Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, yesterday I introduced, H.R. 6186, the ``Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act,'' or ``iCAP Act.'' I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the following subtitle-by-subtitle summary of the bill:

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act''--or ``iCAP Act''--a bill to reduce global warming pollution to levels sufficient to avoid catastrophic climate change and to invest in America's transition to a secure and prosperous low-carbon future.

The iCAP Act is founded on three fundamental principles:

First, science solves problems. The scientific consensus is now unequivocal that global warming is happening, that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible, and that we must reduce those emissions substantially over the coming decades if we are to avert a climate catastrophe. We have a moral obligation to listen to that scientific consensus and act upon it, by starting today to reduce global warming pollution to levels that will keep our planet safe for generations to come.

Second, investing solves problems. We must invest in the American economy and in American workers, and launch an energy technology renaissance that will rival the information technology revolution of the past decade. We all benefited from the Industrial Age, and we have watched the dawn of the Information Age. Today, we must start the Clean Energy Age. This bill will provide a market-based push that will trigger an explosion of energy technology development that will give us the same ``Wow'' feeling that we get from our information technology-- bringing robust economic growth while meeting our climate goals.

Third, American leadership solves problems. We must ensure America is the world leader in confronting our climate crisis, giving us the credibility and the technology to bring China, India, and the rest of the developing world under one large, climate-saving tent. In so doing, America will help protect vulnerable communities around the world from the dangers of global warming, including drought, famine, and flood. We will meet our international responsibilities while at the same time gaining global good will and protecting our national security interests.

The iCAP bill implements these principles by establishing a ``cap- and-invest'' system, which caps pollution, requires polluters to buy 100 percent of the tradable pollution allowances at auction, and invests the auction proceeds in American consumers and in technologies and practices that save the climate while also saving costs.

The core title of the bill amends the Clean Air Act to establish an EPA- administered cap-auction-and-trade program that covers 87 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This program will begin to cut these emissions immediately and will reduce them to 85 percent below 2005 levels by 2050--the U.S. contribution necessary to protect the global climate against dangerous warming.

The cap covers all the major sources of greenhouse gases. These include the nearly 10,000 power plants and large industrial facilities that produce the majority of global warming pollution--facilities that are already regulated for other pollutants. Other covered entities include companies that produce or import petroleum- or coal-based liquid or gaseous fuels (like gasoline), companies that produce fluorinated gases (found) in everything from air conditioners and refrigerators to the electronics industry), and companies that distribute natural gas to consumers.

The iCAP bill creates the market-based incentive to reduce global warming pollution by establishing a gradually declining budget of tradable pollution allowances for each year from 2012 through 2050, and by requiring polluters to surrender a sufficient number of allowances to cover their heat trapping emissions each year. Under iCAP, EPA will auction virtually all of these allowances, instead of giving them away for free to polluters. This approach reflects what we have learned over the past two decades.

For many years, our environmental laws were based on performance standards. Every polluter was told how much or how little they could pollute. Everyone was given a standard and they all had to meet it. That approach can work for some pollutants, but it also can be very expensive.

In 1990, Congress came up with a novel approach to address the acid rain problem caused by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. This idea, sometimes called ``cap and trade,'' embraces the notion that all reductions are helpful but that some parties can achieve those reductions for much less. So if one party can reduce pollution relatively cheaply, then another party that finds it more expensive can trade money for the extra pollution reduction achieved by the more efficient party.

The European Union adopted this approach in enacting their carbon dioxide emission reduction program, but it made some mistakes along the way from which the world has learned. One of those mistakes was to give the pollution allowances away to polluters for free. Economic theory and the EU experience have shown that only by implementing full 100 percent auctions can we ensure that polluters do not receive windfall profits and that all energy sources are competing on a level playing field.

The iCAP bill begins by auctioning 94 percent of the emission allowances from 2012 to 2019, and transitions to 100 percent auctions in 2020. Recognizing that some American industries--such as iron and steel, aluminum, cement, glass, and paper--face intense international trade competition, the bill provides transitional assistance to these industries. U.S. manufacturers in these industries will receive six percent of emission allowances from 2012 to 2019 before they, too, have to hid at auction for allowances. But note that, in order to stay competitive, these industries will need to begin innovating on day one.

