Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Upton

Amendment No. 49: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I might say that, as the gentlelady said, we've offered this amendment that has passed on every appropriation bill thus far.

We know the Federal Government is the largest purchaser of light bulbs in the world. By requiring that only Energy Star light bulbs are purchased, beginning October 1, in fact, we know that we will save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars this next year in terms of energy savings.

We also know that if every home did what the Federal Government is going to do, based on the testimony that we had in the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, we would save as a Nation $65 billion, billion, B-as-in-big, kilowatt hours of electricity, which is the equivalent of 80 coal-fire electric plants every single year.

This is a good amendment. It has been bipartisan. We've appreciated the relationship that we've had with the chairman and ranking members of not only the full committee but the subcommittee. I would like to think that we would be able to pass this amendment again by a voice vote and make a stand that in fact the entire government is going to be saving billions of dollars at the end of the day based on the amendment that we're offering today.

Offered By: Mr. Upton

Amendment No. 31: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. Upton

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, I regret to inform the House today of the passing of Guy Vander Jagt, who died this morning. He served 18 years in this body representing most of west Michigan, a longtime member of the Ways and Means Committee, a very good friend of all of us, both in the Congress and after he left.

I talked to his wife Carol last week. This was his cancer's second occurrence. He also leaves a beautiful daughter, Jinny, and I yield to Mr. Dingell.

I yield to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that we stand for a moment of silence in honor of Guy Vander Jagt.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I would just like to compliment the gentleman for his leadership on this issue, Mr. Lipinski and Ms. Harman. We are seeing efforts move. And we've learned already that if everyone did this across the country, we would save 65 billion kilowatts of energy, which is the equivalent of 80 coal-fired plants. Obviously this is something we want the Federal Government to do.

I compliment Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis on the floor for allowing us to proceed without a lot of debate, knowing that we have strong support for this. I look forward to having this adopted.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

We just want to be on the record for this. Working with the Parliamentarians to make sure that the amendment is germane, we were not able to use the words ``or equivalent'' when we said ``ENERGY STAR or equivalent.'' We would like to see that happen in the conference, but we know that that is legislating on an appropriation bill.

We would also like to have a provision for historical lighting. Again, that needs to happen in conference, it cannot happen on the House floor, and that's why we proceeded in that way. We look forward to working with all parties to make sure those concerns are addressed.

I thank the gentlelady, and I join in bipartisan spirit to get this amendment adopted as we've done on the other appropriations bills.

I might just note that this shining amendment will save the taxpayers literally $30 for every bulb that is ultimately replaced. It is not going to require that we take existing bulbs that work out when they expire. We will put in energy-efficient Energy Star bulbs. It will save the taxpayers ultimately hundreds of millions of dollars.

This is a bipartisan amendment. We found two additional cosponsors in terms of Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Inglis of South Carolina. We're also in the middle of a markup, so to be more efficient, I think both of us would like to yield back our time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman this amendment that I am introducing, which I will subsequently withdraw, expresses my concern about the committee's action to cap loan guarantees at $7 billion for new energy projects designed to reduce carbon emissions.

And before I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, I am going to ask the chairman to enter into a colloquy with myself, and I will also submit remarks from Mr. Towns, coauthor with me; as well as my ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton.

Mr. Chairman, under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Congress authorized funding to provide loan guarantees for any technology which reduces carbon emissions. That was designed to help a vast array of technologies such as wind, solar, clean coal, ethanol, and nuclear. Your committee excluded new nuclear plants as one of the technologies eligible for loan guarantees under the 2005 Energy Policy Act. And as a supporter of nuclear power, I oppose that exclusion. I am concerned that this may delay new projects that are being planned, and I am hopeful that these concerns can be addressed when you reach a conference with the Senate.

I would also note that the authorization in the energy appropriation bill is just that, an authorization. No appropriation is required. It is a standard practice that Federal loan guarantee programs have an annual loan volume authorization in an appropriations bill

and that the program which is authorized in title 17 of the Energy Policy Act is unique. We must remember that it is self-financing and requires no taxpayer funds. Utilities that are building these plants will pay all of the costs associated with the program, including administrative costs of processing the loan guarantee applications and the credit subsidy cost of issuing the loan guarantee itself.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would like you to help us if you can address these concerns.

I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee, my good friend, Mr. Visclosky.

I thank the gentleman for the helpful understanding. I look forward to working with you and Mr. Hobson.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Upton

Amendment No. 10: Page 24, line 20, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $4,000,000,000)''.

