Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I must say, when I saw the whip notice this last week, I saw some good things and some bad things. One of the bad things that I didn't see was that we're not addressing what my constituents are talking about, and that is gas prices.

Yes, this is a good bill, beach nutrition. It has water monitoring there, Great Lakes are now part of it, and I want to thank particularly the Members from the Great Lakes area who

were able to include that, particularly my friend who represents the east side of Michigan, Candice Miller, on that committee.

But as far as I know, this bill passed without dissent. Frankly, it could have been under suspension of the rules. I bet we would have passed it on a voice vote, two-thirds voting in favor of it. After the Flake amendment, maybe there are some that wish that it did come up under suspension so that they wouldn't deal with the Flake earmark amendment. We'll see.

But, you know, my constituents back home, they're complaining that we're doing things that aren't maybe on the top of their agenda. We're talking about steroids, we're talking about a whole number of things that don't impact the economy or, in fact, their pocketbook. They're talking about gas prices.

On Tuesday when I left to come back from Michigan, diesel prices were $4.11 a gallon. Gas prices, unleaded regular, $3.35 a gallon. I can hardly wait till I go back this week and see what they might have gone to.

What have we done on this? That is their question. What are we doing about supply and demand?

Well, I'll tell you some of the things we've done. We've raised taxes on them. Thank goodness we've got the Senate saying no so far because, of course, if you raise taxes on energy production here, those costs are just going to be passed along to the consumer and they'll go up even higher. Go talk to the French or the British and those folks. They tax gas a lot and they pay a lot more per gallon.

There's some things that we haven't done. I know some in this body have advocated for raising the gas tax by as much as 50 cents a gallon. We haven't done that. Maybe, certainly I believe that's a good thing.

But we've blocked using oil shale from Canada. You know, they've got a field up in the Northwest there that they think rivals the Saudis, that can actually heat up the sand and the oil comes out. They're actually taking 1\1/2\ million gallons.

We need to do more. We are now, by 2012, our domestic needs, we're going to be only producing 12 percent of our gas here. That's got to change.

Madam Speaker, let's not go to the beach and leave our work undone. Let's pass this bill, but let's deal with the real issue that Americans feel in their pocketbooks literally every day that they go to the pump.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Kalamazoo College on the occasion of its 175th anniversary. Established in Kalamazoo, Michigan in 1833, Kalamazoo College--affectionately known as K College--has distinguished itself as one of the Nation's oldest and most respected institutions of higher education devoted to the study of the liberal arts.

In addition to being nationally recognized for its high standards of academic excellence, K College has been a pioneer in the field of overseas studies, offering global learning opportunities to its students for the past 50 years. Over 80 percent of all K College students spend a portion of their undergraduate education abroad, partnering with over 50 foreign universities on 6 continents.

As a global champion of lifelong learning, Kalamazoo College also produces, per capita, more students who go on to earn a doctorate than any other American college or university. K College graduates also rank nationally amongst those who are accepted in the Peace Corps, Teach For America, and the Fulbright Scholar Program.

With new challenges emerging at home and around the world, it is comforting to know that Kalamazoo College continues to maintain its longstanding tradition of producing globally-minded leaders.

Again, it is my honor to stand today in recognition of Kalamazoo College for its 175 year

history as well as its 50 years of international fellowship. The college and its graduates have not only made a positive impact within the greater Kalamazoo community and the State of Michigan, but throughout the entire Nation and the world at large.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dwight ``Pete'' Mitchell, a community leader in Southwest Michigan who is retiring this week after more than 35 years in public service.

In the center of downtown Benton Harbor sits a large rock, engraved with the name of Dwight ``Pete'' Mitchell City Center Park. That certainly represents Pete Mitchell--he's solid as a rock, a foundation for our community. An accomplished boxer as a young man, Pete Mitchell, like his hometown of Benton Harbor, has shown he can take a punch, and he can fight back and win. Many of the projects that are being accomplished right now that are leading Benton Harbor's renaissance have benefited from Pete's quiet and steady leadership. Whether it's the Arts District, downtown development, new housing, or new jobs and recreation, Pete was there with the vision and perseverance to put together the partnerships that are making a difference in lives of Benton Harbor residents.