To reduce program costs, the iCAP bill permits unlimited trading of pollution allowances and banking of allowances for future use. It also allows a regulated party to satisfy up to 15 percent of its yearly compliance obligation with allowances ``borrowed'' from future years, provided the loan is repaid with interest within 5 years. A regulated entity can meet up to 15 percent of its yearly obligations using EPA- approved domestic offset credits, based on greenhouse gas reductions achieved outside the cap. A regulated entity also may satisfy up to 15 percent of its yearly obligations using foreign allowances or offset credits that meet rigorous EPA standards.

The cap-auction-and-trade system established by the bill will give rise to a large and vigorous new ``carbon market,'' on which pollution allowances, offset credits, and derivatives such as futures and option contracts are traded. To ensure fairness, transparency, and stability in this new market, the bill establishes an Office of Carbon Market oversight within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is charged with prevention of fraud or market manipulation.

Alongside the cap-auction-and-trade system, the iCAP bill adopts mandatory performance standards for certain other sources that cannot easily be included in the cap--such as coal mines, landfills, wastewater treatments, and large animal feeding operations. It also provides financial incentives to farmers and forest managers to adoption of practices that will further reduce global warming pollution and sequester carbon. Together with the cap, these measures will cover over 94 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions--as much of the economy as is practicable to reach.

The bill also establishes measures to encourage the coal industry to invest in new technology to adapt to the new low-carbon future. The International Energy Agency recently warned that, for the coal industry, ``a huge amount of investment and unprecedented technological breakthroughs such as in carbon capture and storage'' will be needed to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets that scientists believe we most achieve by 2050. The iCAP bill will help us meet this challenge by requiring that any new coal-fired power plant use carbon capture and sequestration technology, and we give companies assistance to use this technology until 2020. To the extent that the coal industry, with plenty of support from the Federal Government, can make carbon capture and sequestration work, then it will be part of the energy portfolio in the future.

Pollution allowance auctions under iCAP will generate a substantial amount of money. How should it be invested?

The first investment is back into the pockets of working- and middle- class Americans. Under this hill, half of the proceeds from polluter auctions flow directly back to consumers in the form of refundable tax credits and rebates, protecting 80 percent of America's families from increased energy costs while our economy transitions. In fact, over 60 percent of U.S. households--those earning under $70,000--will be fully compensated, while benefits will be extended up to those making $110,000. In addition, substantial funds will go to job training for the hundreds of thousands of green collar jobs that our country will need filled, and to adjustment assistance to any workers who need help transitioning from carbon-intensive industries to the new low-carbon economy.

The iCAP bill also invests heavily in technologies that will drive that low-carbon economy. The best, brightest, and cheapest source of clean energy is efficiency. That is why the iCAP bill devotes tens of billions of dollars each year--in partnership with State and local governments--to making our homes, buildings, and transportation systems more efficient. The bill invests tens of billions more in research, development, and deployment of the cutting-edge low-carbon energy technologies that will power America's future--including renewable energy, cellulosic ethanol, advanced hybrid vehicles, and carbon capture and sequestration.

Unfortunately, even if we act now to avert catastrophic global warming, some climate change is already inevitable. Accordingly, the iCAP bill devotes substantial funding to increasing resilience--both here in the United States and in the most vulnerable developing countries--to those impacts.

Finally, the bill sets up a system of carrots and sticks to encourage other countries to take action to combat global warming. The bill establishes an international forest protection fund to reduce heat trapping emissions from tropical deforestation. It also gives major developing countries that take ``comparable action'' to reduce global warming pollution access to an international clean technology fund, to promote deployment of low-carbon energy technologies. Only countries that take comparable action--or those that are among the least developed countries or that have very low emissions--will be able to sell offset credits into the U.S. market. And countries that fail to take comparable action by 2020 will have to buy special reserve allowances to cover the emissions generated by any covered primary goods--like iron and steel, aluminum, cement, glass, or paper--that they import into the United States. These incentives will help to ensure that all countries band together to combat global warming--as we must if we are to preserve our precious planet.

Climate change represents the single greatest threat now facing humanity, but it also presents an unprecedented opportunity. The iCAP Act represents a bold and comprehensive response to that challenge and opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support this bill--to take action now to avert a climate catastrophe, to protect our national security, and to unleash a green energy revolution that will bring prosperity and robust economic growth to America. I am confident that after this bill reaches its goal in 2050--long after many of us have shuffled off our mortal coils--historians will look back on the beginning of this new millennium and say that it was an era of technological development that in the course of a generation changed the course of the planet.

