Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their excellent work on reaching an agreement on this important legislation to upgrade and modernize the regulations and the Agency charged with ensuring the safety of consumer products.

In the past couple of years, Americans have been shocked to learn that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is an agency in crisis, starved of resources and slow to respond to a growing tsunami of toxic toys and other products that continue to put consumers at risk.

We learned of defective cribs that resulted in deaths whose defects were never fully disclosed to the public. We learned of lead-tainted jewelry and other products, toys coated with a notorious date-rape drug, and unacceptable delays in the investigation and recall of dangerous products on the part of the CPSC. We learned of undue influence by manufacturers within the CPSC itself. With all of these problems, CPSC had come to stand for the ``Can't Protect the Safety of Children'' agency.

The Democratic Congress made reform a priority and embarked in a New Direction. The result is a remarkable success.

We have agreed to BAN lead and pthalates in children's products.

We have agreed to greatly increase funding and personnel for the

Thank you, Mr. Welch.

Madam Speaker, we have on the floor right now for consideration legislation which will make it possible for American consumers, who are being tipped upside down at the gasoline pump every time they go in with their vehicle and having money shaken out of their pockets, to have immediate relief, to have the United States be on the side of the American consumer.

Now what has been happening over the last couple of months is really unfortunate. The Republicans and President Bush have been arguing that the answer is to go and to drill up in the remotest parts of the Arctic, when their own Department of Energy is saying that it will take 10 to 20 years for any of that oil to get to the gas pumps in the United States and, when it does, it will only offer insignificant relief to the American consumer.

Meanwhile, the President went over to Saudi Arabia, just a month and a half ago, to beg the Saudi Arabians to please produce more oil that we can use right now, because that would drop the price in oil. The Saudis said, ``Well, we'll think about it. Maybe we'll produce another two or 300,000 barrels of oil, but you'll have to send back your Secretary of Energy in another 3 weeks for us to talk to him.''

Well, you can either promise the American people something that doesn't happen 10 to 20 years from now,

which is what the Republicans have been doing, or you can use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve right now, which is what our legislation will do, and it will say to the President, Mr. President, you must use 10 percent of all the oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve right now, 70 million barrels of oil, and you must use it over the next 5 or 6 months. That would average out to about 500,000 barrels of oil a day. That's the signal that the marketplace would absolutely respond to, because it would send shivers up the spine of the speculators, of the manipulators, of the OPEC cartel that has been playing games with the American consumer.

How do we know that this is going to work? We know it's going to work because when past Presidents have turned the spigot on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, President Bush I, just before the first Persian Gulf war, the price dropped 33 percent for oil.

In the year 2000 when Bill Clinton used it, it dropped 18 percent. And even when this President Bush used it right after the Katrina storm, it dropped 9 percent. We know this works.

But what's going to happen? The Republican leadership is going to get on a plane and fly up to the Arctic wildlife refuge. Instead, they should get on a plane and fly down to Houston and take a look at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and ask the President to just turn the spigot on and to send that oil right now, not 10 or 20 years from now, but 10 or 20 days from now so that Americans, who are enjoying their August vacations know that the American government is on their side.

The reason the Republicans won't use it, however, is that they argue that we're not in an emergency. I think that is not how the American people view where we are. $4 a gallon for gasoline. The price for home heating oil and natural gas this winter rising by the day. We have the airline industry in crisis. We have the trucking industry in crisis. We have food prices skyrocketing.

The American people believe we are in an energy emergency. What we do in this bill is we say, Mr. President, it might not fit your definition of what an emergency is, but it fits the definition for the American people. We want you to deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve now. We want you to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to protect the American consumer now.

We don't want you to wait, Mr. President, until after some war in Iran and deploy it then too, sir, but please do not wait until then. Please understand that Americans want their oil. They paid for this oil. They've paid $100 billion to put this oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Houston, in Louisiana, in Mississippi. They want relief now.

Vote ``aye'' on this legislation.

I thank the gentleman from Vermont.

You know, this Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an incredible weapon to be used in order to protect the American consumer from being gouged at the pump right now. And the Republican Party and President Bush and Vice President Cheney are talking about anything but using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to protect the American consumer at the pump today. And there's a good reason. Because the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is to the oil industry what kryptonite is to Superman. It saps them of their strength immediately. It decreases dramatically their power over ordinary citizens across our country. And that's why they object to it.

You're going to keep hearing from Republicans how they really want to help consumers 10 and 20 years from now. But you're not going to hear a word about their support for deploying 500,000 or 1 million barrels of oil a day right now into the marketplace that will drive down the price of oil, drive down the price of gasoline at the pump today.

That's what we're going to continue to wait to hear them say.

Now, they have plenty of time left in order to make that statement in this debate today, but you're not going to hear it. You're not going to hear them talking about immediate relief.

They're going to continually talk about oil that will come from drilling on our beaches 10 or 20 years from now. Well, that's fine 10 and 20 years from now, but what are they going to do now? What are they going to do between now and Labor Day when Americans are driving all over the country? They're doing to say, We can't use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We can't drive down the price of oil now. We have to wait.