While Pete is retiring as Benton Harbor City Manager, he has a long legacy of involvement in his community. A 1954 graduate of Benton Harbor High School, Pete has served on the Benton Harbor Area Schools board, the Airport Authority, the Council for World-Class Communities, the Boys and Girls Club, and a number of other organizations in his hometown. He has been honored by Lake Michigan College with the Distinguished Alumni Award, and was a recipient of the College's Diversity Award.

Pete Mitchell is a man who dedicated his life to his hometown, and to the betterment of his fellow man. He is truly ``The Rock.''

Mr. Speaker, by the year 2030, our country is going to need between 40 and 50 percent more energy, and that means we need more nuclear, we need more clean coal, we need more renewable, we need better technology, carbon sequestration and, yes, we do need tax incentives for wind and solar, there is no question about that.

But raising taxes on the oil and gas industry is not the answer. My State of Michigan in answer to our budget woes, in fact, did raise taxes. And a couple of things are happening: people are leaving and so are businesses.

Many of us in this body have been complaining for years that we didn't have new refineries being built and established in this country. We passed the 2005 act and we have seen some changes. What's going to happen if we take those incentives away? We are not going to see new refinery capability again come back to this country.

We need to have incentives in place to help our oil and gas industry. And to take those incentives away, well, they are going to leave. Frankly, I view that as a national security issue.

Countries overseas would love this bill to pass. Countries like India, they can hardly wait for us to raise taxes here so that they will have a better advantage as they build new refineries to send their refined oil to this country.

In fact, right now, 10 percent of the gasoline that comes to this country comes from refineries overseas. That wasn't always the case, but it is today.

So what's going to happen if we raise the taxes? Two things: number one, we will have further incentives to have those companies leave and costs are going to be passed on to the consumer. With gas prices, at least in my district, already averaging about $3.30 a gallon and reports that they are going to go to $4, what's going to happen then? Those costs are going to be passed along. Does anyone really think that this is going to help?

Now most of our renewable sources, wind, hydro, solar, those facilities are, frankly, where there are not often a lot of energy needs. They are not in our big cities. They are not in our suburbs.

I don't know if you can remember, but this last summer, we had a vote that, in fact, was somewhat regional in nature, but it took away, it took a stand on a new transmission line that impacted folks here in the Northeast. I viewed it as a test vote as to whether additional renewables, services, that we do want, would we have the transmission line to actually send that energy to our cities and to our suburbs.

I don't know if you saw yesterday's USA Today, but ``Lines Lacking to Transmit Wind Energy,'' we don't have the sources in it. It takes 5 to 10 years to build these transmission lines, and yet it only takes about 18 months to build the wind and other different devices that we have. But if you don't have the transmission, we can't get that energy to our folks that need it the best.

I'll bet that just about all those that voted to deny that transmission line last summer will be voting for this bill. You can't have it both ways. Let's have a serious discussion that's bipartisan to address the country's energy needs.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Janel's Industries, Inc. of Cassopolis, Michigan, as the recipient of the Defense Logistics Agency's, DLA, Business Alliance Award for Outstanding Readiness Support in the Service Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Business Category.

Janel's Industries, Inc. specializes in cable assemblies and wiring harnesses, which have been used to support the mission of our brave soldiers here in the United States as well as those actively serving in Iraq. Janel's Industries, Inc., has supported the DLA mission as well as our national interests by satisfying the military's increased demand for supplies in an expedited manner. In addition, these products were shipped to the military ahead of schedule, at no additional cost to the U.S. Government or the American taxpayer.

Once again, I would like to personally recognize Janel's Industries, Inc. and its employees for going above and beyond to provide such an invaluable service to our military. The United States is truly a better place because of their contributions.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize and pay tribute to Tom H. Sparks of St. Joseph, Michigan, who is celebrating his 100th birthday.

Mr. Sparks was born in a log cabin with a dirt floor and sod roof in Oklahoma in 1908. He was taken out of school at the age of 14 when he went to work to support his family. He was a member of the ``Greatest Generation'' and served his country with distinction and honor in World War II in the European Theatre.

Mr. Sparks has been a resident of St. Joseph, Michigan for more than 80 years. To say that Tom Sparks is a man who has been active in his community would be a gross understatement. Mr. Sparks has rarely missed a meeting of the St. Joseph City Commission over the last eight decades. He was first elected to serve on the St. Joseph City Commission in 1948 and served as Mayor of his adopted hometown from 1955 to 1963. Even into his 90s--his name appeared on the ballot seeking a seat on the City Commission.

