Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

I rise in opposition to this rule. Those of us who are on the committee wanted the opportunity, as we had in committee, to put forward some very, very important rules. We were denied that opportunity.

We discussed the renewable fuel standards, for instance, last week in the markup in the committee, in the dark of night. Now the Committee on Rules is refusing to allow us to debate the ethanol mandate in the light of day. The ethanol mandate will increase gasoline prices in New York and wherever else it is not readily available.

The Committee on Rules also refused to allow two amendments that I cosponsored to help reduce the impact that the ethanol mandate will have, particularly on New York. The first amendment was offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and it would have allowed refiners to produce gas that is clean, if not cleaner than gas blended with ethanol, to receive a credit for ethanol.

The second was offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) that would have authorized a national phase-out of MTBE.

I am deeply disappointed in this rule. We could have allowed one amendment, which really would have discussed the ethanol mandate, and it was rejected. It is really an unfair rule and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, there are four committees that have jurisdiction over this bill, and one of them is the committee on which I serve, the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and I thank the ranking member of the Committee on Resources for giving me this opportunity.

This was not a bill that was crafted in the middle. This is not a bill that Republicans and Democrats got together to produce a bill that is moderate, that the American people want to see. This was a bill that was put together by the Republicans and jammed

down the throats of the entire Congress.

We were in committee last week until one o'clock in the morning, and every single Democratic amendment was voted down on virtually a party line vote. This is not the way to craft an energy bill for America. We need the talents of all the Members of the House in both parties to come together for the American people.

I am sorely disappointed that we are ignoring the underlying problem to national security, which is oil. There is nothing in this bill that reduces our consumption of oil. There is a lot of talking about drilling and production, but very little about conservation.

Rather than stimulating research and development into renewable generation, we continue to cede the development of alternative energy technology to Europe and Japan. Whereas once we were the leaders in exporting renewable technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines, the U.S. now lags behind.

At the same time, 72 percent of Americans believe that renewable energy sources should be our priority right now. We are missing a huge opportunity to create a renewable energy market that benefits both consumers and the environment. Our energy policy is tied to our national security and our economic well-being; and we need to ensure that this policy is diversified, reduces our dependence on oil, and creates skilled jobs by reducing energy costs.

We are missing a tremendous opportunity. This bill does not create a market for renewables. It mandates a fixed market for ethanol, while providing liability relief for manufacturers. This is wrong.

This bill does nothing to further laudable goals, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 6.

Mr. Chairman, I do.

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

I rise in opposition to this amendment. Frankly, we have been spending a good part of the day trying to figure out what this amendment does, and it is very difficult really to figure out. We have had a lot of people going over it, and there have been a lot of questions.

I regret that the amendment was not vetted or did not come up for a vote with the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We did this chapter in this bill until late in the evening, early morning last week, and this amendment did not come forward; and we believe that the amendment appears to have drafting problems. It is not clear what the ultimate impact will be of this amendment, although it is debatable whether or not the amendment will achieve its goal of reducing the boutique fuel problem.

I am very disappointed, as well, that this is the only amendment made in order by the Committee on Rules on the renewable fuels standard. We have had a number of amendments in the committee that we wanted to bring to this floor, but we were not able to do it because the Committee on Rules, the Republican-controlled Committee on Rules, refused to let us have these votes on the House floor.

So I believe we have missed a great opportunity to include a renewable portfolio standard that would require the use of renewable energy by utilities in this bill. One might think that that is because the Republican majority is against mandates, yet they do not appear to be so antimandate when it comes to the fuels we use in our cars.

The renewable fuels standard will force the United States to accept an ethanol mandate that is entirely without justification for an industry that is concentrated in relatively few hands, while providing liability relief for MTBE producers that knowingly produce a defective product, as well as liability relief for ethanol and ETBE which could be a source of future groundwater contamination without banning the

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

Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the gentleman would answer a couple of questions.

In view of what the chairman, the gentleman from Texas, just said, could the gentleman please tell me why you chose these numbers?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, there are many other fuel blends, are there not?

Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman also, the existing statutory standard for approval of a plan containing a gasoline requirement is that ``other control measures are unreasonable or impractical.'' Would this amendment alter that standard in any way?

