Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, greed has created a financial crisis. I don't believe I have heard one single CEO from Wall Street apologize for the mess they put this country in. But if we are going to help Wall Street, we need to help Main Street as well.

This country lost more than 600,000 jobs last year. We need to be investing in our infrastructure so we can create jobs again. We also need to extend unemployment benefits so those who are looking for jobs will be able to pay for their families in the interim.

Because of the high energy prices, we are now going to have to provide more fuel heating assistance so that families won't have to choose between eating, or paying their rent, or their mortgage or their bills this month or next month or the next year, while we bail this country out.

We have an opportunity, finally, to look at Main Street. While we do this work for Wall Street, let's keep in mind the people of Main Street who pay the bills.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor to H.R. 3995.

Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I support the bill in front of us, for these two rivers in Vermont. And I think that it's unfortunate that we can't seem to work on the particular bills in front of us because of the issue that the friends on the other side of the aisle keep bringing up.

What I find particularly disturbing is that for 8 years we have had two oilmen in the White House with no energy policy and my colleagues on the other side have sat silent for 2 long years, nothing since I have been here talking about it, 8 years since President Bush has come into office, and suddenly in the waning hours of this session, they are now talking about an energy policy.

I certainly welcome them to this. I think we do need an energy policy. I wish they had started talking about an energy policy 8 long years ago. What they allowed to happen in the past 8 years is for us to lose ground on an Apollo-type project to bring a real energy policy to the United States. They have allowed the oil companies to reap the greatest profits in history while they have allowed the American taxpayer to suffer while they subsidize these oil companies. That's just outrageous that they are now at this point 8 long years into it and getting near an election and they're suddenly talking about the lack of an energy policy.

Thank you, gentlemen, for bringing this to our attention. We have been speaking about this lack of an energy policy for a long time.

I would like to say that their idea of drill, just drill, drill, drill, and we heard it at their convention, drill, baby drill. That is a Fred Flintstone policy. Drill, baby drill, I heard a reporter say, is like people standing there at the edge of the technology revolution yelling, Electric typewriters, electric typewriters.

We are now right at the edge of this wonderful, wonderful future for our country. If you decide to join us and invest in an Apollo-type program, a program for energy independence, a program that would allow us to be independent of these nations, to have an economic base here in this country, to create jobs in a green technology, and to have renewables.

One of your own party, T. Boone Pickens, who has talked often about, and has run ads, by the way, about the fact that we can't drill our way out of this, that we only hold 2 to 3 percent of the oil and that we are consuming 25 percent. Yet I haven't heard the word ``conserve'' over there until just now. I heard one mention it.

We've ignored conservation, we've ignored wind, we've ignored solar, we've ignored all kinds of renewables. And when we have the drill, baby drill plan and drill baby, drill only. Well, you know what? We have simply got to face these issues. We should have faced them 8 long years ago, and we should have faced them when I got here in this 110th Congress. But I certainly welcome you to the debate now.

So why don't we do this? Why don't we first take away the subsidies from the oil company and invest in renewables? I think that would be a good start to show Americans that we hear them. Why don't we take the speculators out of the market, since we are all very concerned about the price of energy. I am particularly concerned about what is happening in New Hampshire, where the oil is so high and the winter is coming on us. I am concerned that the President of the United States put in his budget a cut in the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program.

So why don't we do this? Why don't we take the speculators out of the market? Why don't we say Drill now, drill, to the oil companies who had 68 million acres and they would not drill on. That would be helpful.

There's a number of things that we could have done, and I agree with you that we are at the last moments here, and it's outrageous. But we have the future of America in our hands. We have the ability, as T. Boone Pickens said, to take the wind from--he named Sweetwater, Texas to Hastings, Nebraska--we have great wind capacity, and to take solar from Sweetwater, Texas to California, and catch that. And biomass. And, yes, drilling. Drilling on land and leases that we have.

Why didn't you agree to take the leases away if the oil companies wouldn't drill? Why not? Why not do something except stand there with the same, tired drill, baby drill.

