Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 93, which would reauthorize the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.

The devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis in May has been heart wrenching to watch. Despite the significant progress that has been made over the last three months with the support of the international community and numerous non-governmental organizations, the junta has frustrated our efforts to do more to help the people of Burma. We must continue to assist the humanitarian needs of the most vulnerable communities.

As a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I am particularly concerned about human rights in Burma. The violence against thousands of protesters led by Buddhist monks last September, which was triggered by the unannounced decision of the Burmese military junta to remove fuel subsidies, should be of great concern to everyone.

We must call on the Burmese junta to end its human rights abuses against members of Burma's ethnic minorities immediately, and until then, we should continue to impose tough economic and diplomatic sanctions against Burma.

I urge the support of H.J. Res. 93.

Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, for yielding to me.

I have deep respect for people on both sides of this issue but no one knows this issue better than Mr. Blumenauer in my judgment. We need to rebuild and renew America. We have a huge problem with our water infrastructure, our energy infrastructure and our transportation infrastructure.

I was part of balancing the federal budget in 1997. I was on the Budget Committee for 10 years. And it is a fact. We took $29 billion to help balance the budget. It came from the Highway Trust Fund. We need to be putting that money back. Certainly, $8 billion should go back.

These are American jobs creating a long-term investment. We don't have a capital budget in this country. And so we don't start to think in the ways we need to about investing. Roads and bridges are investments. The Mianus bridge in Connecticut collapsed down and three people died. It was a huge disaster on I-95. We need to not only continue to maintain our highways, roads and bridges, but we need to upgrade them as well. And, in fact, just to maintain what we have, we need to rebuild. We need this money. It must go back into the trust fund.

And I would just say for those who talk about a stimulus package, there is no better stimulus package than putting American construction workers back to work, rebuilding our infrastructure.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been a long time coming, and I'm grateful for the work of my colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee in bringing this legislation to the floor today.

Like Congressman John Campbell from California, I believe this is imperfect legislation, but needed. I am hopeful passage of this bill will give required liquidity and credit for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, restore some confidence in the housing market, provide stronger regulation over the GSEs, keep more American families in their homes, and protect the value of the homes of their neighbors.

The past year has been a tumultuous one for the mortgage market, and we are now in the midst of a significant housing crisis. It is absolutely essential we take action. Now is not the time to raise taxes, cut spending, and stand by idly like former President Herbert Hoover and let an imperfect market work its wonders.

Mr. Speaker, I support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, American families are struggling to fill their gas tanks, feed their families, heat their homes and stay current on their mortgages.

I am hopeful today's passage of this legislation will bring some stability to the volatile subprime mortgage market by providing liquidity and credit for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, restoring investor confidence in the housing markets, and keeping American families in their homes.

Our economic strength is dependent upon the resiliency of our housing market. Today, Congress will send a message of hope to families and a message of confidence to the market place.

Regulatory overhaul of the GSEs is long overdue and frankly could have helped prevent the uncertainty we are experiencing now. I have long fought for the proper regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Back in 2003, I introduced the No Securities Left Behind Act to bring these two companies under the 1933 and 1934 Securities laws. It is time we shed sunlight on all securities trading and demand accountability.

What is concerning to me is the inclusion of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in urgent legislation attempting to shore up the financial stability of the GSEs. It doesn't seem to make sense to siphon off capital from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the same month shares of the companies have fallen 45 percent and 58 percent, respectively.

While I support the creation of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and believe our Nation faces a significant shortage of affordable housing, we need to reevaluate if the establishment of this fund is logical in the current market climate.

Despite my concern, I intend to support this bill today because we must open up credit availability to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The failure of these entities far outweighs the concern I have about some aspects of this legislation. While I hope this credit window will never need to be accessed, this backstop will reassure Wall Street of the health and liquidity of these two companies.

Additionally, I have heard all too often of homeowners prevented from modifying the terms of their mortgage until they default. Expanding the FHA-secure program to allow families the opportunity to refinance into safe and affordable mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration will provide additional relief from foreclosures.

