a foreign army on their soil.

When I visited Iraq a year and a half ago, our military forces in Baghdad were less noticeable. Our briefing officer explained that we had deliberately reduced our footprint to lessen the resentment of Iraqis so that Iraqis would come into daily contact with Iraqi security forces, not our men and women. But the violence only increased.

We tried twice last year to reduce the violence by increasing Iraqi and American forces in Baghdad. The Iraqi forces didn't show up, and twice the effort failed, and violence has continued to increase.

Now we are trying it again and calling it a new plan: Less troops, more troops, less troops, more troops. House Republicans are playing make believe again to call that a new plan.

The apocalyptic violence in Iraq will not be solved militarily. Congressman David Price and I introduced a resolution setting forth a comprehensive plan which Mr. Price described here the other day. We need to engage Iraq's neighbors through regional diplomacy to provide economic assistance, conditioned on a genuine attempt at national reconciliation, and to begin a phased withdrawal of our troops. Our plan includes many of the suggestions of the Iraq Study Group.

The Iraq Study Group report was right: No path is certain of success. And after 4 years of failed policy, all of our options are grim. But the resolution we will vote on shortly is a first step toward doing our duty by looking realistically at events in Iraq and by forcing us to consider what our options really are.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to pay tribute to ``The Town of Friendly People,'' Zebulon, North Carolina, which celebrates its 100th birthday this year.

Zebulon was founded on February 16, 1907, and was named to honor Zebulon Baird Vance, North Carolina's Governor during the Civil War. Governor Vance insisted, even in the midst of confusion and destruction of the Civil War, on maintaining the rule of law. North Carolina courts continued to function throughout the war, and North Carolina was the only State that never suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

Some of the early businesses in the town of Zebulon belonged to African American residents, like Surratt Dillard, who owned the town's first restaurant. The Wakelon School Building was built in 1909, telephones came to the town in 1911, and the first electric light system was installed in 1916. Today, some of the Nation's leading companies have chosen Zebulon as the place to do business.

In the past 100 years, the town size has grown by nearly 10 times, and nearly 5,000 folks now call Zebulon home.

I join the residents of Zebulon in their centennial celebration and I continue to work on the town's behalf.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Turner of Ohio and I are the cochairs of the Congressional Historic Preservation Caucus. I am proud to rise today, as cochair of that caucus, to recognize the 35th anniversary of the District of Columbia Preservation League.

In 1971 the old post office on Pennsylvania Avenue was slated for demolition to allow completion of an addition to the Federal Triangle Building. In part, to save that Washington landmark, the DCPL, which is also known as Don't Tear it Down, was founded. And since then, the DCPL has worked tirelessly to preserve Washington's historic treasures and save many of the unique features of this great city, the features that really define our Nation's capital.

Washington's history and character are among Washington's greatest assets, and are vital to the local economic development efforts.

Advocacy and education have been at the forefront of the DCPL's mission. The League has produced educational programs, including tours, lectures, newsletters and guides of historic districts here in Washington, and since 1996 has annually published a list of Washington's most endangered places.

For the last 35 years, the DCPL has prepared, sponsored, or cosponsored more than 120 individual District of Columbia landmark nominations and many historic district nominations throughout the Nation's Capital.

Mr. Speaker, this is just a sampling of the efforts that the DCPL puts into protecting the history of the District of Columbia. I am sure the League will continue to make invaluable contributions to this city, and every member of the League, every member, every citizen of the District of Columbia, has every right to feel proud of the history of the work, the legacy of the DCPL.

I urge all of the citizens of Washington and supporters of historic preservation around the country to join me in commending the DCPL for its dedication and commitment to preserving and protecting the history and environment of this city through the work of advocacy and education.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit for the Record a resolution, a proclamation by the Congressional Historic Preservation Caucus, recognizing Thursday, January 25, 2007 as the DCPL's 35th anniversary.