We are on the eve of this wonderful technology. We have so many people and businesses ready to invest in it. Oil companies certainly have their role. And we are dependent on oil. We are more dependent on oil than we were when George Bush came into office. That's true. But where have you been for 8 long years?

I welcome you to this discussion. But I think we should have the discussion in the appropriate place and not block every piece of legislation that is coming through right now, and let's have a comprehensive energy plan. And the first thing the other side could do to show their good faith in this would be to vote against the tax subsidies for the oil companies. If we really want to protect the American taxpayer, why don't we stop forcing them to subsidize oil companies? That would be my first question. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my enthusiastic support for H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and thank Chairman Miller of the Education and Labor Committee and Congresswoman DeLauro, the sponsor of this legislation for their tireless work and leadership on this Issue.

To paraphrase James Madison, ``If men [and women] were angels, no government would be necessary.'' And in an ideal world, we wouldn't need legislation to reinforce the concept of equal pay for equal work. But even today in 2008, when women make on average only 77 cents for every one dollar made by their male counterparts, the importance of the Paycheck Fairness Act is clear.

Gender-based wage discrimination has been illegal in this country since the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was signed into law. Yet, the pay disparity between women and men that still persists today highlights the need to take another look at our wage discrimination laws. This disparity, by the way, is estimated to cost a working woman between $400,000 and $2 million over a lifetime.

I am a proud cosponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act. It is about equal pay for equal work--and it is about time!

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the conference report on H.R. 4137, the Higher Education Opportunity Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation; and I thank Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and the conferees.

I want to highlight two achievements of particular importance to my constituents.

The first is a provision that broadens the discretion afforded to school financial aid administrators. It allows them to take into account expenses incurred by families who are caring for an adult dependent when calculating a student's financial aid package. This sounds like a minor technical change, but it is not.

A constituent of mine shared a very personal story about her family's struggle to make ends meet while caring for their eldest child, who is a disabled adult, and also trying to send their youngest to college. In determining whether this family qualified for financial aid, an administrator could not take this situation into consideration. With the provision included in this bill, they now can.

We have also taken great steps in this legislation to ensure the continued success of the Upward Bound Program. This program plays a very important role in my district helping first generation and low- income high school students achieve their dreams of a college education. These programs have faced challenges over the past year. I am proud we have been able to resolve these issues.

We have simplified the FAFSA form and done many other steps. I thank you for your efforts.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your leadership in supporting our veterans and particularly on this bill. The 110th Congress has made great strides in fulfilling the promises made to our veterans.

Mr. Chairman, there are more than 130,000 veterans in New Hampshire. Those veterans have gone without a full service VA hospital for the past 7 years. Last year, over 700 veterans who visited our VA facility in Manchester for acute care were transported to Boston VA facilities or to the White River Junction in Vermont. For some of our more rural northern residents, this can be an arduous ordeal. Hours can be spent in a car or bus traveling for medical care.

To address this inequity, I introduced legislation this week that would require the VA to either provide full-service hospital care or comparable services to veterans in every State.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us also includes an increase of $200 million in fee-based care funding, care that our veterans can receive in local non-VA medical facilities. This program can provide much-needed assistance to veterans in New Hampshire, and I wanted to receive your assurances that we would continue to work together to ensure that New Hampshire veterans have adequate access to in-State health care.

At this time, I would like to yield to my friend and colleague from the Second District of New Hampshire.

Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, today a terrible storm hit across the State of New Hampshire. There has been death and destruction in five counties, and we have declared a state of emergency there. I am asking for the prayers of this country for the people of New Hampshire. They're a strong lot. For ages they have helped one another build their homes, their barns, their stone walls, their businesses. I know that they will find the resources once again to help each other through this calamity.

I ask the people of the country and the Congress to keep their thoughts and prayers on the people of New Hampshire tonight.

Madam Speaker, it may be July, but New Hampshire families are already worried about how are they going to heat their homes this winter. The cost of heating oil has been rising dramatically all year. With $5 a gallon heating oil forecast, the average New Hampshire family could be spending $4,000 to heat their homes. This is a daunting figure for most families.