There is no doubt in my mind we are facing a serious challenge. Families, investors, lending institutions and communities all risk significant losses.

Given the 71,000 outstanding subprime loans in Connecticut alone, this legislation is long overdue to bring relief to struggling homeowners, greater oversight to the industry, and to ensure the continued viability of the mortgage market.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

The amendment would direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to determine factors that contribute to bridge construction and rehabilitation delays and make recommendations about how to reduce or mitigate these delays.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimated major highway projects take an average of 13 years to complete. The bottom line is it takes too long for transportation projects to go from concept to reality.

As our infrastructure continues to age and our growing population puts additional strain on our bridges, projects will need to be completed faster to ensure bridge safety and efficiency and to reduce costs.

The study's findings will tell us where we need to encourage better efficiency in bridge rehabilitation and construction.

Information provided by this GAO report will also be useful in the larger context of the Federal transportation spending bill, which is due for reauthorization next year.

I held a transportation forum in Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District on June 16, 2008 where I convened local, State, regional, and national transportation stakeholders to discuss key transportation needs.

At the forum, several stakeholders, including the Connecticut Department of Transportation, the Regional Planning Association and the Fairfield County Business Council, agreed that infrastructure construction often takes an unnecessarily long time to complete, and given the rising cost of construction materials, it often winds up reducing the value of Federal funding for a project.

The American Road and Transportation Builders Association reported the purchasing power of the Federal gas tax has fallen significantly due to the rising cost of materials used in highway and bridge construction.

By 2010, the purchasing power of the 18.4-cent-per-gallon Federal gas tax will be 10.8 cents per gallon. By 2015, this purchasing power is estimated to fall to 9.6 cents per gallon.

Additionally, the cost of highway and street construction materials was up 15 percent in May 2008, compared to May of 2007. Between 2003 and 2008, the price of street and highway construction has increased 70 percent.

Some factors contributing to the high expense of construction projects, besides overly lengthy project planning and implementation, are lengthy environmental impact assessments. Environmental impact assessments of bridge construction and rehabilitation are essential, but do they need to take so long?

The Federal Highway Administration has estimated the average time to complete environmental impact statements varies between 54 and 80 months. In 2007, the Federal Highway Administration set a target of 36 months for the completion of these assessments. I mean, good grief, that's 3 years. I'm interested to see what factors the GAO determines present significant delays for these assessments.

We need to get a hold of this problem now. By identifying barriers to more timely completion of these projects, we will be able to more effectively use Federal money to rehabilitate and maintain current infrastructure and build new to accommodate increased capacity.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you for all of your good work on these issues. We're very grateful that you would accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and congratulations to Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica and Members LaTourette and Taylor.

I rise in support of H.R. 5949, the Clean Boating Act, which would exempt recreational boats from a permit requirement for normal operational discharges of ballast water.

In September of 2006, a U.S. District Court decision overturned the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to exempt recreational boats from having to obtain a permit for operational discharges. As a result, the EPA is required to develop and implement a permitting system for all boats by September 30, 2008. Under this new rule, all boaters will be required to apply for pollution permits regulating ballast water, which includes deck runoff, engine cooling water, gray water and bilge water from engines, laundries, showers and sinks.

While I believe large quantities of ballast water, primarily from commercial ships, adversely affect marine habitat, runoff from recreational vehicles does not come close to posing the same water pollution challenges.

The Clean Boating Act defines recreational vessels as those used primarily for pleasure, or those leased, rented or chartered to a person for recreational purposes. Under H.R. 5949, these vessels would be exempt from the new permit requirement, just as they had been before the U.S. District Court decision.

Recreational boating plays an important role in many of the communities in Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, and I have found many boaters to be among the most concerned for our marine ecosystems. Boating is an important factor in tourism and the prosperity of local economies all along our coastline.

I urge support of the Clean Boating Act to exempt recreational boaters from this necessary permitting process.

