Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the bipartisan Domestic Fuel for Enhancing National Security (D-FENS) Act 2011, which will allow Civilian Agencies and Military Agencies to extend multiyear contracts from the current limit of 5 years to up to 15 years for the purchase of advanced biofuels. I thank my colleague Mr. Jones of North Carolina for working with me on this issue, which will increase our national security and help build an American industry.

Accounting for about 2 percent of U.S. energy consumption, the Department of Defense is the largest single consumer of energy in the country. According to Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ``[the Department of Defense] is using 300,000 barrels of oil every day. The energy use per soldier creeps up every year. And our number-one import into Afghanistan is fossil fuel.''

U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Maybus has outlined several goals to lead the Navy toward a more energy-secure fleet. By 2015, the Navy will reduce petroleum use in the commercial fleet by 50 percent. By 2020, the Navy will produce at least 50 percent of shore-based energy requirements from alternative sources and 50 percent of total energy consumption will come from alternative sources.

No one knows better than the Department of Defense that energy supplies are critical to combat troops and our national security. To ultimately realize these goals, we must dramatically scale-up advanced biofuel production in the United States. With added Congressional authority to purchase longer-term contracts, our defense sector could adopt domestically produced sustainable fuels for the security of our troops.

Companies already have developed technologies to produce ``drop-in'' ready fuels, meaning our military could use these fuels in existing infrastructure, aircraft and ships. The longer-term contracts provided by this bill will not only increase our energy security, but can ultimately help unlock private investment for construction and development of large advanced biofuel refineries in the United States. In states like Washington, North Carolina, California, Montana and others, interests from the private sector, universities, ports and major airports are already working to bring the first generation of biofuels to the market, and their efforts can be greatly enhanced by this legislation.

Washington state and the Pacific Northwest are well-positioned to commercialize aviation biofuels--all elements of the supply chain are feasible, and the region has come together to map out a strategic and sustainable path to bring advanced bio-based jet fuels to market. Already in the Northwest, 40 public and private stakeholders from academic research institutions, environmental advocacy, and government, and the aerospace and aviation, biofuels, and agriculture and forestry industries have formed the Sustainable Aviation Fuels Northwest (SAFN) initiative. This effort was convened by regional aviation leaders Boeing, Alaska Airlines, the region's largest airports--Port of Seattle, Port of Portland and Spokane International Airport--as well as Washington State University, a center of advanced biofuels research. Stakeholders include fuel producers, farm and forest managers, non- governmental organizations and key government leaders, including representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Defense Logistics Agency. This diverse group representing all points along the supply chain is working to create a ``flight path'' that will overcome challenges to deploying advanced aviation biofuels. This legislation will support Washington's effort to make the Northwest region a market leader in the advanced biofuel industry.

With our nation's security and energy independence in mind, I urge my colleagues to support the Domestic Fuel for Enhancing National Security (D-FENS) Act 2011.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I rise to protect the beaches and shoreline and economy of the State of Washington. This amendment is quite simple. It would simply say that we will not allow the Federal Government to run over the State of Washington on issues of drilling off of our coastline, that we won't be shackled to this antiquated policy of drilling without first providing reasonable protection, without first addressing the issue of rampant speculation that is what is exposing my consumers to $4 a gallon gas in the State of Washington, and without freeing us to do what we should be doing, which is developing new, clean energy sources. I want to address each one of those.

Basically our position is we don't think in the State of Washington, or any State, and particularly the State of Washington, which is the Evergreen State, we ought to have this policy foisted upon us that is not an evergreen energy policy for this century for three reasons.

Reason number one: Despite the fact that we have had this enormous passage of time since this horrendous spill in the gulf, this Chamber has not passed into law one single safety provision to bring additional safety to anywhere on our coastline. My amendment would simply say that the people of the State of Washington and their elected officials ought to be able to make a decision that we have got adequate, reasonable safeguards for drilling before it happens off of the State of Washington. That has not happened, and it is inexcusable.

Second, before this happens, the people of the State of Washington ought to have reasonable protection against the rampant speculation that is going on that is driving up these prices. Even Goldman Sachs has recognized we have had four times the speculative positions taken and probably a $20 amount that has driven up these prices associated with this unchecked speculation. Yet this Chamber and my friends across the aisle have not done a single thing to address this speculation. Until we do that, we shouldn't have my neighbors and my constituents have foisted down their throats this policy of mandatory drilling without them first making a decision.

Third, the people of the State of Washington want to help in our energy crisis and they are capable of helping in this energy crisis if this Chamber will just free them to do it.