Mr. Sparks retired from the City of Benton Harbor as assistant to the superintendent and a building inspector in 1975 at the age of 67. As part of his birthday celebration, it is fitting he is being recognized by City Commissioners in St. Joseph.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the inspiring career of Donald Gilmer, of Augusta, MI. A dedicated and selfless individual, Don has enthusiastically served the public for the past 33 years.

Don's career has served as an example of the definition of ``public servant'' and could be added to any dictionary listing.

Don has served Michigan citizens in a wide variety of significant roles, including 11 terms as a member of the Michigan House of Representatives, 3 of which he served as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Don has also served on the Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners, as Michigan's lottery commissioner, as Governor John Engler's budget director, and most recently, as Kalamazoo County's Administrator. His services to Kalamazoo County and to the State of Michigan are truly commendable.

As my good friend retires, he closes one chapter of his inspiring career and embarks on a new phase of his life. I am confident that this retirement is far from the end of Don's public service and that he will remain committed to the citizens of our great State and community. Don's humor and kind heart will be greatly missed by his colleagues. I wish Don all the best in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Waxman lamented on the floor a few minutes ago than this was the best that we could do. I am sorry that I don't agree with that.

By the year 2030, our energy needs are going to grow by more than 50 percent, and none of us, none of us here, none of us in the country are happy with the energy prices or our reliance on foreign oil, and all of us realize that we have to do a lot more. Just because this is the last day or two of the session, to bring up a bill to just say that we tackled the energy issue, I don't think is good enough.

This process was pretty much closed. There were few amendments that were allowed in the process. We had no conference. I can remember serving on the 2005 energy bill conference with Mr. Dingell and Mr. Barton, my chairman then, and together we collectively passed bipartisan legislation that we were indeed proud of. But this legislation is not as good as we can do. It is not comprehensive. It doesn't deal with coal, which provides nearly 50 percent of this Nation's energy. It doesn't deal with nuclear power, which today provides 20 percent of our Nation's needs. We know that we are going to need to build probably about another two dozen nuclear facilities by the year 2030 to maintain 20 percent. It does nothing on nuclear.

RPS, the renewable portfolio standard, I think many of us can support that. Maybe not the amendment that passed here in the House that the Senate rejected, but there is room for a compromise here. We can do things on wind and solar. We didn't even have the opportunity on this floor or in committee to really come up with a respectable RPS amendment. Coal-to-liquid, there is a bipartisan bill out there that is led by Mr. Boucher and Mr. Shimkus, I am a cosponsor, that deals with carbon sequestration. Again, it is not part of this bill.

Mileage standards. No, it is not a perfect provision. We can all support increasing mileage standards. But, again, we missed the opportunity to work together to get a bill that in fact could move this country forward. Biofuels, we have a biofuel mandate here, but we don't have the technology. How are we going to complete the action on this? How wise is that? Mr. Speaker, this bill is, frankly, incomplete.

Now, I am the new ranking member on the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, and I would like to think that in the days ahead, the weeks and months ahead, after this bill in the early new year, that Mr. Boucher, my chairman in my subcommittee, Mr. Dingell, the chairman of the full committee, and Mr. Barton, my great friend and former chairman and now ranking member, can in fact sit down together so that we can work on a comprehensive bill that deals with all of these different issues that we can then bring back on the House floor and bring back a bill that every one of us here can be proud of that will take a giant leap in the right direction, rather than taking a baby step here or there and somehow saying we have passed it, we have got a Band-Aid, it is now done.

Mr. Speaker, we can all do better than this, and I am sorry that this bill is coming to the floor in the shape that it is in.

Mr. Speaker, I was driving in this morning listening to the radio and I heard an ad. The ad said, vote for the bipartisan energy bill when it comes up today, and it told you to call your local Congressperson. Who are you going to call? Not even Ghost Busters can find a Republican to make this a bipartisan bill.

Our energy needs in this country are going to grow by about 50 percent by the year 2030, and there is no question that we need to do a better job on conservation, looking for alternative fuels; but this bill doesn't do that. This bill is not the bipartisan piece of legislation that we want. There is no bipartisan bill on the House floor. There is no Republican substitute. There were no Republican amendments. There was not even a conference named to try and iron out differences between the House and the Senate. Virtually, there was no Republican involvement or input on this legislation at all. And so, therefore, as a consequence, there are no Republicans at least on this side of the aisle that can make the bill bipartisan.