Whereas, the DC Preservation League was founded by

dedicated volunteers in 1971 as Don't Tear It Down, to save

the Old Post Office on Pennsylvania Avenue and other notable

downtown buildings from Federal Government-sponsored

demolition,

Whereas, Don't Tear It Down worked to provide protection

for historic landmarks and historic districts in the Nation's

Capital through the establishment of the Historic Landmark

and Historic District Protection Act (D.C. Law 2-144) in

1978,

Whereas, over the last 35 years the DC Preservation League

has prepared, sponsored or co-sponsored more than 120

individual DC Landmark nominations and numerous historic

district nominations throughout the Nation's Capital,

Whereas, to carry out its mission of preservation advocacy

and education, the DC Preservation League has produced

educational programs including tours, lectures, citywide

conferences, candidates' forums, publications including

newsletters, information brochures and guides to historic

districts, and since 1996 has annually publicized a list of

Washington's Most Endangered Places,

Whereas, the DC Preservation League works with the

government of the United States, its federal agency

representatives, committees appointed by the President, and

organizations chartered by Congress to advocate for the

preservation of historic resources as a vital component of

the economic and cultural life of our Nation's Capital,

Whereas, the DC Preservation League is supported by

members, contributors and volunteers from across the

Washington, DC region who are dedicated to the promotion of

the history of the Nation's Capital for visitors and

residents alike,

Whereas, the DC Preservation League will celebrate 35 years

of preservation activism as Washington, DC's only citywide

non-profit historic preservation organization at the historic

Willard InterContinental Hotel on Thursday, January 25, 2007,

As co-chairs of the Congressional Historic Preservation

Caucus, we would like to recognize January 25, 2007 as the DC

Preservation League's 35th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican solution to our energy needs is to drill anywhere no matter what. We desperately need to develop new energy technologies, but those efforts have been minuscule. Instead the Republican Congress has given massive tax breaks to all companies, as if they need any more incentive.

The profits of the five largest oil companies in America, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Texaco, Conoco, Phillips, BP and Shell, were $342.4 billion in just the first quarter of this year. Next year, those companies are going to have some explaining to do. In the first 100 hours of the new Congress, we are going to take the tax breaks and subsidies that this Congress has thrown at oil companies and invest them instead in the new energy technologies that are the real solution to our energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, a real energy agenda is coming.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Ms. Pryce of Ohio apparently does not bet on college basketball.

Mr. Speaker, in preparation for National School Backpack Awareness Day, taking place on September 20, 2006, I would like to recognize the many occupational therapists (OT) and occupational therapy assistants (OTA) that live and work in my district. Each September, members of the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), students, and other health professionals join forces to alert the public, particularly teachers, parents, and children about the dangers of improperly wearing overweight backpacks.

Occupational therapists are health, wellness, and rehabilitation professionals, dedicated to maximizing the independence, function and performance of their clients. In other words, they provide them with the ``skills for the job of living''. Concerned that increasingly heavy backpacks may be putting school children at risk for long-term health problems, AOTA is sponsoring its fifth National School Backpack Awareness Day. Thousands of occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants work in school systems, pediatric hospitals, and other health care facilities, in order to help children develop the skills they need to participate fully at school, home, and in play.

The goal of the National School Backpack Awareness Day is to reduce the load students carry to 15 percent or less of the child's weight. More than 350 participants in schools, stores, and health fairs from all 50 states will help ``weigh-in'' thousands of children to ensure their backpacks meet the 15 percent weight goal. They will also help educate students about the risks of carrying too much weight, and will teach them the proper way to pack and wear a backpack. As part of the National Backpack Awareness Day, therapists at the General Greene Elementary School in Greensboro, NC will educate students and teachers about the importance of loading and wearing backpacks the right way in order to avoid back and shoulder pain, stooped posture, muscle pain, and headaches.

I am particularly aware of the role occupational therapists play within our public schools as one of the members of my staff previously worked as a school system occupational therapist. OTs use their unique expertise to help children perform important learning and school- related activities that are part of their role as a student. Additionally, occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants play a critical role in training parents, staff, and caregivers regarding the education, health, and success of students with diverse learning needs.

Please join me in support of all the occupational therapists, occupational therapy assistants, school children, and other participants whose efforts will make the 2006 National School Backpack Awareness Day such a success.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that there are no NASA facilities in my district. We are available if NASA has the need of additional facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. As the adult who sat transfixed as a child in my elementary school classroom and watched as we launched first Alan Shepard, then Gus Grissom and then John Glenn into space, and sat and watched transfixed each time we put human beings into space, it is a remarkable accomplishment. I feel as much in awe of the crew of STS-121 as I felt as a small child in watching those first Mercury flights.