Our laws should be logical, workable, and fair. Requiring all boats to obtain permits for normal discharge of ballast water is not logical, workable, or fair.

H.R. 5949, the Clean Boating Act, ensures pollution permits regulating ballast water will cover those vessels that it should apply to, commercial boats, and not those vessels that it shouldn't apply to, recreational boats.

Again, I thank the chairman for bringing this bill out and making sure that we don't have to go to conference so we can send it directly to President. Congratulations to both of you.

I thank the gentleman for yielding again. Mr. Oberstar, thank you, and, Mr. Mica, thank you for working together.

When we see energy prices going through the ceiling, it is logical we would think in much different ways than we have in the past. Obviously, we want conservation. We want to see that our minivans, SUVs, cars, and trucks get better mileage. We want to see alternative forms of energy: wind, solar, geothermal. We want to see more efficiencies in electric generation, and we want to see greater production and more increase in supply.

I happen to think we need to be drilling off our coasts, much like Canada does, and supply natural gas for the New England area from its off-the-coast drilling off of Canada. But we also need public transportation.

We need high-speed transportation. It is a mystery to me how Amtrak could have built a high speed, a faster train that doesn't work properly. The Acela can't be used for what it was intended to be used for. It doesn't go faster because it can't tilt. It's three inches too wide. That speaks, I think, to Mr. Mica and others who suggest that we need to bring the private sector in to assist Amtrak.

More money for Amtrak makes sense. More public transportation for the American people makes sense. High-speed trains are long overdue. And I thank my colleagues for their efforts.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4049, the Money Service Business Act of 2007, and ask for its immediate passage. We do need to pass this legislation.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is important and long overdue. Despite expressions of concern by Members of this Congress asking both regulators and financial institutions to ensure fair treatment of money service businesses, or what we refer to as MSBs, financial institutions continue to be uncomfortable offering accounts to MSBs, and, in fact, most banks have discontinued offering such accounts, which is the issue.

Madam Speaker, the banks have good reason to be concerned. MSBs provide a valuable service to consumers, and in some instances are the only financial service providers available to them. But the regulatory regime that ensures that MSBs comply with all applicable laws to prevent the laundering of money or the financing of terror is muddled, to say the least.

After a series of regulatory actions in which banks were fined millions of dollars in connection with the accounts they offered MSBs, most banks felt they had to make a choice, either do their own on-site investigation of an MSB's anti-money laundering program, or live with the liability of not knowing how good or bad that particular program is.

Madam Speaker, banks are not regulators. And we should not expect them to act like regulators for a different industry. No one disagrees that banks and the MSBs should comply with all applicable anti-money laundering guidance; nonetheless, terminating account services to an entire industry could end up forcing its customers into the underground financial service. That in itself creates a significant money laundering risk.

The measure before us, drafted with a great deal of bipartisan cooperation by the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney), one of the stars of this institution, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), would set up a system in which the Treasury Secretary posts a set of guidelines MSBs would need to meet to satisfy anti-money laundering requirements. When they comply, MSBs would self-certify their compliance to their bank.

This self-certification function is balanced by strict penalties for those MSBs that misrepresent their compliance, and in no way would excuse banks from reporting any suspicious activity under the laws and regulations of the Bank Secrecy Act. But it would relieve banks of the requirement to be the de facto regulator of MSBs, which is not the bank's job or obligation.

In reviewing this bill, the Department of Justice has raised a good point that I would like to emphasize. The bill requires the MSBs to certify, to the satisfaction of the Treasury Secretary, that they are in good compliance, but only requires them to file their certification with their banks. Madam Speaker, I think that among the regulations the Treasury Secretary posts to ensure compliance, the Secretary should require the MSBs to file a duplicate form with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at Treasury where it would be studied for compliance and would be available for the DOJ to view as well.