Madam Speaker, oil prices have now reached $135 a barrel and regular gasoline averages $3.81 per gallon around the country. Meanwhile, the big five oil companies are reaping the rewards of record prices. The major oil companies recorded more than $123 billion in profits in 2007. However, rather than reinvesting the bulk of those profits to advance a strategy that vigorously incorporates renewable energy alternatives, oil company profits have been spent largely to fund huge increases in stock buybacks designed to prop up stock prices. ExxonMobil--the largest of the major oil companies--recorded $40 billion in profit in 2007 and spent $31.8 billion repurchasing shares of its own stock. Meanwhile ExxonMobil only spent $10 million investing in renewable energy in 2007.

The oil industry in the past 5 years has undertaken one of the largest stock buybacks in the history of capitalism. Spending on share buybacks for the five major oil companies went from under $10 billion a year in 2003 to nearly $60 billion a year in 2007. Big Oil has increased spending on stock repurchases from $7.9 billion in 2003 to $57.7 billion in 2007--an increase of 630 percent. The increase in Big Oil's spending on stock buybacks in recent years has been so remarkable, and indeed unprecedented, that Exxon spent more repurchasing its own shares in the first quarter of 2008--$8 billion-- than all the major oil companies spent on stock buybacks for all of 2003.

The money being invested by Big Oil in all types of production still pales in comparison to the value being returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buy-backs. While ExxonMobil has increased capital investment in drilling and exploration from $12 billion in 2003 to $15.7 billion in 2007--an increase of roughly 30 percent--ExxonMobil has increased spending on stock buybacks from $5.9 billion in 2003 to $31.8 billion in 2007--a five-fold increase.

The legislation that I am introducing today, the Renewable Investment and Consumer Protection Act or 2008, would impose a 10 percent fee on all stock buyback transactions entered into by major oil companies and redirect that revenue to fund investment in renewable energy and low- income energy assistance programs. If the oil companies refuse to

help American families by finding alternatives to $4 gasoline, then it is time for Congress to ensure that we invest in renewable technologies such as solar, wind and biofuels that can help American consumers, our economy and our planet.

Mr. Speaker, for nearly eight years, this Administration's backwards energy policy has lined the pockets of oil company executives while hurting American consumers, the economy, and the planet. This bill encourages production of clean alternative fuels and renewable energy while creating jobs. It transfers Oil Executive Power to Blue Collar Renewable Power.

Last week the House passed legislation on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to give hurting Americans an immediate break at the pump. But the energy crisis demands long term action, breaking our addiction to oil and transitioning our economy to clean renewable energy sources once and for all.

Last week immediate relief with SPR, this week we put our nation on a path to a clean renewable future.

President Bush and Senate Republicans have been given opportunity after opportunity to pass tax credit extensions for renewable energy. They have sided with Big Oil each time, even as oil prices have blown past $100 a barrel and many Americans are now paying $4 per gallon for gas. This morning oil reached $130 a barrel.

This bill finds alternative revenue raisers which I do support. But let's not forget what this Administration fought to protect. ExxonMobil had $40 billion in profit last year. Do you know how the largest corporate profit in history was used in 2007?

It repurchased $31.8 billion worth of stock.

It increased compensation for top executives by 170 percent since 2001.

It financed a $100 million public relations campaign to try to deflect blame from angry consumers.

It invested around $10 million in renewable energy alternatives. That is less than one tenth of one percent of their profits.

These and other findings are being released today in a report by the Select Committee that analyzes where Big Oil's profits are going. Let's hope President Bush's love for the oil industry doesn't extend to hedge fund managers and corporate CEOs using offshore tax havens.

Today, because of this Administration's misguided policies, the renewable energy industry has its back against the wall. Solar and wind companies are delaying projects because of investment uncertainty. There is no more time to delay.

The other side likes to tell America that wind and solar and biomass cannot be real solutions to our energy challenge. They tell us that drilling in our most pristine natural areas and building nuclear power plants with taxpayer support are the only things that can solve this problem.

No. Last year the United States installed 5,244 megawatts of wind power, 30 percent of all the new capacity installed nationwide in 2007. Solar photovoltaic installations in the U.S. also grew an incredible 80 percent. This was the start of the renewable energy revolution.

Last week, the Department of Energy produced a study detailing what it would take for America to meet 20 percent of its electricity needs with wind power in 2030. The way the industry has grown over the last decade--about 30 percent a year--we can meet this target ahead of time.