In 2005, we passed an important energy bill, and it was bipartisan. Chairman Barton did a terrific job in the hearings and the conference that we had, and it enjoyed the support then of Ranking Member Dingell to make sure that in fact it was bipartisan. But raising taxes, which this bill does, on energy producers is the last thing that our Nation needs as our consumers try and grapple with higher energy costs, whether that be heating or gasoline.

Yesterday, in an important hearing, my good friend from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) offered advice to the panel that was there when he took over the chairmanship of our important committee, Energy and Commerce. And he said this. He said: ``The Parliamentarian told me that the process needed to be fair and there needed to be a perception of fairness.'' Mr. Speaker, I lament that this bill is neither. It is not fair nor is the perception there.

I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mrs. Capps. And I also want to thank Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton, and others who have had a real hand in moving this legislation before us.

I rise today in support of this resolution, a resolution recognizing the impact of lung cancer and the recent recommendations of the Lung Cancer Progress Review Group of the National Cancer Institute. This group's process is a comprehensive, collaborative, integrated approach to control and eliminate lung cancer. The group was tasked with making recommendations, strategizing, and reporting on progress made in an effort to control and eliminate lung cancer.

The group was able to identify scientific priorities and needs and set forth a national agenda for research on lung cancer.

This Progress Review Group made the recommendation to foster the creation of scientifically integrated multi-institutional research consortia organized around the problem of lung cancer rather than around specific research disciplines. The recommendation speaks to the ongoing work at the NIH as well as in the private sector for cross- cutting research. And as a Congress, it is our responsibility to endow these researchers to best pursue answers. This report clarifies the benefits of broad science. Putting disease research into silos so that, as so many authorizing bills often do, is not always helpful to the greater goal. Let's take these recommendations to pursue a multilevel, multidisciplinary science in an effort to find a cure for lung cancer or thousands of other diseases that afflict the world. Reducing the mortality rate of lung cancer is an objective to which we all can subscribe. It is our responsibility to make sure that the scientists have the tools and the access necessary to pursue a cure.

So many of us here have been with someone at a bedside that is suffering from this awful disease, one of the worst. It is a great step forward that we can pass this legislation, to see the research come about, the funding with it, so that some day in fact we will have a cure to prevent this tragedy in families across the globe.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I want to again thank Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton, and certainly Lois Capps for her leadership on this issue. I again rise in support of H. Res. 760, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Children's Health Month.

The overarching goal of designating October each year as Children's Health Month is to draw attention to the need to provide access to health care, insuring preventative care, seek cures for diseases and chronic conditions, and promote healthy living habits for all of America's children.

There has been much discussion recently both on the floor and in the media about children's health care. The objective, obviously, to cover the health needs of children is of paramount concern, particularly with low-income children. Children's Health Month should remind us of that important message. I stand in support, and ask that my colleagues support the resolution as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the chief Republican cosponsor of this resolution, Mr. Shays from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Inslee, Mr. Shays, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Barton, Mr. Dingell as well.

Recycling is an important environmental concept that predates, by decades, the first Earth Day and talk of global climate change. In fact, according to the National Recycling Coalition, before the 1920s, 70 percent of U.S. cities ran programs to recycle certain materials. And during World War II, 60 years ago, American industry reused and recycled 25 percent of the waste system. Today we're recycling and reusing about 33 percent of our Nation's waste.

Moreover, the need for serious recycling takes on an added dimension when one considers the state of America's landfill capacity. According to the EPA, since 1980 the total annual generation of municipal solid waste, otherwise known as regular household trash, has increased by more than 60 percent to its 2005 level of nearly 246 million tons every year.

And further, according to the EPA, over the last 15 years, 9 percent less, or about 9 million tons, of household garbage is going to our Nation's landfills. That means that the increased recycling efforts must step in to bridge the gap.