This is going to be an important bill to give protection to the American consumers.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Lampson and I and Mr. Van Hollen introduced this legislation under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi in order to ensure that the American people get the relief at the gas pump they need before Labor Day in 2008. But the Republicans are holding consumers hostage. No immediate relief, they are saying to American consumers, unless the ultimate agenda of Big Oil is met. Unless they are allowed to drill off the beaches 10 years from now, they will not allow the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be used now in order to preserve it. Ten to 20 days of relief is all it will take for us to get help to the American consumer. The Republican plan is 10 to 20 years, according to their own Department of Energy.

The President says he does not have a magic wand. Well, he does have a magic wand, he has a big stick and that big stick is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that he can use right now to beat down the prices of oil which are driving American consumers crazy in terms of their home budgets.

Deploying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve works. It worked in 1991 when President Bush's father used it. It worked in the year 2000 when President Clinton used it, and it worked after Hurricane Katrina when President Bush the Second used it. The President is willing to use the Army Reserve to go to Iraq to protect the oil over there, but he is not willing to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to protect American consumers here from the emergency which we are facing at home--high gas prices, home heating oil prices, natural gas prices, the airline industry going under, the trucking industry in desperate shape. But they will not use it right now.

The Democrats have a short-term plan, and that is to give relief in 10 to 20 days. Use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, use it as a weapon against speculators, against Big Oil and against OPEC; but the Republican Party is still the GOP; GOP, Gas and Oil Party. That's what this is all about.

How did we get here? It's very simple. President Bush and Dick Cheney were elected 8 years ago. They put together a secret energy plan. Two oilmen now in the White House. And here is the simple mathematics. Two oilmen plus two terms in office equals $4 a gallon for gasoline for every American consumer across the country. Very simple mathematics.

The Democratic energy plan, on the other hand, is very simple. Right now deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Put the fear of the Lord into speculators, into OPEC, into the oil industry. The price will plummet. It did in 1991 when President Bush's father used it; it did in 2000 when President Clinton used it; it did when President Bush himself used it after Hurricane Katrina. This is a huge emergency for families as they look at their pocketbooks. They're being tipped upside down. The President should use it.

And for the Democrats, after the Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years, in 2007 the Democrats took over. We increased the fuel economy standard for the vehicles which we have to drive, the appliance-efficiency standards, the lighting standards, new biofuels policy. We backed out with that bill that passed in December of 2007, the Democratic bill, 4.1 million barrels of oil per day over the next 10 to 20 years.

Right now we spend $387 million a day to send American troops over into the Middle East, and we have to purchase 2.1 million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf. Our bill in December that President Bush signed backs out that oil.

But the Republicans had 12 years of control of this Congress to do something about it. They did not. Now they say we need a renewable electricity center so electricity is generated from renewables. The Republicans are saying no.

Vote ``yes'' on this bill. This is the solution the consumers need before Labor Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. I commend Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for their tireless work on this comprehensive and timely legislation.

I am particularly pleased that the bill we are voting on today includes language I originally submitted as an amendment to H.R. 1851. This language seeks to make some technical corrections that will ensure that affordable housing is preserved in certain housing developments, including one located in Malden, Massachusetts.

Low-income tenants of the Heritage Apartments, from my district in Malden, Massachusetts, have been facing possible displacement once an outstanding HUD mortgage is fully paid in a few years. The apartment is also in need of major renovations and upgrades that simply cannot be delayed. Unfortunately, HUD is failing to ensure that the apartment remains affordable and livable by placing burdensome restrictions on prepayment of the outstanding mortgage and subsequent transfer to a new owner who is willing to finance renovations. The language included in Section 2802, allows income-eligible residents to qualify for enhanced housing vouchers following the prepayment of the HUD mortgage and the property transfer and directs HUD to approve such actions.

The Congressional Budget Office has determined that adoption of this language would result in 1 million dollars in net savings to the current mandatory spending over the next five years because HUD is currently paying mortgage interest reduction payments for the development, which would be nullified upon adoption of the language in Sections 2802 and 2803 of H.R. 3221.

This is a good provision, and it is part of a broader piece of housing reform legislation that is desperately needed in response to the tidal wave of foreclosures that have affected families across the country. Again, I commend Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for their tireless work on this comprehensive and timely legislation. I urge adoption of the bill.

I thank the gentleman, and I congratulate him on this excellent piece of legislation. I think we know why we are here. We are here because the American consumer is being pummeled at the gasoline pump on a daily basis. They want to know, how did we get from $30 a barrel of oil and $1.50 for a gallon, on the day that George Bush and Dick Cheney were sworn in, to a point now where it's now $140 a barrel and more than $4 a gallon gasoline now.

Well, it's a very simple formula during the Bush-Cheney era. It's two oilmen in the White House for two terms, equals $4 a gallon gasoline. Oil math in the United States is very simple. They put together a secret energy plan, Dick Cheney and George Bush, on day one in the White House. Today, we are out here debating whether or not it's a success.

Now, from the oil industry perspective, it is, and they were the only ones allowed into these secret meetings with the President and the Vice President.