This bill also provides valuable incentives for carbon capture and sequestration, plug-in hybrid cars, and renewable fuels. The American entrepreneur will rise to the energy and climate challenge if Congress puts the right incentives in place.

Passing H.R. 6049 will give renewable energy the support it needs, drive economic expansion and job growth in this country and put America on a greener path towards realizing long-term solutions to global warming. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the rule and on the underlying bill.

There is a certain absurdity to this debate that the poor oil companies have had their hands tied. We've had a President from Texas, an oil man; a Vice President from Texas, an oil man; the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee was from Texas; the chairman of the subcommittee on energy was from Texas; the majority leader was from Texas, all over the time that the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

So during that time, by the way, and this is the good news, the Bush administration actually gave to the oil and gas industry 268 million acres of American land to drill on for oil and gas. Said, You just go and drill there. And guess what we got? Last year, ExxonMobil, the other four big companies, they reported $142 billion worth of profits. Pretty good tipping the American people upside down.

How much of it do they put into renewables? How much do they put into the supply side, the new energy sources: wind, solar, all of the new technologies? ExxonMobil: $10 million. They made $42 billion. They put $10 million into renewables. And what else do they say? When we come and say, How about giving back some of those tax breaks so we can give them over to wind and solar, the oil executives said, You can't touch our tax breaks, and by the way, we're also not going to invest in renewables.

Well, there's our future. Our future is saying let's go to the most pristine parts of the country. Let's go drill there. Let's not invest in solar; let's not invest in wind; let's not reinvest. That's the plan.

By the way, the price of oil under the Bush watch has gone from $30 a barrel to $126 a barrel. It's gone from $1.45 a gallon to $3.72 a gallon. And the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, when the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is filled and ready to go so we can deploy it, the President says he doesn't want to use it.

Well, here's the spigot, Mr. President. It's on top of the White House. You just have to turn it, deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the price of a barrel of oil will begin to drop immediately.

This is a phony debate.

Mr. RYAN from Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Shimkus.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I rise to reintroduce legislation to designate June as National Aphasia Awareness Month. Aphasia is a disease that causes the loss of the ability to produce and/or comprehend language. It can also impair a person's ability to read and write. Each case is different depending on the severity of the stroke or brain trauma. This condition is a result of damage to the left hemisphere of the brain. The main cause of aphasia is stroke, but other causes of aphasia include blows to the head, gunshot wounds, and brain tumors. Strokes are the third leading cause of death and disability in the United States today, and the effects of aphasia are borne not only by the victim but also by the victim's family and friends.

Currently there is research being done on how to help people with aphasia enjoy a better quality of life. Aphasia does not cause any kind of disability in thinking or learning but can affect expressive and receptive language, as well as impair a person's ability to read and write. People who suffer from aphasia are able to function in everyday life, but they need assistance and attention. Moreover, further research is needed to improve our understanding of how to identify the risk factors that cause aphasia, prevent the occurrence of aphasia and improve the ability to function of those with the disease.

There are currently about one million cases of aphasia in the United States, and about 80,000 people are afflicted with the disease every year. By working with vocational specialists, speech-language pathologists and family and friends, many of those with aphasia may be able to obtain some sense of normalcy and regain some of their skills.

I am introducing this resolution as I did last year to support the goals of National Aphasia Awareness Month with the hope that it will bring more attention to this disease and give a voice to those who suffer from aphasia who often cannot speak for themselves. Last year when we honored June as National Aphasia Awareness Month it meant a great deal to the groups and doctors working on preventative measures and conducting new research for this disease.

This resolution recognizes June 2008 as National Aphasia Awareness Month in hopes of drawing more attention to this illness and in hopes that more recognition will highlight the importance of research and compassion for the daily struggle faced by those affected by aphasia.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Thank you very much for yielding.

The money actually goes back to the general Treasury.

That is correct, yes.

Well, at that point we return to operations as they exist today.

It is a flat suspension.

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

This is an historic debate. The history is quite clear. At the point of which President Bush was sworn in as President in January of 2001, as a renowned oil industry veteran, the price of a barrel of oil was $30. Today, as we are now in the eighth year of the President's term of office, it is $126 a barrel, an historic high, nearly a quadrupling of the price of a barrel of oil.

Other interesting facts: On the day that the President was sworn in, again, as President, gas was $1.45 a gallon, the good old days when the Bush administration was sworn into office. Today it has hit a record high of $3.72, on average, for self serve regular. So that is something else that is quite dramatically negative in terms of the impact on American consumers.