Page 24, after line 22, insert ``$4,000,000,000 shall be

available for advanced nuclear energy facilities,''.

Offered By: Mr. Upton

Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 503. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs have

the ``ENERGY STAR'' designation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wicker, Mr. Obey and others, particularly my coauthor, Ms. Harman, on this amendment.

As Congress tackles climate change legislation and examines ways to promote energy efficiency, it is so important that the Federal Government set a proper example, taking the lead in commonsense conservation measures. Some would say this is an amendment that sets a shining example for the rest of the country.

The Federal Government has to be the world's largest consumer of light bulbs, and with this amendment, we will likely save American taxpayers probably as much as $100 million.

Why Energy Star light bulbs? Well, current incandescent bulbs on store shelves are obsolete, and they're highly inefficient. In fact, only 10 percent of the energy consumed by each bulb is for light, with 90 percent wasted on unnecessary heat.

Energy Star light bulbs use about 75 percent less energy than the standard incandescent bulbs, as they last as much as 10 times longer. In fact, if every house in the Nation switched to Energy Star bulbs, we would have the potential to annually reduce the emissions equivalent of 80 coal-burning plants each year, saving 65 billion kilowatts.

This amendment will make the Federal Government a shining example of how we can conserve energy, one light bulb at a time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Keith Yoder of Kalamazoo, Michigan for his 32 years of distinguished public service with the Social Security Administration.

Keith began his career with Social Security in July 1975 as a Claims Authorizer in Philadelphia, PA. While it would take 25 years for Keith to make his way to our corner of Southwest Michigan, he continued to develop an impressive professional track record throughout Indiana and Michigan.

Over the past 7 years, Keith has managed the Social Security field office in Kalamazoo, from which he and his staff have faithfully served the residents of Allegan, Kalamazoo and St. Joseph counties. During an age in which government bureaucracy has too often become synonymous with the impersonal and lethargic, Keith and, under direction, his team have always been a reliable, informative and affable resource for my constituents and staff. His support of shelter-based and follow-up assistance to the Hurricane Katrina evacuees who made their way to my district in 2005 serves as a testament to both the good will and dedication that characterize his career.

Once again, I would like to personally congratulate and thank Keith Yoder for his many years of public service to the citizens of this great country. Southwest Michigan is truly a better place because of his contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I know that Iraq has been on all of our minds for a long, long time. Many of us here have visited Iraq on multiple occasions. Many of us have also visited Bethesda Naval Hospital as well as Walter Reed and tried to comfort our brave and caring servicemen and women.

Yes, many of us have grieved with the families that have lost a loved one at a gravesite back in our districts. Mr. Speaker, we had a breakthrough this week in North Korea. It was a diplomatic success. And our country led the effort to engage other countries in the region: Russia, South Korea, Japan and China. The Six Party Talks helped see a negotiated settlement that made sense and the world today is a better and safer place. Diplomacy won again.

Now, one of our big problems in Iraq is that we have not pursued the diplomatic angle like we should have. We have not seen a diplomatic surge like we ought to. Let's talk about this resolution. The first finding, of course, is that the Congress and the public will continue to support and protect those serving in Iraq. That tells me that we are not going to cut off the aid for the brave folks that are there.

It is almost a daily routine for me when I see a man or woman in uniform at the airport, the cafeteria, at home, anywhere, Bethesda, Walter Reed Hospital, I take a moment and thank them for their sacrifice and their service.

Our troops need all of the equipment to make sure that their safety can be as secure as it can be. This week I e-mailed a number of our troops that I have met that are overseas. I talked about this resolution, including the policy of the surge. And many of them responded at length. I want to share part of their stories and responses without using their names.

One of my Army captains said this. ``Bringing in more Americans will force us into more confrontational roles. This is not the way to win. More American soldiers on the ground will not win the war, it will only delay the enemy's reaction. If the people do not believe that their government can protect them, they will look for one that they believe will.''

Mr. Speaker, these folks are on the ground. They know what is going on. The generals on the ground, too, said that more U.S. troops would be counterproductive and in fact only increase or deepen the threats on our U.S. troops.

Let's face it, this is a civil war. It is real anarchy. And in fact the Iraqis do not want us there. Nearly 80 percent of them in Baghdad say that the American troops provoke more violence than they prevent. And these same polls show that Iraqis overwhelmingly want U.S. troops gone within a year.