Let me finally ask, can the gentleman explain, because I am still a bit confused, what the meaning of ``preference'' is and how it would be implemented by the EPA?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of his amendment to close that loophole in the bill when used as intended.

But I also rise in opposition to the whole bill itself, to H.R. 1036. The bill would provide Federal immunity to gun manufacturers and, in my opinion, would halt progress towards safer guns and greater industry accountability. H.R. 1036 would block suits filed by individuals, victims of gun violence seeking to hold the gun industry accountable for irresponsible manufacturing or selling of guns.

Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are exempt from Federal consumer product safety regulation. The gun lobby made sure that the gun industry was exempted from regulation when the Consumer Product Safety Commission was established in the 1970s. This is wrong. The only other product that enjoys this exemption is tobacco. And in my estimation, Teddy bears are more regulated for safety than guns. Giving the gun industry immunity would remove the only incentive to gun manufacturers and dealers to ensure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands.

Past suits have resulted in improved safety features such as internal locks to prevent unauthorized access. Right now, there are local governments who are in court attempting to show that the manufacturers that make guns that too often surface in illegal activities, and the stores that make no attempt to follow the law in selling guns, should be held liable for the relentless damages of gun violence. Now, survivors of some of the Washington area sniping victims have gone to court to sue the manufacturer of the gun that is said to be the murder weapon and the gun shop that sold it after discovering that the dealer had reported 238 guns missing from its inventory in 3 years alone. This bill would prevent these lawsuits from going forward.

I believe that this industry, like every other industry, has an obligation to its consumers and to the public to ensure that their product is manufactured and sold in ways that are safe, legal, and responsible. So I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment and to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Celia ``Celi'' Stein born January 27, 1912, in Cleveland, Ohio. She was the daughter of immigrants who fled their native Minsk in what was then Czarist Russia to escape persecution of Jews. The family settled in Cleveland, Ohio because one of the city's three Yiddish-language newspapers knew her father Bernard Leikind's reputation as a typesetter and offered him a job.

Despite tradition and her father's insistence that women should not attend college, Celia eventually pursued her degree and attended Western Reserve, where she received a BA in French.

As a teenager, Celi met her future husband, David, while playing tennis at a local park. She refused to speak to him because they had not been formally introduced. Later he visited her father and received permission to court her. They were married in 1935.

The couple arrived in Riverdale in 1944 and faced a wartime housing shortage. They were finally able to move into her cousin's apartment building, where they lived ever since.

Celi helped her husband David found the Riverdale Press and continued working in its newsroom for over five decades. As a mentor, she helped talented reporters achieve their dreams. Her civic engagement runs the gamut, from her infamous culinary skills to her leadership in building PS, JHS 141 and several other educational facilities in the Bronx.

Celi was a prominent community leader outside the newspaper office as well, crusading for schools and on behalf of neighborhood social service organizations. She was also first president of PS 24 Parents Association and a leader of the parents associations of each of her son's schools--from the Spuyten Duyvil Infantry to PS 81, JHS 141, Bronx Science and Horace Mann. Also, she served on the board of directors of the Riverdale Mental Health Association for 41 years.

Her long-running recipe column made her the most famous cook in Riverdale. In hundreds of local kitchens, especially during holidays, Riverdalians still pull yellowing copies of ``Celi selects'' from file boxes and scrapbooks.

Celi's work has been recognized by a wide variety of prestigious organizations such as: Riverdale Neighborhood House, Riverdale Senior Center, Riverdale Community Council, the Anti-Defamation League, among many others. She was also a pioneer of women's rights, and when becoming the first female admitted to Riverdale's Kiwanis Club.

The people of New York lost Celi just 16 days shy of her 91st birthday. Celi's tireless

service and commitment to our community won her a place in all of our hearts. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Democratic budget and oppose the Republican budget.

When Bill Clinton left office, we had record surpluses of $200 billion, and in two short years, we have a deficit of $300 billion, deficits as far as the eye can see.

Yes, there was a downturn in the economy. Yes, 9/11 caused part of it, but a large part of it were those tax cuts. What are the Republicans giving us now? More tax cuts for the wealthy as far as the eye can see.