With so many households relying on heating oil and with the Bush administration recommending a $500,000 cut to the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, for fiscal year 2009, Congress simply must step in and provide the kind of funding relief Americans need.

I have introduced legislation that would provide $9 billion in emergency funding for LIHEAP, as well as an additional $1 billion for weatherization programs. Not only would this proposal ensure that Northern States receive increased aid to get through the long winter, but it would also help the Southern States get through their hot summers.

Increased funding for LIHEAP must be a national priority. The administration's effort to slash funding is absolutely inexcusable. Congress must step in and provide adequate funding.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I'd like to thank Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairman DeFazio for working with me on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is critical that we take a serious look at our Nation's bridge infrastructure and take the necessary steps to ensure that we invest in the maintenance and modernization of that infrastructure. The underlying legislation accomplishes this, and I applaud the chairman for his work on this and look forward to voting for this bill when the time comes.

However, whenever possible, we must take care to protect our Nation's historic bridges, while ensuring their safety. My amendment accomplishes this by allowing States the option to provide for more frequent and in-depth inspection of historic bridges, in lieu of their replacement under the 5-year performance plan outlined in this underlying legislation.

Under my amendment, the safety of these historic bridges is ensured by requiring that States choosing to take advantage of this exception subject these bridges to more vigorous inspections. At the same time it also makes approval of the exception contingent upon the Secretary's determination that the overall safety of the State's bridge inventory will be increased by granting the exception.

Mr. Chairman, this is by no means a blanket exception for historic bridges, as it rightfully puts safety first. But it does provide the necessary flexibility for those States that wish to preserve their historic bridges.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, almost 8 years ago two oilmen arrived at the White House. They devised an oil policy that left everybody else out. And now we are seeing their very successful oil policy where we are paying for their secret policy. And yet we didn't hear a word from the Republican side of the aisle. And now, when we are paying almost $5 a gallon, suddenly they are talking about drilling in ANWR.

Now, they know, as well as we do, as well as the Department of Energy knows and says, that it would take 10 years to get any gas from that. The American family would spend $57,000 before they saw one penny from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We need to drill now and we need to drill domestically, and they have the leases.

And don't ever be surprised by the fact that the oil companies are claiming there is nothing underneath there anyway, because what they are really doing is buying back their stock.

So my suggestion to the oil companies is to get to work now. Start drilling domestically with what you have. You have 80 percent of the leased land. Use it or lose it.

Mr. Speaker, gas prices are hovering around $4 a gallon now. Americans are having difficulty just finding the money to drive to the store. The energy policies of the Bush administration over the past 7 years have helped only one group, Big Oil. They're doing just fine, thank you very much.

House Democrats are moving America in a new direction towards energy independence. We raised the miles-per-gallon requirement for the first time in over 30 years. We are putting money into research and development. We're requiring energy-efficient appliances, and we are creating green jobs, among other things.

We're also demanding that oil companies drill now. They have 68 million acres of land that they could drill on. They have their permits. They need to get to work now. Last month, House Republicans could have joined us in sending a strong message to oil companies that they need to start drilling on already approved lands. But instead, House Republicans once again sided with both Big Oil and President Bush.

Mr. Speaker, the oil companies need to use those permits or lose those permits. America wants oil companies to get to work now and stop playing politics.

Mr. Speaker, every day, American consumers are being squeezed at the pump. They can no longer afford for Congress to be divided on this issue.

I urge every Member of Congress to support legislation on the floor that would compel the oil industry to drill on the public lands it already controls. Big Oil would either have to produce from these lands, would have to show they are being diligent in their development or would have to give up the right to control even more Federal energy resources.

Simply put, we are telling Big Oil to either use it or lose it.

Experts estimate that 68 million acres of leased land could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil, which would nearly double the Nation's total oil production.

Congressional Republicans and President Bush are calling for domestic

drilling, saying it is the only solution to control high prices. Republicans should then be demanding that Big Oil drill on the 68 million acres where they already have leases.