In fact, we know that a majority on both sides, Shia and Sunni, believe that it is okay to kill our troops. So much for being a liberator. In other words, we are viewed as part of the problem, not the solution.

Mr. Speaker, all of us, all of us support our troops. But there are many of us that believe that this surge strategy will fail and will only prolong the day that the Iraqis will finally pick up the baton and lead their own government.

The Baker-Hamilton unanimous bipartisan report labeled the situation as grave and deteriorating. It called for regional cooperation and a new direction. Mr. Speaker, I am one that believes that the vote authorizing the war was based on evidence that was flat-out wrong.

Let's not continue to ignore the real situation and the mistakes of the past. It is time, it is time for the Iraqis, not the United States, to lead after 4 years. We need to send a message to our troops that, yes, we support them, and, for this administration, a signal for them to pursue a diplomatic surge involving the region.

For these reasons, I too support the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Union Memorial African Methodist Episcopal Church in Benton Harbor, Michigan. On Sunday, January 28, the Union Memorial A.M.E. will be celebrating her 139th Anniversary.

Since the church's original dedication in 1868, the first African Methodist Episcopal Church in the Twin Cities of Benton Harbor and St. Joseph has stood as a symbol of faith, hope, and compassion for the citizens of Berrien County and the surrounding area. Its 139 years of commitment have had a tremendous impact on its congregation as well as the greater community.

The African Methodist Episcopal Church has had a proud history since starting in the home of Steven Busby in 1868. This small Christian assembly back then was known as the ``House of Praise.'' The area was home to two A.M.E. churches in the 1890s, and in 1901 the church in Benton Harbor was destroyed by a fire. The church was rebuilt and in 1929 the Benton Harbor and St. Joseph churches united under the name Union Memorial African Methodist Episcopal Church. In 1969 the church moved to its current location at Empire and Crystal A venues.

In its 139 year history, the church has never wavered from the ministry of saving lost souls, preaching the gospel, feeding the hungry, helping the homeless, and reaching out and renewing the spirit of folks in need. I want to commend the members of Union Memorial African Methodist Episcopal on their anniversary and on their commitment in the future to serving the greater community.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tough vote for some of us here this afternoon. For me, I support greater spending, spending for alternative fuel, so that we can lessen our dependence on foreign oil. For me I am appalled at the ineptness and bungling of the Interior Department's troubled program to collect royalties on oil and gas and public lands in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. It needs to be investigated, and it needs to be remedied.

But other items in this legislation, specifically the repeal of section 199, which will likely drive more refinery production elsewhere overseas, and thus more jobs, is not right.

When Joe Barton was chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he was rightly proud of the process. It was open and, indeed, bipartisan. Lots of debate, Democrats and Republicans, and lots of amendments were accepted, Democrats and Republicans, and the proof was in the pudding. We passed a bipartisan bill, energy bill, which included the vote of Mr. Dingell, the chairman today of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Nobody saw this bill until late last week. No hearings, no markup in subcommittee or full committee, no amendments on the House floor allowed. We know this bill is going to pass, but listening to the debate, I know it could have been a much better bill and one that could have been called bipartisan, and it would pass by a much larger margin than it will this afternoon.

Maybe the margin of the vote could have helped us with the Senate to actually get the bill to the President's desk for his signature, rather than a veto. I urge my Republican colleagues to vote ``no'' so that we can truly pass a bill that will do something for our constituents in our country.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tough vote for some of us.

For me, I support greater funding of alternative fuels so we can lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

For me, I'm appalled by the ineptness and bungling of the Interior Department's troubled program to collect royalties on oil and gas on public lands in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations and it needs to be investigated and remedied.

But other items in this legislation--specifically the repeal of Sec. 199 which will likely drive more refinery production elsewhere, and therefore jobs, is not right.

When Joe Barton was Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he was rightly proud of the process. It was open and indeed bi-partisan. Lots of debate (Democrat and Republican) and amendments accepted (Democrat and Republican).

And the proof was in the pudding--we passed on a bi-partisan vote which included the vote of Mr. Dingell--the new Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Nobody saw this bill on the Republican side until Friday of last week, no hearings, no markup in subcommittee or full committee and no amendments on the Floor. This bill will pass, but listening to the debate, I know it could have been a much better bill and one that really could be called bi-partisan and pass by a much greater margin than it will today.

And maybe--the margin of that vote would help us, with the Senate, to actually get the bill to the President's desk for signature rather than a veto.

I urge my Republican colleagues to vote ``no'' so we can truly pass a bill that will do something for our constituents.