Now, here's what has happened over the years with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Back in 1991 President Bush's father actually deployed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the price of a barrel of oil dropped 33 percent. In 2000 President Clinton deployed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the price of a barrel of oil went down 18 percent. In fact, President Bush himself deployed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2005, which led to a 5.6 percent drop in the price of a barrel of oil.

Now, this is an interesting U-turn that the President has taken because what he said in 2006 was----

I thank the gentleman.

What the President said, President Bush said, in April 25, 2006, was, ``I have directed the Department of Energy to defer filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve this summer. So by deferring deposits until the fall, we will leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps.'' The price of a barrel of oil when President Bush said that in 2006: $67 a barrel.

Now here's what the President said as of April 29, just 2 weeks ago, in 2008. He said: ``In this case, I have analyzed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve issue, and I don't think it would affect the price.''

Well, that's a surprising change of economic analysis by the President in just 2 years. And as we debate this out here on the House floor, he seems to find himself in the minority because, in fact, what the President has at his disposal is the ability to be able to do something about this issue.

As consumers get the shakedown at the pump, this Friday President Bush is going to meet with the sheiks in Saudi Arabia to ask for more oil. And while the President sent troops to the Middle East to look for weapons of mass destruction, he's avoiding using a weapon of price reduction here at home. The President has said he does not have a magic wand to wave away high gas prices, but he does carry a big stick. It's called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

I thank the gentleman.

So here is the checklist right now to turn on the spigot of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Obama, yes; Clinton,

yes; McCain, yes; George Bush, no. He's saying ``no'' to the American consumer, ``no'' to the American economy. It is a dangerous economic position for our country to be in.

I thank the gentleman.

So here is where we are. There is something that President Bush can do right now to give relief to consumers at the pump after being shaken upside down and have money shaken out of their pockets as they refill their tank. President Bush said in 2006 that every little bit helps. We know it is not a panacea, but every little bit helps. Today he is saying, I am sorry. I am just going to go over and meet with sheiks in Saudi Arabia and ask them to please give us more oil that we can buy from them.

We should be more aggressive. One, stop filling at 70,000 barrels a day; two, stop drilling 70,000 barrels a day and you will see a huge change on the open market.

Obama says ``yes.'' Clinton says ``yes.'' McCain says ``yes.'' President Bush still says ``no.'' Vote ``yes'' on the Welch resolution to ensure that the American consumer is protected at the pump.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008.

This vital legislation comes at a time of record-breaking gas prices, double digit increases in food prices and a weakening economy. On top of all these struggles, Americans now face a crisis at home and in their communities in the form of rising property foreclosures. In some parts of the country, neighborhoods are littered with ``for sale'' signs, and many families are struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments. The legislation we are debating on this floor today will empower communities to respond to the current home mortgage crisis, prevent further lending abuses and increase federal oversight of the mortgage industry.

H.R. 3221 expands the Federal Housing Administration's role in preventing foreclosures by expanding refinancing loan guarantees for at-risk homeowners. Today, families are facing variable interest rates, hidden fees, early payment penalties, but with enactment of the Foreclosure Prevent Act, the government will be there to provide relief and counseling. It also increases oversight to ensure regulators have the tools to prevent the next crisis. It expands housing counseling and consumer protections. The bill also establishes an affordable housing trust fund to provide assistance for low income households. The bill even makes it harder to foreclose on the homes of our returning troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

This bill also contains important language to my district and my hometown of Malden, Massachusetts. The tenants of the Heritage Apartments face an uncertain future, with an HUD affordability contract expiring soon. The tenants are facing possible displacement once an outstanding HUD mortgage is fully paid in a few years. The development is also in need of major renovations and upgrades that simply cannot be delayed. Unfortunately HUD is failing to ensure that the development 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 the renovations.

Language in this bill would allow 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. I want to thank the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee (Mr. Frank) for his assistance in ensuring that this important provision is included in this housing bill.

Today, with this legislation, we are taking steps to revitalize our communities for a better tomorrow. I strongly urge this House to vote to approve this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

In September of 1919, President Woodrow Wilson spoke of his vision of a future Armenia. He said, ``Armenia is to be redeemed . . . So that at last this great people, struggling through night after night of terror, knowing not when they may come out into a time when they can enjoy their rights as free people that they never dreamed they would be able to exercise.''

The Armenian people finally have the ability to enjoy the rights that President Wilson hoped they would have so many years ago, and for that we are all thankful.