Madam Speaker, while we are on this subject, I would like to make an additional point. Regulation of MSBs is a complex and not very effective patchwork of effort between the States and the Federal Government. While some States do a terrific job, some really don't. In the future I hope Congress can work to find a good solution to make thorough, uniform, and effective regulation of MSBs a reality. I know they would appreciate it. In the meantime, let's let the banks get back to providing accounts and doing what they do best.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is supported by both the MSBs and the banking industry and would benefit those who work hard and have limited resources. I urge my colleagues to agree to this commonsense solution to the bank discontinuance dilemma.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and will yell a hearty ``yea'' when asked for those who support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 2008, I missed 1 recorded vote.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 514.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6545, the National Intelligence Assessment of Energy Security Act. This bill would require the National Intelligence Director to submit to Congress a national intelligence assessment on the national security and energy security issues related to energy costs.

Our national security is threatened by our dependence on foreign countries that do not share our views on democracy or our commitment to combat radical Islamist terrorists. By relying on oil from OPEC in the Middle East and countries like Venezuela and Nigeria, we place our national security in the hands of authoritarian governments.

I believe our energy policy should be a bipartisan approach that reduces our demand by increasing conservation, including getting better mileage from cars, minivans, SUVs and trucks, and making electric appliances and lighting more energy efficient, increases the use of renewable fuels such as solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels, reduces speculation in the oil futures market, and increases our domestic supply of oil, natural gas and nuclear power.

The national intelligence assessment required under this bill will show us the national security threats likely to increase should a long term, bipartisan plan not be implemented.

It is critical we understand the consequences of our increasing energy demand and take strong action to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Well over half of our energy derived from oil and natural gas comes from foreign producers. Our energy consumption not only fuels our homes, our transportation and our industry, but also transfers our wealth to countries and foreign interests that would do us harm. Our national security requires us to be energy independent, and I urge support of H.R. 6545.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution, but recognize that three Republican amendments were made in order and three Democratic amendments.

But what troubles me is that this House, over so many years, continues to avoid meaningful debate. I was at the NAACP Convention in Cincinnati this week. Before Barack Obama spoke that night, they had a debate between college students from Stockton, California and Detroit, Michigan, about health care. They had three speakers for the pro position and three speakers for the con. It was a fascinating experience. It was electric.

We were witnessing a debate on an issue with 10,000 people listening. And I thought, I haven't experienced this in years. I haven't heard such a meaningful debate in years. And yet I serve in Congress, and we haven't had that kind of debate. And we're not going to have a meaningful debate on the authorization bill on intelligence today.

The amendment Mr. Castle talks about deserves to be debated. It was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. My Democratic colleagues won this House in part by saying we need to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but they won't allow a debate on something so fundamental.

Why shouldn't there be a Joint House and Senate Committee on Intelligence, or, why shouldn't we establish a House and Senate Committee on Intelligence with authorization and appropriation powers; or, at least have a separate Appropriations Committee on Intelligence because now the defense subcommittee of appropriations decides what goes in the intelligence bill.

Why shouldn't we have a debate about that? Why shouldn't we educate ourselves about the pros and the cons of it? Why shouldn't the American people be allowed to hear such a debate?

Why is Congress failing to live by the recommendations--or at least debate the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle professed to want to do before the election? Not to even have a debate is hard to understand.

There was a second amendment that was not allowed in order. This one was to declassify the bottom line of the budget on Intelligence. In other words, we would know what it is. The remarkable thing is our adversaries know. I won't talk about recent numbers, but I will tell you this: Ten years ago, when you read about the numbers in the New York Times, we couldn't say the number was accurate, but it was the number. The Times was right 10 years ago, 11 years ago and 12 years ago and 13 years ago and 14 years ago. The New York Times knew, but the American people are not allowed to know. Our adversaries knew. The Soviet Union knew. Who didn't know? The American people.

It's not just that. Another problem is we have to hide tens of billions of dollars in our budget that are going to the Intelligence Committee.

So there are things throughout the budget that really aren't going to the things we say they are. They're not going there. They're going to the Intelligence Committee. So we have to distort our budget by tens and tens and tens of billions of dollars and tell people the money is going there when it isn't.