But, for the American people, they are being tipped upside down at the pump. When we, as Democrats, say you can go right now and drill up in the petroleum reserves, you can go offshore. You can go into all of these locations that are already permitted.

No, there is absolutely no interest on the part of the oil industry. When we say to the oil industry and to the Bush administration, instead of drilling off of the beaches of the United States first, how about going to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? How about taking 70 million barrels there and starting to deploy it, to put the fear of God into the oil industry, into speculators, into traders?

The President says, I would never use that because it is a free market, the price of oil on the marketplace.

So what we are saying is, don't go to the beaches first. Go to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but they will not do it.

So the DRILL bill of Mr. Rahall is very simple. He says, instead of drilling somewhere 20 years from now, to give an insignificant relief, Mr. Rahall is saying, drill now in the 68 million acres that you already have, which has oil.

We need, instead of drilling for 20 years from now we need to tap, tap, tap the oil where we have it on the land in the United States today. We need to tap, tap, tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve today, immediately, to protect the American consumer. We need to tap into renewable energy resources in order to protect the American people now with wind and solar.

The Bush administration says no, no, no; I am with the American Petroleum Institute, not the American consumer at the pump. And that is why we say to the oil industry and to the Republican Party, stop your coalition which has driven the price of oil to a point where consumers are being tipped upside down at the pump.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.

Many of my Republican friends seem to think that they know better than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its elected representatives when it comes to meeting our state's energy needs. They claim to know not only how much LNG we need in our region, but also where these LNG terminals should be located.

I have some news for my Republican friends: you have been sold a bill of goods by the developer of the failed Weaver's Cove project, a project that was rejected by the Coast Guard which will never be built. Before you shed another crocodile tear about our need for LNG, I would like to share with you some facts about LNG in Massachusetts.

The fact is that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has more LNG terminals in operation or approved by both Federal and State regulators than any other State in the Union! We already have two LNG importation terminals in operation, and we also have a third terminal that will become operational by next year.

Now that is a larger number of LNG terminals than is currently in place in any other State of the Union. In fact--when all three terminals are in place, we will have more LNG terminals in Massachusetts than Texas and Louisiana have today.

So, my Republican friends should stop shedding those crocodile tears about the need for more LNG in Massachusetts. Our State has already seen that need, and we have already responded to it.

Since 1971, there has been an LNG terminal in my district in Everett, Massachusetts. That terminal has been in operation longer than any other LNG importation terminal in the country. In fact, between 1971 and 2003, the Everett terminal has received about half of all of the LNG imported into the United States. The Everett terminal has two LNG storage tanks that have a combined storage capacity of 3.4 billion cubic feet, and the terminal can vaporize this LNG into natural gas at a rate of approximately 1 billion cubic feet each day. Now, this is a facility that is located right in the middle of a densely populated urban area, and never could be built there today due to safety and security concerns.

But we need the gas that this facility produces, so we are forced to continue operating it. The Everett LNG terminal, currently operated by the Suez company, today meets 20 percent of New England's annual natural gas demand. The local natural gas distribution companies served by this terminal store the LNG that they receive from the Everett terminal in satellite terminals all around New England. That allows this LNG to meet an additional 15 percent of New England's peak natural gas demand. So, nearly 40 percent of New England's peak demand for natural gas is served by the existing Everett facility.

Now, in addition to the Everett LNG terminal, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has also approved two additional offshore LNG terminals to meet our future demand. We learned from the lesson of Everett with these facilities, and wisely chose to locate them offshore, away from any populated areas where they could be an attractive target to terrorists.

The first offshore LNG terminal is called the Northeast Gateway. It is owned by a company called Excelerate, and it is located about 13 miles off the coast north of Boston in Massachusetts Bay. This offshore facility re-gasifies the LNG on the tanker ship, turning it back into natural gas, and then sends that gas into the existing HUB line, which is a natural gas pipeline off our coast. The Excelerate LNG facility received 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas in March, but has received no additional LNG deliveries since then because of low demand. According to Excelerate, this offshore terminal is capable of accommodating up to 800 million cubic feet of natural gas each day future growth, though they initially are projecting that it would operate at a rate of 500 million cubic feet per day and a peak capability to 600 million cubic feet per day.

In addition to this first offshore LNG terminal, there is also a second LNG terminal, which is being built by Suez, the owner of the Everett LNG terminal. Neptune, a liquefied natural gas, LNG, offshore deepwater port, is also being built approximately 10 miles off the coast of Gloucester. Neptune has received all Federal, State and local permits and approvals to proceed with construction. Pipeline construction and testing are planned for mid-July through September 2008. Work on the pipeline connection to HubLine and the buoy installation are scheduled to begin in May and end in September 2009. Neptune will be prepared to receive LNG shipments by late 2009.

When completed, the Neptune LNG project will be capable of delivering approximately 400 million cubic feet per day of natural gas to the region, or enough to heat 1.5 million homes, and 750 million cubic feet per day a peak winter day.

So, the bottom line is that with these two new facilities, we will be going from an LNG capacity of 750 million metric cubic feet per day of natural gas, and 1 billion cubic feet per day in peak periods, up to 1.65 billion cubic feet per day routine delivery capacity, and 2.45 billion peak delivery capacity.