Here is how they want to help. They want to produce lithium ion batteries that can run electric cars so we don't have to start being shackled and just addicted to oil. But this Chamber hasn't done a single thing, a single thing this year, to help clean energy sources that Washington State business people want to produce.

I look at the EnerG2 company that is making ultracapacitors. This Chamber isn't helping them make electric batteries for electric cars.

I look at the REC company in Moses Lake, Washington, that is making the polysilicate cells for photovoltaic cells to produce the electricity for electric cars. This Chamber hasn't done a single thing to help that company advance.

I look at the Targeted Growth company and the Boeing company that are developing biofuels so that we can have a competitor to gasoline so we can drive those prices down. This Chamber hasn't done a single thing to help those companies develop Washington State jobs for a new energy future.

Now, we have got a lot of energy off of our coastline. It might be in assorted ways. But I know it is in offshore wind. But we aren't doing a single thing to help the offshore wind energy. All we are doing is trying to shackle an antiquated energy policy on the people of the State of Washington.

I would have liked this amendment to have helped all of my colleagues on the Pacific Coast, but because of some of the financial rules that we have, we have only been able to bring this involving the Evergreen State. But I would hope that all of my colleagues would join me in saying that before this gets forced on the citizens of Washington State, we adopt some reasonable measures.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you.

First, I wish my friend Doc Hastings from Washington was with us today. He's not feeling well. But Mr. Young is doing an admirable job with a weak argument, and I'll report that they're getting represented.

I just want to point out we haven't seen horrendous damage to any ecosystem from a wind spill yet. If you spill a little wind, you don't end up covering large gulf areas with hydrocarbons or destroying oyster and shrimping grounds like have been in the gulf. There are differences from multiple sources.

We are simply saying that before we move forward with additional offshore drilling, we ought to have reasonable safety protocols, we ought to address speculation, and we ought to have an energy policy that looks at all of the above.

My friends across the aisle told us you were going to give us an all- of-the-above energy policy. All you have given us is an all-of-the- below energy policy. We need a little better than this.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, we should oppose this bill not because it is too strong, but because it is too weak. Americans do need relief from $4 a gallon gasoline, and they are not going to get it from this bill either in the short term or the long term. The reason they won't get relief in the short term is we're not drilling in the right places. We need to drill speculators, not just wells. Even Goldman Sachs recognizes that a significant portion of the huge spike in prices is due to rampant speculation in the market, but this bill doesn't do a single thing about that short-term reason for this short-term price. We need to drill speculators, not just wells.

But, secondly, in the long term, this bill does not give us what we need. My friends across the aisle told us they were going to give us an all-of-the-above energy strategy. They haven't given us an all-of-the- above strategy. They are just giving an all-of-the-below strategy, because the only thing they are thinking about are these archaic technologies of drilling holes in the ground.

We use 25 percent of the world's oil. We only have 3 percent of the world's oil supply, even if we drill in Yellowstone National Park. The dinosaurs just didn't die underneath our feet. We need new supplies of energy, of electricity, camalena-based biofuels from Targeted Growth in Seattle, advanced forms of algae-based biofuels from Sapphire Energy and General Atomic and other companies.

We need new sources of energy, not just below our feet but above our feet, and in our minds where we get the intellect to invent these technologies. That's an all-of-the-above strategy. Let's do what we can do to give real short-term relief. Defeat this bill, and we will get a comprehensive energy policy for this country.

Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to our generations who built America. That's why we will not allow the Republicans to terminate Medicare with extreme prejudice.

We will not allow them to turn a guarantee for seniors into a voucher program for the insurance industry. We will not allow them to turn Medicare into ``Medi-gone.'' We will not allow them to give us 6,000 reasons to vote against their hair-brained scheme because they want to put $6,000 worth of more costs on our senior citizens.

This is a noble obligation. It should not be shredded. We should reduce medical inflation, not put this burden on senior citizens. Preserve Medicare and reject the Republican scheme.

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to once again to introduce the Offshore Drilling Safety Improvement Act.

As we rapidly approach the one-year anniversary of the catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which killed 11 workers and dumped hundreds of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, we must confront the fact that Congress still has yet to pass comprehensive safety reform for offshore oil drilling. A year after toxic sludge drenched the Gulf beaches, communities are still suffering from economic ramifications of the loss of tourism and fishing.