The nights of terror that President Wilson spoke about, the Armenian genocide, was the first genocide of the 20th century. It was the opening chapter of what was arguably the most violent period of human history. In the decades following this initial genocide, the world witnessed genocidal acts against the Jews and against the Roma in World War II, and subsequently in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in too many wars to list here. Today, the world is witnessing genocide yet again in Darfur.

There is no more important way to commit ourselves to preventing the genocides of the future than to commemorate and never forget the genocides of the past. As such, I would like to note my continuing support for House finally passage of H. Res. 106, the Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution. In my view, it is long past time for the United States to officially recognize the massacre of one and a half million Armenians in early in the 20th century for what it undeniably was: a genocide.

Countries all around the world have adopted similar resolutions to ensure that the atrocities committed against the Armenian people are properly recognized as genocide. Canada, France, Switzerland, Greece, and Poland have passed resolutions affirming the recognition of the Armenian genocide. Properly recognizing the Armenian genocide here in America is essential to ensure that all past genocides are never forgotten and all future atrocities are never permitted. This House must afford the proper recognition to the Armenian genocide. We must do so not only because of our solemn obligation to recognize those that were lost, but also because of our duty to those that can still be saved.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, it's good to see you back up in the Chair again. I'm glad that you have returned up there.

I would like to thank, first of all, Chairman Jim Oberstar, a great chairman of the Transportation Committee for his excellent work; Chairman Bennie Thompson for his perspicacious leadership; to Chairman John Dingell, whose omniscient and ubiquitous presence on so many issues is always an essential ingredient in passing legislation of this magnitude.

And I encourage all of my colleagues to ensure that this commonsense provision, which will ensure that siting decisions for proposed LNG facilities are coordinated and informed by homeland security considerations.

My amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to notify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Homeland Security Department's determination of whether the waterway to a proposed liquefied national gas facility is suitable for the marine traffic associated with the proposed facility.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in turn must respond to the Department of Homeland Security within 90 days or at the conclusion of any available appeals process of what the action the commission will take on the LNG application.

My amendment does not dispute the need for more LNG. We need more LNG. What my provision says is that before we build a new LNG facility, we must first make sure we are not creating a giant terrorist tiger. In Boston, we've always known that the LNG facility on land in my congressional district was a huge potential fire hazard. But after the September 11 attacks, when we learned how many terrorists had actually gotten off the LNG ships themselves in Boston coming in from overseas, we learned that it was a huge potential terrorist tiger.

In the face of this kind of risk, my provision mandates that we should have the Homeland Security Department involved at the beginning when any new LNG facilities are being proposed so that the department can assess the potential homeland security risk of building one of these facilities before we blindly move forward to put more LNG terminals in various parts of the country.

The need for coordination between the Coast Guard and the commission was recently reinforced in Fall River, Massachusetts. In Fall River, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the construction of an LNG facility in 2005. Two years later, the Coast Guard determined that the waterway was not suitable for the marine traffic associated with it. So we have a situation where the FERC has approved a license for the LNG facility that the Coast Guard says, 2 years later, shouldn't be built because the waterway to the facility is not suitable.

But despite this action by the Coast Guard, which effectively blocks the facility, the FERC license remains in place. This lack of coordination makes no sense.

There currently is an interagency agreement among the FERC, the Coast Guard and the Office of Pipeline Safety that is supposed to coordinate efforts on the siting of LNG facilities and safety and security issues associated with proposed sites. But as the review process for the proposed LNG facility in Fall River makes clear, more structure and a timeline is needed to make sure that there is better coordination so that the FERC is not approving proposed facilities only to have the Coast Guard, years later, reject the proposals due to concerns over the suitability of the waterway to the facilities.

At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

The purpose of my amendment is not the prevention of LNG facilities, but rather to promote coordinate between the Coast Guard and the FERC in siting. We have two other offshore facilities which we are also going to be licensing in Massachusetts. We need more LNG. We just want to make sure that there is good policy, good sense, good coordination.

Again, it's my great honor to have the support of the polysyllabic professor of transportation legislation, the gentleman from Minnesota, who has a mastery of the English language that when the Congressional Record is reviewed, no matter how many compound, complex sentences that he utters, they always parse. And that's a special gift that the chairman has. In the area of transportation that is so complex, we need people with those abilities to be able to put together complex policies as he does. I thank the gentleman.

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

I thank the gentleman from Vermont very much.