The proposed LNG terminal at Weaver's Cove has been rejected by the Coast Guard. It is opposed by virtually every elected official in Massachusetts. It would be located right in the middle of an urban area, just like Everett. It makes no sense from a security standpoint in a post-9/11 world. The Coast Guard has already said no to Weaver's Cove. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has already said no. The developer doesn't like that, but his proposal has been rejected. It is going nowhere. It's not going to happen.

It also makes little economic sense to build this facility, at this location, at this time. There is not sufficient economic justification for this facility in light of the three existing or planned LNG terminals in our State. These three existing LNG facilities can meet our State's needs for natural gas for many, many years, and if we need to build another LNG terminal in the future, our State has already demonstrated that we are willing to move quickly to approve the siting of offshore LNG terminals that allow LNG to be imported into our State without any of the safety or terrorism risks associated with the siting of another urban LNG terminal.

So, don't pretend that this bill to designate the Taunton River as a wild and scenic river has anything to do with LNG. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not need this facility. Federal regulators have already rejected it. We already have two LNG terminals in our State, with a third on the way, and if we need more LNG in the future we can build more offshore terminals. We've demonstrated a willingness and ability to do so.

I urge the adoption of the bill.

I thank the gentlelady, and let me begin by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton, Mr. Pallone and Mr. Deal for their support of this important resolution, but I would also like to extend my special thanks to my friend and cofounder of the Congressional Cystic Fibrosis Caucus, Cliff Stearns of Florida. Thank you, Cliff, for your commitment to this issue.

The resolution before us today is intended to highlight the importance of beating this dreadful, cruel disease, and bring hope to people with cystic fibrosis and their loved ones. Approximately 30,000 children and adults in the United States have cystic fibrosis, a life- threatening genetic lung disease for which there is no cure.

In my home State of Massachusetts, 800 families are affected by this horrible disease. That's a lot of moms that wake up at 5 in the morning so that they can pound on their child's chest to clear the abnormally thick, sticky mucus that makes breathing difficult. That's a lot of children who cough and wheeze and are at constant risk for life- threatening lung infections. That's a lot of dads who want their child to have a healthy life but have to worry about the unpleasant alternative of a shortened life expectancy marked by frequent admissions to the hospital.

This resolution is about supporting these families and providing them with the hope for a better future. Significant improvements have been made in the treatment of cystic fibrosis. Fifty years ago many children with CF did not live past 10 years of age. Today, the life expectancy is 37 years.

Many of those achievements are due to the hard work and dedication of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Yet we still have a long way to go to provide people with CF with a normal and a healthy life. It is time for Congress to become more involved in the pursuit of a cure. We need to make a greater investment in research and make a stronger commitment to the people with CF, their families, and their caretakers. The cystic fibrosis community has ensured that we understand the unique challenges that face people.

The cystic fibrosis community has ensured that we understand the unique challenges that face people with cystic fibrosis. With this resolution we express our support for the mission to find a cure or more control over this disease.

I thank the gentlelady and again, I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and all of those in the cystic fibrosis community, especially my life-long friend, Joe O'Donnell, who has dedicated his life to finding the cure for this disease.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge a ``yes'' vote on overriding President Bush's veto of the urgently needed Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. Over the last several months, President Bush has had an opportunity to work with a bipartisan majority of Congress to enhance access to care for our Nation's seniors, disabled, and military families by preventing cuts in reimbursement to physicians.

The President had an opportunity to invest in our country's health by ensuring that seniors would continue to have access to physicians in the Medicare program. But instead, he opted to throw patients and physicians under the proverbial bus, all for the sake of padding the pockets of the Medicare Advantage program.

A veto of the President's override would not only improve seniors' access to health care, it would also increase investment in preventive health care, expand programs in rural communities, and guarantee mental health benefits. For our active-duty military personnel and military retirees, a veto override will ensure they have access to doctors they know and trust in the military health care program, Tricare.

This bill is supported by over 150 large organizations, and most importantly, by a vast majority of our Nation's seniors, disabled, military families, and physicians. We need to build on the success of this program and override this ill-timed and unconscionable veto.

At a time when the population of seniors seeking Medicare services continues to grow, what does the President do? He vetoes a bill written to prevent cuts to Medicare physicians, and in doing so, threatens seniors' access to Medicare providers. This is absolutely unacceptable.

To my Republican colleagues, who are considering how to vote on this bill today--given the overwhelming support for this bill from the patient and provider community, I urge you to reject the President's stand against patients and physicians in favor of the insurance industry and join the overwhelming majority of the American public who support this legislation.

It has been said that ``Health is the first wealth.'' Well, what does it say about our country when seniors, military families, and physicians are pushed aside for the interests of the insurance industry? Let's not put increased wealth for the insurance companies above the health of our seniors. We must give seniors the access to the health care that they need and deserve, and that is what today's veto override vote will accomplish.

I urge an ``aye'' vote to override this veto.

I thank the chairman so much, and I congratulate him on his superior work on this legislation.