Last year, after numerous congressional hearings and months of hard work, the House passed the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic, CLEAR, Act, a comprehensive approach to make sure American jobs and coastlines are protected. Among other beneficial improvements, the CLEAR Act included important provisions requiring better technology on blowout preventers and other commonsense safety reforms. Unfortunately, the bill did not make it through the Senate, and over the last few months the House has yet to pass similar legislation.

That is why I am once again, with bipartisan support, introducing the Offshore Drilling Safety Improvement Act. This act strengthens the standards for safety equipment on offshore oil rigs by requiring the use of the best available technology for blowout preventers and emergency shutoff equipment. It will also require the Administration to consider independent and reputable science and expertise when determining appropriate equipment. It is one vital piece of the larger, comprehensive effort to create a regulatory system that protects American jobs, coasts, and communities.

We may never know for sure what exactly caused the disastrous leak but we do know that we must work together to protect our shores and local economies from future spills. Other countries around the world require more comprehensive emergency safety equipment. It is time that, in the places we decide to drill, we are using the best safety equipment available.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Max Cleland, my friend, former U.S. Senator and an American war hero. Today marks the 43rd Anniversary of the Battle of Khe Sanh. It was there that at the age of 25, he earned the Silver Star and the Bronze Star for valorous action in combat serving America as a U.S. Army Captain in Vietnam.

On April 8, with a month left in his tour, Captain Cleland was ordered to set up a radio relay station on a nearby hill. A helicopter flew him and two soldiers to the treeless top of Hill 471, east of Khe Sanh. When the helicopter landed, Cleland jumped out and was accidentally struck by a grenade blast. The explosion slammed him backward, shredding both his legs and one arm. Due to the severity of his injuries, doctors amputated both of Cleland's legs above the knee and his right forearm.

Max Cleland only became stronger after this devastating experience, and dedicated himself to a life of public service as a United States Senator where he worked to significantly improve the lives of Veterans returning from war. In these ways, he lived in the essence of one of his favorite quotes from Ernest Hemingway ``The world breaks everyone, and afterward, many are strong at the broken places.''

Max, we are inspired by your patriotism, spirit, and your great achievements to our nation. We only hope that our nation can follow your example and grow stronger at all the broken places.

Mr. Speaker, it is deeply disappointing that instead of being here seeking a bipartisan consensus to avoid a government shutdown, we again are brought to this floor in an effort to engage in this ideological effort to, in fact, shut down government.

Yesterday, my Republican friends wanted to shut down the ability of Uncle Sam to protect the freedom of Americans to breathe clean air. Today, they are attempting to shut down the ability of Uncle Sam to protect the freedom of Americans to get access to the Internet. Tomorrow, they are attempting to shut down the government so they won't be allowed to protect the freedom of women to get health.

We should not be shutting down Americans' access to an open Internet. We should be opening up Americans' access and Uncle Sam's ability to guarantee Americans access to the Internet.

Now here's what is at stake. Our access to freeways--and freeways are great, just like the Internet is great, but it is not so great if powerful economic forces can shut down the on-ramps to the freeway. And it's not so great if they can shut down or create a two-tiered system so that if you go to your Internet service provider's favorite warehouse store you get a deal to get access to the freeway; but if you want to go to their competitors, you have got to pay extra and you get slower service to get there. This is what is at stake.

And what the Republicans want to do with this resolution is shut down government's ability to prevent these powerful economic forces from making a second tier, a substitute, a secondary access if you don't go to their favorite situation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, America has been great because it invented free speech and it has been great because it has invented an open Internet. But both of those freedoms are in jeopardy today because powerful economic interests that are becoming larger and larger in consolidating these Internet entities have the ability now to start choking off consumers' access to the Internet. And for those who want to say, oh, it's not a problem, we cannot wait until this horse is out of the barn, it will be too late.

And, by the way, this is not just a consumers' issue; it is a business development issue. It is small businesses who today want to create these small businesses that want to have people get access to their businesses. And they don't have the powerful clout to sign these big, mega-million dollar deals with Internet service providers to give them a leg up.

Mr. Speaker, reject this issue to shut down government's ability to provide freedom of the Internet. Preserve open Internet and reject this bill.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. Chairman, we should oppose this dirty air act because it would suggest that we are a nation in a deep and dangerous sleep, dozing in the face of disastrous pollution, slumbering while our children are riddled with asthma. It's time for America to wake up, get up out of our comfortable beds of denial, and get to work building a new, clean economy.