And while many folks may think that promoting recycling is confined just to picking up a newspaper printed on recycled papers, or buying a soft drink or beer in a recycled bottle, our domestic recycling industry is even more sophisticated and diverse than those perceptions. I've seen it firsthand in my district. In fact, domestic paper recycling helps create everything from cereal boxes, Kelloggs in Michigan, to furniture, recycled plastic soda bottles yield fibers that produce T-shirts, recycled carpet forms the basic fill for ski jackets. Recycling is not just a good environmental practice; it's also a great way to help grow our economy.

So, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is simply not just a remind of the virtue of a good stewardship. It's also a charge to every one of us that taking time to recycle does indeed make a difference for the world. And I would urge that my colleagues support this resolution encouraging every American to participate in promoting the social, environmental, and economic benefits of recycling and buying recycled- content products.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank, in particular, Mr. Allen, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Barton, obviously Mr. Wynn for helping to manage this bill this afternoon. You know, this bill culminates an agreement that took many weeks of talks between the majority and minority members and their staffs. I want to thank all of the stakeholders that were involved in those discussions. Significant improvements clearly were made as that legislation moved through our committee, Energy and Commerce, as it winds its way to the floor this afternoon.

The bill tackled the serious concern that elemental mercury pollution in other countries will eventually convert to methylmercury pollution in the United States. Methylmercury is the

most potent form of mercury poisoning, and a serious, very serious neurotoxin.

And, obviously, as Mr. Wynn indicated, this bans the export of such mercury, elemental mercury in the year 2010.

This legislation directs the Department of Energy, which has experience storing elemental mercury, to set up a domestic storage option.

The legislation does not preclude any private storage solutions from occurring. Private entities wishing to take advantage of the DOE- sponsored storage option must pay the Department of Energy for that privilege, but in return they are indemnified against any environmental damage that is caused once DOE takes possession of that mercury.

The bill only covers elemental mercury. It does not cover coal exports. It is not intended to cover fly ash exports, from coal combustion, or small amounts of mercury in manufactured consumer products.

The bill requires that EPA monitor the global implications of a U.S. export ban on elemental mercury. EPA is also required to report back to the Congress on any negative consequences caused by that export ban.

The legislation permits EPA to grant targeted, temporary waivers for individual shipments of elemental mercury to other countries. And I would note that groups that are supporting this bill include the American Chemistry Council; the National Mining Association; the Chlorine Institute; the Environmental Council of the States; and the NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Again, I compliment all those Members and staff that worked so hard to make this truly a bipartisan bill. I would like to think that we can pass this with unanimous support this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

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

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

I want to take particular time to thank Mr. Markey, my good friend, Mr. Dingell, as well as Mr. Gordon, the bill's sponsor, as well as Mr. Shimkus and Ms. Eshoo for their really outstanding leadership on this issue.

This is a good bill. All of us here know stories, many of us can relate personally to stories, using 911. This goes a bit further when we talk about E-911.

There is a recent news story that highlighted the importance of this service. A mother in Washington State was playing with her 2-year-old daughter, Alana, one night when suddenly a migraine hit her. She collapsed, she took a few painkillers, she felt dizzy, collapsed to the floor, and yet the 2-year-old daughter, Alana, watching her mom collapse, walked over to the coffee table, picked up the phone, and dialed 911.

While she was on the phone, all she said was ``mommy, ouch.'' Those two words alone were enough to send the paramedics to their home. Inside they found the mom on the floor and the daughter in the other room getting a blanket for her mom who was shivering. Thankfully, she was released the very next day. But without that technology, who knows how the situation, or many others like it, would end up.

Our 911 system continues to evolve. We've made a lot of progress on enhanced 911 deployment, but E-911 can provide the actual phone number and location of a caller, which can be essential in reaching people who need the

help, especially if they're having trouble communicating.

The FCC helped move the ball forward in June of 2005 by requiring that VoIP providers offer 911 services to their customers. And while technologically it is more complicated for VoIP providers to provide the service, it certainly is of equal importance.

We've all heard the horror stories in the past of people trying unsuccessfully to use 911 from their homes or mobile phones, and I'm hopeful that with the leaps taken so far, along with this legislation, all consumers, regardless of the phone service or their location, will be better served in an emergency.

This bill, H.R. 3403, the 911 Modernization and Public Safety Act of 2007, is certainly a significant public safety bill. I would urge my colleagues to vote for it. And, again, I want to thank the bipartisan cooperation that we've seen every step along the way, not only in this body, but in the Senate as well.

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