In the year 2000, a new thing happened in regulation because of a Republican-controlled Congress. It passed a massive deregulatory bill into law. This bill included the so-called ``Enron loophole,'' named after the now-notorious energy trading firm that had lobbied for its creation. This loophole is being exploited. It has not been fixed. As a result, the bill that we are debating today directs the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to examine excessive oil speculation and use their emergency powers to take corrective action.

The CFTC simply has not been as aggressive as it should be in policing these markets. Part of the problem stems from the limited resources which the Bush administration have given them, but another part of the problem is that the CFTC has historically been a reluctant regulator. Instead of a commodities markets watchdog, it has been an industry lapdog, unwilling to use the full authorities that it does have to crack down on excessive speculation.

This bill tells them to use their authorities to more aggressively police the energy futures market from manipulation for fraud, for excessive speculation. This is a good step.

An ``aye'' vote on the Collin Peterson bill is essential to protecting the public from being tipped upside down and having money shaken out of their pocket.

I thank the gentleman from West Virginia, and I thank him for his extraordinary leadership on this issue and for the legislation he's bringing out here on the House floor, especially with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) for his work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, right now we are facing an energy crisis. The Bush administration and Republicans in Congress are perpetuating a myth that the oil companies don't have access to enough places to drill for oil. This story is nothing more than a drilling decoy. We might as well put an aquarium out here in the well, there are so many red herrings that the Republicans are throwing into this debate about our energy independence.

Roughly 80 percent of all of the oil and gas are located in areas where drilling is already allowed, 68 million acres, 80 percent of the resources in America. So ExxonMobil, everybody in America pulling into the ExxonMobil station. They made $40 billion last year. Do you know what they did with their $40 billion? They put $32 billion of it back into buying their own stock. They were drilling for profits in their own stock, not on the lands where America wants them to go to find the oil and gas, where they are already permitted.

Now, what did they do on renewables, ExxonMobil? They took $10 million, million dollars, just millions of dollars, 10 million, and put it into renewables. Do you know what else the oil industry is doing and the Bush administration and the Republican Congress? They're blocking the tax breaks still today for renewables, for solar, for wind, for geothermal, blocking them.

So there is their agenda: Tip the consumer upside down at the pump, keep the supply of oil down because they're not drilling on the 80 percent of the land where we say they could go, even offshore, and go and drill; pocket the profits for themselves; nickle and dime renewables; and then block the tax breaks for a renewable energy revolution in America. It's a recipe for disaster. But there is no mistake why we are here. You cannot have an oil and gas President and Vice President for 8 years and not have an oil and gas strategy for America. And the price that we are paying at the pump is the price we are paying for allowing that policy to be implemented for these 8 long years.

So, ladies and gentlemen, we have 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, 2 percent. We consume 25 percent of the oil, which we consume on a daily basis. Republicans are saying let's drill off the beaches, let's drill where the polar bear is, although they are not willing today to put a penalty for the oil industry for not drilling where the 80 percent of oil is. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a big mistake.

OPEC has two-thirds of the oil in the world. That's their strength. Rather than sending a message to OPEC, we are going to innovate our way out of this with wind and solar and renewable energy sources. The Republicans are

blocking the tax breaks for that and saying give bigger profits to oil and gas, don't penalize them for not drilling for the oil and gas here in America where we have access to it, and then go home on the 4th of July and pretend as though this 8 years of Republican rule where we have gone from $30 a barrel to $130 a barrel is not on their watch. It is, ladies and gentlemen. We have gone from 46 percent dependence on imported oil on the day the Republicans took over Congress to 61 percent dependence upon imported oil on the day they left office 1 year ago. That's why we are in the mess that we're in right now.

The American public needs help. We need to send a message to Big Oil, to Big Gas: Start drilling. Start drilling right now or lose the leases that the American people have given you. Do not warehouse these leases. Do not warehouse the oil and gas here in America. Let's put the penalty on them. Let us no longer have the policies set by Big Oil, by Big Gas, and OPEC. Let us today declare independence from them. Let us say we are taking those leases back from you. We are taking back the American land where oil and gas is. If you don't drill on it, you lose it, and we are going to penalize you for allowing this crisis to build to the point that it has today.

Ladies and gentlemen, support the Rahall bill. This is the day where we begin to break and create our own independence from Big Oil in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. And I want to commend especially the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his historic leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.

Time and again, the opponents of Mr. Stupak's measure have exhorted us not to interfere with the free market, not to let the Federal Government help consumers in the face of price gouging.

Even as gas prices have sped past $4 a gallon, it is all just a matter of supply and demand, say the oil companies and Republican leaders in Washington. Well, it is a matter of supply and demand: consumers are being forced to supply whatever money the oil companies demand from them at the pump.

The oil companies have the consumer over a barrel, a barrel of oil, that the oil companies control and that they price. They tip the consumer upside down at the pump every single day and shake every bit of money out of their pockets, which they can.

The Christians had a better chance against the lions than the American consumer has against the oil companies at the pumps in the United States today. And all we are saying, all Mr. Stupak is saying is let's give the Federal Government a sword to get into the battle, to get into the arena on behalf of the American consumer.