Never in American history has there been a proposal for tax cuts at the time of war. This is so fiscally irresponsible that I just cannot believe it. We are leaving a legacy of debt to our children and our grandchildren, and the Republicans want to give us deeper and deeper and deeper debt and dig us deeper into a hole.

There is no economic growth in the Republican budget. There is no real drug plan in the Republican budget. The Democratic budget has $128 million more for prescription drugs, $34 billion more for homeland security. The Republican budget gives us cuts to veterans and schools and Medicaid and to our senior citizens.

The Democratic budget is responsible. The Republican budget subordinates all other priorities to additional lavish tax cuts. Vote for the Democratic budget.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of this resolution.

I do not necessarily agree with every word of the resolution, but how many times have all of us voted for bills and resolutions that we do not agree with 100 percent? We have to make a choice, and I choose to support our troops. That is clearly the thrust of this resolution, to support the brave men and women that do us all proud.

War is never easy. War should always be a last resort, and while we can question the policies of any administration, the men and women that go to preserve freedom for our great country, we owe them our deepest gratitude.

I think it is very fitting that the Congress show our brave men and women that we strongly support them and that we join hands regardless of how some of us may feel about policy.

I voted to give the President the authority, and I think that now is the time to stand behind our President, to stand behind our troops and to move forward with one voice. Support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say up front that I think we need to help doctors with unconscionable medical malpractice rates. I mean this most sincerely, and I pledge to do everything I can to help them; but this bill is not the way to go. It will adversely impact patients who are injured. These are people whose lives are irreparably harmed and this legislation, in my opinion, punishes them even further.

We can find a balance, but the majority is ramming this legislation through the House without regard to how it will hurt victims of negligent practices.

A $250,000 cap on economic damages disproportionately affects those who do not earn a lot of money. Someone with a minimum-wage job or a stay-at-home mom or dad cannot place a value on their work, but a corporate executive will walk away with millions in economic damages. This is not what we should be advocating in the House.

Further, the legislation limits the statute of limitations to 3 years from the day the injury occurred or 1 year from the day the injury is discovered. This is not fair. I had an amendment which I tried to put forward in the Committee on Rules in the hope that they would allow us an up-or-down vote on the floor. It was turned down. There are some injuries, for instance, HIV/AIDS or blood transfusions, where people do not find out about their injuries for more than 3 years.

So I believe this bill is not the way to go. It should be voted down, and I hope we can come back with good compromise legislation that helps doctors with malpractice rates.

Mr. Speaker, HR 663, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, is important legislation that holds great promise to reduce medical errors. This legislation will allow medical errors to be reported so we can learn from mistakes and hopefully prevent future errors from occurring. By allowing errors or near misses to be reported anonymously it takes away the fear many providers have in regards to reporting errors.

I am particularly pleased that the legislation creates the Medical Information Technology Assessment Board which will work in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services to develop national interoperability standards. I was pleased to work with the Committee to get this provision included in the bill. These national standards will allow all aspects of health care technology to become compatible. Thus, computers, hand held electronic charts and other new devices that hold a variety of medical information, including laboratory and radiology results, pharmacy orders, etc, will all be compatible. This compatibility will greatly reduce medical errors. Further, the legislation authorizes grants to test the interoperability standards. This is vitally important as it will prove the efficacy, usability, and scalability of interoperability standards, thus encouraging hospitals and other health care facilities and providers to adopt the standards and invest in medical informatics.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, and I thank both the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees for working in a bipartisan fashion to produce good legislation on such an important issue.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to illustrate the great necessity for services to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

According to the Department of Justice, every year in the United States, 4.9 million people are victimized by their intimate partners. In order to break free of violence, these victims seek assistance through the National Domestic Violence Hotline, local shelter programs, rape crisis centers and transitional housing programs.

The Violence against Women Act of 2000, VAWA, authorized funding for these essential programs. In his State of the Union address, the President listed domestic violence services as important and worthy of Federal funding. Yet the President's 2004 budget cuts over $19 million from VAWA programs. This cut may seem minimal. However, for victims of domestic violence it could mean the literal difference between life and death.

I stand before you today and ask that Congress restore the cuts made to the VAWA programs in the President's budget in order to preserve essential services to victims of domestic violence and their children. Without full funding for these programs, women's lives are literally in jeopardy.