Mr. Speaker, Americans have been deeply hurt by the prices at the pump. Republicans should join with the Democrats and should tell Big Oil companies to get to work now.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. And I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, as gas prices continue to rise and our highways become more congested, it becomes even more critical for us to support and encourage mass-transit alternatives. Amtrak will surely continue to play a significant role as one of these alternatives.

My home State of New Hampshire is served by the Amtrak Downeaster, connecting Portland, Maine to Boston. The Downeaster has truly been a success story from the beginning of its service in 2001. Ridership numbers have continued to increase year after year, highlighting the importance of Amtrak service to the region. In fact, so far this fiscal year, ridership of the Downeaster has reached nearly 300,000.

Yet even a rail line as successful and as important to our region as the Downeaster has difficulties turning a profit. While there are improvements to be made at Amtrak overall, passenger rail service in general requires investment and dedication. As we have seen with the Downeaster, this dedication yields significant returns in tourism and business dollars that come as a result of improving access to the communities served.

I look forward to voting in favor of H.R. 6003 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for his support on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of our Nation's first credit union. In 1908, St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association, later to be renamed the Bank of the People, was established in Manchester, New Hampshire. Manchester had textile mills then. The mill workers' resources were pooled to create credit and savings opportunities for workers, many of whom were immigrants.

In 1934, 26 years after the establishment of St. Mary's, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Federal Credit Union Act into law, allowing for the organization of credit unions under charters approved by the Federal Government. Today there are over 8,500 credit unions nationwide, and I think it's fair to say that St. Mary's truly laid the foundation for the success of credit unions nationwide.

This credit union model has withstood the test of time. From the Great Depression to modern-day globalization, the emphasis on local communities that is embodied in the concept of the credit union has earned these institutions a special place among our Nation's financial institutions.

St. Mary's even stayed open during the bank holiday of 1933, providing reassurance and help to its worried community. This commitment to community and access to credit and savings services is easy to see.

For example, in 1908, the cost of becoming a member of the St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association was $5. Today, after 100 years, the cost of signing up for anyone who lives or works in New Hampshire is $5.

That is pretty remarkable.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to honor St. Mary's 100th anniversary, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H. Res. 1145.

I am proud to offer this amendment alongside my colleagues, Representatives Welch, Arcuri, and Hodes, and I thank them for their hard work on this amendment. I would also like to thank Chairman Miller, Subcommittee Chairman Kildee, and Representatives Chandler and Loebsack for their hard work on this legislation.

Madam Chairman, energy and heating costs are on the rise and communities across the country are feeling the pinch. Now more than ever, it's important to focus on sustainable forms of energy and heating production. Going green is not only the right thing to do for our environment and for national security reasons, but it's the financially responsible thing to do as well.

The Shea-Porter/Welch/Acuri/Hodes amendment builds on the positive steps taken in H.R. 3021 by specifying that the funds authorized by this act may be used to invest in sustainable solutions that meet the energy and heating needs of our Nation's school facilities. Sustainable solutions such as geothermal, solar, wind, and biomass technologies will help to mitigate the costs of the increasing traditional energy sources on our schools by reducing the schools' dependence on traditional sources. This amendment makes a simple change, but it is an important one, as it serves to provide school districts with greater flexibility in the use of these dollars.

Madam Chairman, 82 percent of the 475 public schools in my home State of New Hampshire were built prior to 1981, and 36 were built prior to 1951. Just think of all the advances that have been made in heating and energy efficiency technologies since then. The underlying legislation will certainly help modernize these schools, and with our amendment, H.R. 3021, will do even more by allowing school districts to make critical investments in sustainable heating and energy solutions.

Madam Chairman, the Shea-Porter/Welch/Arcuri/Hodes amendment is supported by the National Education Association, and it deserves the support of our colleagues as well. I urge a ``yea'' vote on this amendment and the underlying legislation. Let's invest in our school infrastructure in an environmentally and economically sound way.