We welcome this debate. We welcome a debate on the Bush-Republican energy policy. Let's begin with a brief review of where the price of oil was back when President Bush was sworn in as President. It was $27 a barrel. That is what President Clinton, that is what

Vice President Gore, handed over to President Bush, $27 a barrel oil. Now let's look at what the price of a barrel of oil was yesterday: $119 a barrel for oil. So President Bush and Vice President Cheney, they might not know a lot about other issues, but you would think oil policy they would understand.

Well, this is what you get after 8 years of a Bush-Cheney Presidency, abetted and aided for 6 of those years by a Republican Congress.

Let's even take it further. Let's take it to the next step. Let's look at oil company profits. Let's just take the big five oil companies in the United States, led by ExxonMobil. Well, the cumulative profits of all five companies in 2001 was $37 billion. All five of the big oil companies cumulatively made $37 billion.

Now let's look at last year. Last year, those five oil companies made $123 billion in profits. And ExxonMobil alone made $42 billion, the largest profit of any corporation in American history, exceeding the total amount of all of those oil companies' profits in 2001.

So what has happened after 8 years of the Bush-Cheney administration is that they have allowed Big Oil and OPEC to take the American consumer and tip him upside down at the gasoline pump every single day, shaking money out of their pockets.

And looking over at this strategic asset that was built by the American people, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which now has 700 million barrels of oil in it, as the American people say to the President, please deploy this weapon which the American people have to protect the American economy and the American consumer.

I thank the gentleman.

The Bush administration continues to purchase 70,000 barrels of oil a day from Big Oil and OPEC. They are doing it today, buying it at $119 a barrel, buying it today, even though it makes no economic sense. We shouldn't be contributing to this speculation, which is driving up the price of oil. Instead, what the Bush administration should be doing is taking some of that Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the 700 million barrel asset, and beginning to deploy it as a weapon against the speculators who are driving the price of oil up and driving our economy into the ground.

The Bush administration won't do either. They won't stop buying oil at $119 a barrel and they won't at the same time use this asset now that is supposed to be there to protect the health of the American economy and deploying it in a way which, I will tell you, it will prick the speculative bubble almost immediately and begin to drive down the price of oil. That is only something that the President can do, if he determines that there is an economic emergency in our country, if he believes that our country is being adversely affected by high energy prices. That is a decision that can only be made in the Oval Office.

Obviously, the Bush administration, having seen the price rise from $27 a barrel to $119 a barrel, still does not believe that we are absent any energy policy, still believes that it is a free market and that OPEC and big oil are operating in a free market and that is just the natural price of oil.

But here is the interesting testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence last week.

When I asked the number two executive at ExxonMobil what he was doing with his $42 billion worth of profits last year in terms of investing in renewable energy resources, the CEO said that he was going to invest $10 million in renewable energy resources. $42 billion worth of profit, $10 million going into renewable energy resources.

When I said to him, you know, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress gave you $18 billion worth of additional tax breaks 3 years ago and now at $119 a barrel you don't need them anymore, can we take those and give them as tax breaks for renewable energy resources, all of the oil executives said, no, we want the tax breaks. We don't want that to go over to renewables. And, secondly, we love our profits, and we are not going to invest them in renewables.

That is a recipe for continued abject subservience to this oil industry and to OPEC. The President has to get aggressive on deploying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, stopping his policy of buying $119 barrel oil, 70,000 barrels a day from OPEC and Big Oil. Secondly, we need a new policy on getting aggressive on renewable energy, which the Republican majority for 12 years and the Bush White House has turned a blind eye to. And that is why we are in the mess that we are in today.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, from 1995 until 2006, the Republican Party controlled the House of Representatives, and since January of 2001, they've controlled the White House as well. During this period, the leadership of the Republican Party in the Congress and in the White House have pumped literally billions of dollars of unnecessary subsidies into the pockets of Big Oil, tens of billions of dollars.

They voted for royalty-free drilling for the biggest oil companies on offshore public lands. They've opposed all efforts to repeal billions in tax breaks for Big Oil. And in the 12 years they controlled the Congress up until the beginning of last year, they opposed high fuel economy standards for the vehicles which we drive in America so we could back out that oil that we import from the Persian Gulf.

GOP used to stand for ``Grand Old Party,'' but now it stands for ``Gas and Oil Party.''