The bill before us today would give the Federal Trade Commission new authority to investigate and punish the wholesale or retail sale of gasoline or other petroleum distillates at prices that are unconscionably excessive, or take unfair advantage of consumers during any Presidentially declared national or regional energy emergency.

The Republicans think that is terrible. Why would you pass a law against unconscionably excessive or unfair practices that are tipping the consumers upside down. Don't give the Federal Government that kind of authority to take on the oil and gas industry. And President Bush and Dick Cheney, the oil President and Vice President for 8 years, are saying that they will veto legislation that gives authority to go after excessive, unconscionable pricing of gasoline.

Under the bill, the Justice Department could impose criminal penalties of up to $150 million on corporations, and fines of up to $2 million and jail sentences of up to 10 years for individuals. The legislation would give the regulators the tools they need to more aggressively aid consumers when the oil companies are turning them upside down.

When President Bush took office, the price of oil was $30 a barrel. A couple of years ago, oil at $100 a barrel was unthinkable. Now we are up to $135 a barrel.

So the first energy crisis back in 1973-1974, it was an oil embargo; 1979-1980, a revolution in Iran. What has been going on for the last year? How could the price of oil double and everyone says it is not a crisis in the White House. How about manipulation. How about fraud. How about the consumer being taken advantage of at the pump.

I thank the gentleman for his good leadership.

I hate to say this because there is a bit of the capitalist, the unregulated capitalist in all of us. But when I had my Fudgsicles, my chocolate eclairs, my strawberry shortcakes, my twin fudges, and Mr. Softie wasn't coming down the same street, there is a tendency to try to raise the price because there is no one else in the market and there is no regulator going up and down those streets. And if you are outside Fenway Park and there are 35,000 fans coming out and there is no regulator around to say what you can charge as an audience is coming toward you in desperate need of a Popsicle, of a Fudgsicle or a Coke, you have a tendency without a regulator to charge unconscionably high prices.

Now at the time, I didn't think of it that way because, of course, the capitalist never thinks that way. That is why you need regulators to protect consumers against anyone who is selling any product in the marketplace. And that's the lesson I learned.

And I decided early, I was not going to do that any longer, I was going to move over to the regulatory side to protect consumers against human nature that sometimes can affect certain corporate chieftains, especially in the oil industry, to tip consumers upside down and take advantage of them.

I feel guilty about. I feel very guilty about it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, along with my colleague Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM). Madam Speaker, telecommunications technologies have a proven ability to empower individuals with the necessary tools of the information age. These technological tools can animate the personal use of communications for work or enjoyment, but also impact health care delivery, educational opportunities, the prospects for employment, and job creation. The goal of the legislation is to establish new safeguards for disability access to ensure that people with disabilities are not left behind as technology changes and the United States migrates to the next generation of Internet-based and digital communication technologies.

As the story in today's Washington Post business section makes clear, the practical effect and use of many innovative services and high tech equipment in the marketplace can be diminished or eliminated for individuals with disabilities if accessibility isn't built-in, or factored into the design, of the product or service. This keeps the promise of the information age as just that--a promise. And it often means that to obtain accessible equipment, individuals with disabilities must pay significantly, and in many cases needlessly, more than if standards and accessibility were built in or adopted earlier in the design process. The provisions of this bill will help to ensure that such accessibility is factored in and manufactured into products and services as a matter of course, which also will have the effect of reducing costs to consumers who rely on such services and products.

In summary, here is what the bill we are introducing today aims to do. First, Section 102 of the bill extends the Federal law that currently requires hearing aid compatibility on newly-manufactured and imported telephones, to comparable equipment used to provide IP-enabled communication service. The purpose of this section is to make sure that people with hearing loss have access to telephone devices used with advanced technologies, including cell phones or any other handsets used for Internet-based voice communications. (This section is not intended to extend to headsets or headphones used with computers.)

Section 103 of the bill, addressing relay services, clarifies that telecommunications relay services (TRS) are intended to ensure that people who have hearing or speech disabilities can use relay services to engage in functionally equivalent telephone communication with all other people, not just people without a hearing or speech disability. It revises Section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, which has been interpreted at times (by the FCC) to authorize only relay services between people with disabilities and people without disabilities. This section also expands the relay service obligation to contribute to the Telecommunications Relay Services Fund to all providers of IP-enabled communication services that provide voice communication.

Sec. 104 of the legislation, designed to address access to Internet- based services and equipment, builds upon authority contained in Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934, which generally requires telecommunications service providers, as well as interconnected VoIP providers and manufacturers, to make their services and equipment accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. This section creates new safeguards for Internet-based communications technologies (equipment, services and networks) to be accessible by people with disabilities, unless doing so would result in an undue burden. Where an undue burden would result, manufacturers and providers must make their equipment and services compatible with specialized equipment and services typically used by people with disabilities. (The term ``undue burden'' has the same meaning given it in the Americans with Disabilities Act.)

In addition, this section also contains measures to improve the accountability and enforcement of disability safeguards under Section 255 and the new Section 255A, including directives for new FCC complaint procedures, reporting obligations for industry and the FCC, the creation of a clearinghouse of information on accessible products and services by the U.S. Access Board and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and directives for enhanced outreach and education by the FCC and NTIA.