It is an accomplishment that requires great skill, and, as we have been painfully reminded on two occasions, it is one that still requires great physical courage. This is not a safe undertaking. It cannot be made safe. It requires great physical courage for the crew to fly into space to pursue space travel as they do.

It is also a remarkable accomplishment for the team of employees at NASA who remained on the ground and for all the contractors as well, the team at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The crew of the STS-121, again, I know that Mr. Calvert has already said who they were, Colonel Steve Lindsey, Commander Mark Kelly, Piers Sellers, Ph.D., Lieutenant Colonel Mike Fossum, Commander Lisa Nowak, Stephanie Wilson and Thomas Reiter, specifically launched into orbit above the Space Shuttle Discovery, the second return-to-space flight after the disaster, the tragedy of a few years ago.

Colonel Lindsey said after landing STS-121 that there were two goals for the mission. The first was to complete the return-to-flight tasks begun with the first return-to-flight mission in July of 2005 by flying an improved external tank and testing shuttle repair procedures while in orbit, which apparently is considerably more difficult than conducting those repairs in a garage bay or in a bay.

The second goal was to prepare the international space station for future assembly and to boost the number of people living on the space station from two to three.

Both of those goals were successfully completed by the mission. For the first time since 2003, the international space station now has three members. European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Reiter joined Russian Pavel Vinogradov and American Jeff Williams.

In addition to those goals, the crew was able to make never-before- seen high-resolution images of the shuttle during and after the July Fourth launch, making that mission the most photographed in the shuttle mission.

And the tragedy a few years ago has reminded us, or should remind us, that that ability to look at the shuttle and figure out its current status, its current condition is one that is critical to successful safe future flights.

There were many high-definition digital, video and film cameras documenting the launch and the climb into orbit, and they did help determine whether the shuttle had experienced any damage and whether there were any concerns with return to Earth such as the tragedy that came upon the Discovery.

They also performed inspection of the shuttle heat shield while in space. And on their third space walk during the mission, they tested different techniques for inspecting and repairing the reinforced carbon segments that protect the shuttle's nose cone and the right leading edge, again, an important safety concern because of the Discovery tragedy.

The crew also delivered 28,000 pounds of equipment and supplies to the international space station and repaired a rail car on the international space station.

Through this successful launch and the technological advances that the crew made while in space, we can look forward in the not-too- distant future to the complete assembly of the international space station.

Mr. Speaker, it also increases, the successful mission increases, the likelihood that we can keep the Hubble space telescope in service, perform necessary repairs as well as routine maintenance, to the extent that you can call that routine maintenance.

Mr. Speaker, the flights of the Discovery showed that the team of NASA employees and contractors still have the right stuff or still are deserving of our awe and admiration, as the awe and admiration I felt as a child for those first Mercury astronauts.

Mr. Speaker, there being no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, when President Bush took office, our Nation had a $5.6 trillion surplus. President Bush said that the surplus proved taxes were too high and called for cutting taxes on the richest Americans.

Then he said because the economy was doing badly, we had to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes on the richest Americans. The richest Americans, President Bush said, would sleep in and spend the afternoon watching soap operas instead of creating jobs for other Americans, unless they got a generous tax cut.

Now President Bush and Congressional Republicans say that the same tax rates on the richest Americans in effect when we had a surplus would now cause the deficit to worsen.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican fondness for cutting taxes on the richest Americans has nothing to do with job creation or stimulating the economy or reducing the deficit. The tax cuts on the richest Americans has resulted in turning a $5.6 trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit, pushing interest rates up, stagnating savings rates, and dragging the economy down.

My colleagues, Mr. Hensarling and Mr. McHenry, were correct in their remarks a few minutes ago: this Republican Congress has absolutely no discipline on the spending side. But neither do they have any discipline on the tax side.

Mr. Speaker, pay-as-you-go budget rules worked in the 1990s to control the deficit and kept Congress from working on economic fantasies. It is time to bring those rules back.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations Hurricanes.

Mr. Chairman, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included two provisions to improve the technology transfer of new energy technologies, neither one of which has received any funding in this appropriations bill.