We even have Members come on the House floor who want to take out money from those appropriations, and they don't know that they're not taking it out of what that says it's going to go to, because it's going to go to the Intelligence Committee.

So let's just step back a second and think. Our adversaries know what the bottom line of our budget is and the American people don't, but when my constituents look at expenditures and say ``why are you spending money here or there?'' I can't tell them we're not. I can't tell them it's really going to the Intelligence budget, but we don't want you to know the bottom line in the Intelligence budget.

All we would have to do is just say, ``X'' billion of dollars is going to Intelligence. Then we wouldn't have to fit in ``X'' billion of dollars throughout the budget and hide it. We would just give the bottom line, and then the other parts of the budget would be honest.

Now, some members may not be concerned with this, but the sad thing is we're not going to have a debate on it because this amendment was not allowed by the Rules Committee. I don't know if it's ever going to happen.

When I ran for Congress, I thought we would have a debate about real things. We're not having that and we haven't for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, on July 16, 2008, I missed one recorded vote because I was participating in a Committee hearing.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote No. 496.

Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 2008, I missed 3 recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on recorded vote No. 486, ``yea'' on recorded vote 487, and ``yea'' on recorded vote 488.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise today in support of H.R. 3329, the Homes for Heroes Act, because it is past time to address the rapid growth of our Nation's homeless veterans population and enhance affordable housing opportunities for returning veterans. Permanent supportive housing remains the number one unmet need of veterans. The National Alliance to End Homelessness found that nearly half a million of our Nation's veterans are severely rent-burdened and devote more than 50 percent of their income to rent.

The bill will strengthen housing opportunities for our returning veterans by creating a Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, and authorizes $200 million for new construction of low income and homeless veteran housing and 20,000 new vouchers for homeless veterans. We have a responsibility to assure the well-being of these brave men and women, true American heroes, when they return home.

Veterans are twice as likely to be chronically homeless compared to other Americans. Additional obstacles include physical and mental health-related problems, weakened social networks, high stressful occupational demands and non-transferability of skills to civilian jobs, which create the need for additional supportive services for this population.

In fact, the Alliance to End Homelessness concluded veterans make up a disproportionate share of the homeless population. While veterans only represent 11 percent of the civilian population age 18 and over, they account for nearly 26 percent of our Nation's homeless population. This is clearly unacceptable. This disparity is especially concerning as our Nation's troops in Iraq and Afghanistan return home.

While the VA currently has over 19,000 transitional housing beds for homeless veterans and has invested in new initiatives specifically targeting at-risk populations, various Government Accountability Office, GAO, and VA studies indicate that the VA still lacks the capacity to provide timely access to health services for veterans at risk for homelessness.

I believe this bill will enhance supportive and affordable housing opportunities for veterans, and I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support to H.R. 6377, the Energy Markets Emergency Act, because I believe the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, must investigate speculation in the energy futures market and account for any manipulation and price distortion.

It is clear the increased positions of institutional investors, such as pension funds, endowments and sovereign funds, in the energy futures market are contributing to the escalating price of oil at an alarming rate. The CFTC should level the playing field and apply the 20 million barrel position limit to the institutional investors, the same limit that everyone else adheres to.

I also believe the CFTC must work with the British Financial Services Authority, FSA, to establish position limits on oil futures traded on the London Intercontinental Exchange, ICE, similar to those established by the CFTC for traders on the New York Mercantile Exchange, NYMEX.

In overseas markets, such as ICE, U.S. investors can buy as much oil as they want, driving up demand with little to no regulation.

It is essential the CFTC work with the FSA in London to limit positions and gather accurate information on the impact that speculation has on oil prices.

Rising gas prices are indicative of the United States need to affirm its commitment to renewable energy research and development, and focus on reducing our demand for oil by emphasizing conservation. In addition, however, transparency in the oil futures market is needed and appropriate.