Sec. 104 also clarifies that the transmission and receipt of text messages sent by radio to and from mobile wireless devices are telecommunications services, and therefore must comply with the accessibility obligations under Section 255 and the new accountability measures under Section 255B.

The bill also contains a modest section on universal service. This provision makes consumers with disabilities--as a distinct group-- eligible to receive universal service support through two specific measures. First, it grants the FCC authority to designate broadband services needed for ``phone communication'' by people with disabilities as services eligible to receive support under the existing Lifeline and Linkup universal service programs. For example, this would include deaf individuals who are otherwise eligible for Lifeline and Linkup support, but who rely on Internet-based video relay services or point-to-point video for their telephone communications. Second, it grants authority to the FCC to designate programs that distribute specialized equipment used to make telecommunications and Internet-enabled communication services accessible to individuals who are deaf-blind, as eligible for universal service support. Such support, however, is capped at $10 million per year.

Section 106 of the bill contains a specific requirement for real-time text support, to ensure that people with disabilities, especially individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing or who have a speech disability, are able to communicate with others via text in an IP environment with the same reliability and interoperability as they receive via the public telephone network when using TTYs. A primary goal of this section is to ensure that individuals who rely on text to communicate have equal access to emergency services during and after the migration to a national IP-enabled emergency network.

Section 201 of the legislation directs the FCC to conduct three inquiries within 6 months of passage of the Act, and to report to Congress on the results of such inquiries within 1 year: (1) to identify formats and software needed to transmit, receive and display closed captioning and video programming provided via Internet-enabled services and digital wireless services, including ways to transmit televised emergency information that is accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired; and (2) to identify ways to make user interfaces (controls--e.g., turning these devices on and off, controlling volume and select programming) on television and other video programming devices--including the receipt, display, navigation and selection of programming--accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired, and (3) to identify ways to make video programming guides and menus (typically on-screen) accessible in real-time to people who cannot read those guides or menus.

Section 202 expands the scope of devices that must display closed captions under the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 from the present requirement of television sets with screens that are 13 inches or larger, to all video devices that receive or display video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound, including those that can receive or display programming carried over the Internet. The section also requires these devices to be able to transmit and deliver video descriptions. Video description is the provision of verbal descriptions of the on-screen visual elements of a show provided during natural pauses in dialogue.

The next section of the bill addresses video description and closed captioning. Section 203 reinstates the FCC's modest regulations on

video description. Those rules, originally promulgated in 2001, were struck down by a U.S. Court of Appeals for lack of FCC authority. This section also authorizes the FCC to promulgate additional rules to (1) ensure that video description services can be transmitted and provided over digital TV technologies, (2) require non-visual access to on- screen emergency warnings and similar televised information and (3) increase the amount of video description required. Finally, this section adds a definition for video programming to include programming distributed over the Internet to make clear that the existing closed captioning obligations (and future video description obligations) contained in Section 713 apply to video programming that is distributed or re-distributed over the Internet.

This section is also intended to ensure the continued accessibility of video programming to Americans with disabilities, as this programming migrates to the Internet. It further tasks the FCC to create captioning rules for three types of programming: (1) pre- produced programming that was previously captioned for television viewing, (2) live video programming, and (3) programming (first published or exhibited after the effective date of the FCC's regulations) provided by or generally considered to be comparable to programming provided by multichannel programming distributors.

Section 204 requires devices used to receive or display video programming, including devices used to receive and display Internet- based video programming, to be accessible by people with disabilities so that such individuals are able to access all functions of such devices (such as turning these devices on and off, controlling volume and select programming). The section contains requirements for (1) audio output where on-screen text menus are used to control video programming functions, and (2) a conspicuous means of accessing closed captioning and video description, including a button on remote controls and first level access to these accessibility features when made available through on-screen menus. The final section of the legislation requires multichannel video programming distributors to make their navigational programming guides accessible to people who cannot read the visual display, so that these individuals can make program selections.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with all of my House colleagues on this important legislative initiative in the coming weeks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to prevent President Bush from sending nuclear power technologies and materials to Saudi Arabia, one of the most energy-rich nations in the world. I am proud to be joined in introducing this bill by the gentlelady from Florida, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. I am also pleased that our bill is being introduced on the Senate side by Senator Schumer of New York.

Last month, President Bush went to Saudi Arabia to seek more oil production from the Saudis. Americans are being turned upside down at the pump every day, with money being shaken out of their pockets. Despite this hardship, the Saudis turned President Bush down flat at the time. Having failed to persuade the Saudis to provide relief for American consumers, the President then did something truly shocking, even by the standards of this failed administration: he agreed to supply Saudi Arabia with nuclear power plants.

Why does Saudi Arabia, the most energy-rich nation on the face of the planet, with the largest oil reserves in the world and huge potential for renewable electricity generation, need nuclear power? The answer is simple: they don't.