Section 1001 of the bill would establish a technology commercialization fund by dedicating .9 percent of DOE research funding to tech transfer. The Appropriations Committee, I understand, has not funded that provision, because the committee considers the dedicated funding source a tax on the funding of important research programs at the Department of Energy.

But, Mr. Chairman, also, section 917 of the bill, which I first offered as an amendment in the Science Committee, authorizes the establishment of Advanced Energy Efficiency Technology Transfer Centers. This section authorizes such funds as may be appropriate, around $10 million, and does not take funding away from other research funding into alternative energy.

However, this appropriations bill also provides no funding for those technology transfer centers either.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this bill does substantially increase funding for energy efficiency, for renewable energy, for basic research. I devoutly wish that it was increased more still. But I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that we are ignoring solutions to our energy problems that are available to us now. I am concerned that we are not supporting moving technology out of the laboratory and into the marketplace, where such technologies will save consumers and businesses on their energy bills.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you and the committee will recognize the importance of technology transfer and provide a near-term solution to our energy needs and provide appropriate funding.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, but there is so much more that we need to be doing. In fact, there is so much more that we should have done already. The task before us, the urgent task before us, is to develop a practical, sustainable energy source or array of sources that will allow this Nation to be energy independent without busting the budget of middle class families just to go to work, to take the kids to school, to go to the grocery store.

We need practical, sustainable energy sources that do not emit the greenhouse gases that many scientists, really most scientists now fear will lead to catastrophic climate change, that will forever alter life on this planet, and we need practical, sustainable energy sources that will not so limit our options in foreign policy that we have to be uncritical friends to some of the most unattractive nations or governments in the world.

Mr. Speaker, we do need to pursue research into hydrogen, but we need an effort comparable to the effort during World War II, the Manhattan Project. We need an effort, to use Mr. Inglis' analogy, like the effort that this Nation had in the 1960s to reach the Moon.

That is the effort we need to put behind developing alternative fuels and conservation technologies and to move those energy and conservation technologies into widespread commercial use.

I have sponsored legislation that Mr. Boehlert, the Chair of the Science Committee who spoke a moment ago, and Mr. Markey, my Democratic colleague, have introduced that would increase fuel efficiency requirements for cars and trucks to 33 miles a gallon by 2015.

Mr. Speaker, that goal can be achieved now with existing technologies, without any technological breakthrough. I feel almost embarrassed at how modest that bill is, how lacking in ambition that bill is. But even that the leadership of this House has not been willing to bring to the floor for debate and for a vote.

But, Mr. Speaker, in our hearing on hydrogen technology, in our hearing in the Science Committee on the H-Prize

legislation, one of the witnesses said that we could achieve cars and trucks that average 100 miles a gallon in the relatively near future if we really put our minds to it.

Why on Earth are we not doing that? Why on Earth are we not acting with the urgency that our energy needs require?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the President's budget this year did increase funding for research into sustainable energy sources. Mr. Speaker, I regret that the President's budget found much of that additional funding from cuts to energy efficiency efforts. We need to proceed on several fronts at one time. We need to proceed without bias, without preconception.

A hydrogen economy or hydrogen fuel cells may not be the winning technology. As several of the speakers have said already, there are huge obstacles to overcome. Yes, hydrogen is abundant, but not as hydrogen. We need to find hydrogen sources, and the present source of hydrogen is by stripping it out of other fuels. Yes, when hydrogen is combined with oxygen to produce energy, that is a clean technology, but stripping hydrogen from fuels now is not clean. It is a very dirty technology, and the usual source of fuels from which it is stripped are fossil fuels, not sustainable, renewable energy sources.

Mr. Speaker, hydrogen technology, to have a hydrogen fuel cell car in every driveway, would make useless the infrastructure we now have, the pipelines, the tanks, the pumps, to transport, to distribute a fuel that is liquid on the planet Earth, which hydrogen is not.

So let's proceed. Let's proceed to develop, to provide an incentive to the private sector to develop the kinds of technologies we are going to need if hydrogen fuel cells are ever to be a practical source of energy for us.

But let us proceed on several fronts. I hope this Congress will be back soon. I will vote for this bill today, but I hope that Congress will be back soon to consider other prizes for energy, other alternative energy sources, other prizes for energy conservation, and that this Congress gives the urgent attention to energy independence, to sustainable energy sources that we desperately need, that the middle class families now paying $3 a gallon desperately need.