Here's what the President said about giving incentives to Big Oil in 2005. He said, ``I will tell you, with $55 oil, we don't need incentives for the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives for the oil industry.'' That's George Bush, April 2005 at $55 a barrel. Today, it's at $119 a barrel. But the Republicans, you know, they just can't kick a bad habit. Offering subsidies to Big Oil to drill is like subsidizing fish to swim, you just don't need to do it. They have all the incentives which they need right now. So the Democratic Party, assuming office just a year ago, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, she said, we're going to put a stop-payment order on these unnecessary subsidies to Big Oil.

Last December, we passed the first increase in fuel efficiency standards in 35 years, increasing it to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. We increased the renewable fuel standard to 36 billion gallons, but the Republican opposition made it impossible for us to take the $18 billion in excessive and unnecessary tax breaks away from the oil company and to transfer it to the solar and to the wind and to the renewable energy industry. So we're taking that bill up again this year. The Republicans oppose it. They're saying, keep the tax breaks for Big Oil. Keep them away from the wind and the solar industry.

They have no solutions for the 21st century. They have no plan to wean America off of this increased oil dependency. We have gone up from 27 percent dependency to 61 percent dependency upon imported oil in just the last 20 years. This Republican policy is going to make us less secure, more financially dependent upon the Middle East, and it is going to cause an economic and national security catastrophe for our country.

Madam Speaker, on April 16th and 17th, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from the House due to an injury, and missed rollcall votes 192, 193, 194, 200, 203, and 204. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcalls 192, 193, 194, 200, 203, and 204.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 322, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. And I would like to commend Speaker Pelosi for introducing this resolution and for bringing it to the floor.

This is a truly bipartisan resolution, introduced with the support of the leadership of

both parties in the House. This bipartisanship is entirely appropriate, because Americans agree that the State of Israel is a great friend of the United States, and we all celebrate the anniversary of its founding today.

A century ago, Theodore Herzl dreamed of a Jewish homeland, and envisioned Israel as a ``light unto the nations.'' Since 1948, Israel has been that light. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in supporting Israel as it continues to shine brilliantly as a force for progress and hope, not only in the Middle East, but throughout the entire world.

Prime Minister Golda Meir believed that one day there would be peace in Israel, because there are mothers and grandmothers--and let me add fathers and grandfathers--in Egypt, in Jordan, in Syria and the Palestinian territories who also want their children and grandchildren to live in peace. Today is an opportunity to be hopeful about the future of Israel and the prospects for peace--hopeful that we will soon reach the day when children will have to turn to the history books to learn that there ever was conflict in the Middle East.

Today, as we celebrate the founding of the State of Israel, our great ally and friend, we also know that independence is not enough without security. The Jewish homeland must be secure and must be surrounded by neighbors who respect its right to exist in peace and security. Through struggle and sacrifice, ingenuity and innovation, Israel has managed 60 years in a dangerous and unstable region of the world. Let us hope that the conflicts that have marked Israel's first 60 years will subside in the years to come.

Sixty years ago, Israel's pioneers began to revitalize an ancient land. Today, Israelis remain pioneers at heart--pioneers for peace, prosperity and progress. They are once again facing challenges in their homeland with determination and a vision for a better future for their children and for their country.

I congratulate the State of Israel on its 60th anniversary, and I urge adoption of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, is celebrating a special anniversary this month, April 11-13, 2008.

It was 50 years ago that Massachusetts Senators John F. Kennedy and Leverett Saltonstall and former U.S. Ambassador George Kennan joined University leaders to help inaugurate a unique international exchange program.

The Wien International Scholarship Program, established through a generous gift from philanthropists Lawrence and Mae Wien, was designed to further worldwide understanding by bringing students from around the globe to Brandeis to study in an atmosphere of cooperative learning.

Looking back over the last half-century, it is clear that the program has had an impact on

the international community that even its founders could not have envisioned. Since its founding with an inaugural class of 30 students from 16 countries, the Wien program has grown in stature and worldwide recognition. More than 800 students from over 100 countries have come to Brandeis as Wien Scholars.

Through the years, the Wien program has produced an impressive array of enlightened world leaders dedicated to making the world a better place. Wien Scholars have held important positions at the United Nations, served in prominent roles in national governments from Japan to Kenya to Iceland to the Philippines, and pursued life-saving medical breakthroughs. They have also distinguished themselves in the arts, business, education, law, and science.

I urge all of us, especially at this time of increasing ethnic and religious tensions around the world, to use the fiftieth anniversary of the Wien program to uphold the legacy of its founders by promoting the principles of understanding, tolerance, and acceptance.