For any country with so much oil, gas, and solar potential, importing nuclear power makes zero economic sense. So why would Saudi Arabia seek nuclear power technology? There is only one possible answer: the Kingdom feels threatened by the rise of Iran, and it wants to guarantee that Saudi Arabia, too, can play the nuclear game.

President Bush's policy towards Iran has been one long story of failure. And now President Bush is doubling down on his bad bets, pushing to send even more nuclear materials and technology into the Middle East. The President's bizarre decision to ship nuclear power plants to the Saudis not only is unnecessary, but it's extremely dangerous. The Middle East is already the most unstable region in the world and pouring more nuclear fuel onto this smoldering region could ignite a raging fire storm engulfing areas far beyond Saudi Arabia's borders.

If Saudi Arabia wants to diversify its energy sources, that is appropriate and sensible, and we should help the Saudis down this path. But let's do it right. Saudi Arabia is three times the size of Texas and broils under constant sunshine. The country is a vast desert. The United States should be helping the Kingdom exploit its enormous solar energy potential, not building nuclear reactors. That's why this bill also encourages the President to establish a solar power development and assistance program with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Madam Speaker, I am proud of the strong bipartisan support that this bill, to block the transfer of nuclear power technologies to

Saudi Arabia, has already received. This is not a political issue; this is a national security issue. We've already seen the extraordinarily high cost of spreading so-called ``peaceful'' nuclear technologies around the world: we've been paying that price for decades. The United States simply cannot afford to make this kind of mistake again.

President Bush seems to believe that the United States is in a race, with the French and the Russians, to win contracts to build nuclear power facilities around the world. But he's wrong; that's not the race we're in. 'We're in a race to contain the atom, not to let it loose. We're in a race to prevent the spread of dangerous nuclear technologies any further, before these technologies can be used against us or our allies. Providing nuclear power technology to Saudi Arabia, a country for whom such technology makes no economic sense for electricity generation, is short-sighted and dangerous. The Markey-Ros-Lehtinen bill will block any such unnecessary and dangerous transfers, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hodes amendment to H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, establishing a scholarship program in honor of Christa McAuliffe, the teacher-turned-astronaut whose journey captivated a nation and sparked a renewed interest in space exploration. Chosen out of 11,000 educators to participate in the Teacher in Space program, Christa represented the hopes and dreams of every teacher and every student around the country. Despite the tragic Challenger explosion that claimed her life along with the lives of her fellow astronauts, Christa's courage, creativity and curiosity embodied the best values of our educational system and remain an inspiration to students around the world. Christa grew up in my congressional district in Framingham, Massachusetts and later attended Framingham State College, where the Christa McAuliffe Center promotes science education and teacher training. While Christa's inspirational life was tragically cut short, along with her fellow passengers on the Space Shuttle Challenger, her legacy lives on inspiring the next generation of space explorers. This scholarship will be established to promote women in space sciences, a fitting goal considering Christa's life work. While women have made significant gains in the last few years, they continue to be underrepresented in space sciences and aeronautics. There is no better way to honor a true pioneer that inspired millions while promoting education and space exploration than a scholarship to advance that very cause.

I urge my colleagues to support the Hodes amendment and I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for this fitting tribute to a true American hero.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act with Representatives Emanuel, Rahall and Hinchey. At a time when our constituents are paying more than $4 per gallon at the pump, oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of land that they hold the drilling rights to but are not producing on. They need to either use it or lose it.

There's a myth that Republicans and Big Oil are perpetuating: that oil companies don't have access to enough places to drill for oil, that we need to allow drilling off our beaches on the East and West coast and in our most pristine places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. However, this argument is nothing more than a drilling decoy.

The reality is that roughly 80 percent of offshore oil and gas reserves are located in areas where drilling is already allowed. Moreover, oil and gas companies right now own the drilling rights to 68 million acres offshore and onshore that they are not even using. These oil companies, who are raking in record profits, are not producing oil or gas on the vast majority of public land under their control. Offshore, Big Oil is producing on only about 23 percent of the land they hold, while onshore, companies are producing on roughly 27 percent of the acres to which they hold the drilling rights. Apparently Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil.

Indeed, while Exxon Mobil has increased spending on exploration and drilling by $3 billion over the last five years, it has increased spending on schemes to prop up the price of its stock by nearly $26 billion per year during that same time period. Meanwhile, Exxon spent only $10 million investing in developing renewable technologies last year.

The Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act would assess an escalating fee over time on land energy companies have leased but are not using for production. This fee would be a mere $5 per acre per year for the first three years of non-production but then increase to $25 per acre for the fourth year and $50 per acre in the fifth year and any subsequent years, providing a strong incentive for the oil companies to stop hoarding these leases and start using them.

The revenue raised from these fees will go towards developing renewable energy and investing in energy efficiency that will reduce our dependence on oil and reduce energy prices for American Consumers. The revenue will also be used to fund the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program, which helps permanently reduce energy bills for low income families by making their homes more energy efficient.

With oil companies continuing to sit on these millions of acres as the price of gas skyrockets, it is time to tell Big Oil to start producing or start paying. Big Oil is trying to play Uncle Sam for Uncle Sucker and we're not going to allow it.