It's time to wake up, America. The Chinese are not sleeping while they build five times more wind turbines than us. The Germans are not sleeping building more solar panels. The Indians are not sleeping who are restricting carbon pollution. It is time to wake up. Nobody in human history has ever won a race while asleep. And that's why it's time for a national awakening by rejecting this bill. It's a time to put engineers to work on clean energy. It's a time to help businesspeople to grow businesses. It's a time to help students learn new technology.

It is an irony, but it's true: You can only dream while you're asleep, but you can only realize a dream when you're awake.

We should believe in American exceptionalism. We are exceptional in innovation, exceptional in entrepreneurship, exceptional in pioneering technology. And if we do these things, the sun we see on the horizon will be a sunrise, not a sunset. It will be a sign of an awakening nation. We'll do this because we will know and America can know the profound satisfaction of building a clean energy economy and producing children free of asthma rather than increasing it like this dirty air act.

Vote ``no'' against this small-minded exercise in pessimism. Vote ``no'' and embrace the optimism that is inherent in our national character.

I appreciate my Republican colleague's statement, but the clear fact of this bill is, if it passes, what does it do? It basically says that Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Thomas Edison didn't know what they were talking about because this bill, in rather clear form, caters to a narrow sector of a narrow political interest to ignore clear science. And there is no way you can get around this or sweet-talk your way around this clear rejection of science.

Now, this isn't just us. Who has cleared and said this statement that we seek to put in this bill is correct? Only the National Academy of Sciences, NOAA, the Department of Defense, the Centers for Disease Control, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, and the American Chemical Society. But one side of the aisle thinks that the tea party has greater scientific credibility, and that's who you are catering to when you refuse to adopt this amendment.

Let's have a bipartisan statement of the problem so that we can have a bipartisan statement of the solution.

It is deeply disappointing that our Republican colleagues are so willing, able--and apparently eager--to shut down the government. This bill fundamentally shuts down the government. It shuts down the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to help lead us into a clean energy future.

Why shut down an agency that can help develop these biofuels that we were just talking about? Why do they want to shut down the engine of innovation? Why do they want to shut down our effort to find a solution for energy-intensive industries? The steel industry, the aluminum industry, the cement industry, the paper pulp industry need solutions to this. We offered one. Yet the Republicans have no solutions.

Shutting down the government is not a solution. Shutting down the EPA is not a solution. Shutting down American innovation is not a solution. This is an amendment that makes a statement that we ought to study science and economics and come up with a solution in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, we will all breathe easier if we are able to reach a bipartisan consensus about this budget impasse that we now have. But we will

not all breathe easier if the Republicans succeed in essentially eliminating the ability of Uncle Sam to enforce the Clean Air Act.

Now, I know it seems pretty shocking, but the fact of the matter is, tonight, as these discussions are going on, the Republicans want to put a rider--one of these noxious viruses on a bill--a rider that would make it illegal for the Environmental Protection Agency to protect our children's health against asthma in enforcing the Clean Air Act.

Now, this is pretty amazing. It cannot stand. We are encouraged that the majority leader has said they will not allow these riders.

Let's get a compromise to deal with this deficit, not make it harder for our kids to breathe, not make it easier for asthma to ravage our kids, and let's preserve a bipartisan success in the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Speaker, middle class Americans around the country are very concerned about what's going on in Wisconsin for two reasons. The first reason is that they fundamentally understand that while we all have to tighten our belts--and they've seen workers do that in Wisconsin, to give up various rights under bargaining agreements--they understand fundamentally that we can't solve this problem by attacking the middle class. And second, they understand that the shenanigans that went on last night in Wisconsin are an assault on some democratic principles that we have long enjoyed.

We have long enjoyed the right to petition our government for redress of grievances. It's right there in the grand old document that we took an oath to. And fundamentally, this is a reduction in the ability of Americans to work together, to speak with one voice to and with their government.

This will not abide. We've got to respect the middle class. We've got to respect democracy and move forward together as a country.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, we know how dire the situation is for tens of thousands of Americans with underwater mortgages who are making good faith efforts to make the right decisions both for themselves and for the lender. And we are very concerned that if this program prematurely is destroyed, we will be yanking back a lifeline that Congress has sent to these folks. And, of course, this is important because it's not just the people who own these homes that are underwater right now that are affected by the collapse in housing values, but all of us are because that housing debacle has affected employment in the construction trades and in the real estate industry broadly. We all have a stake in this issue.

So what my amendment would do is to basically say that we want the FHA, if, in fact, this situation moves forward like this bill is, that they will conduct a study and essentially implement a substitute program that will fix anything that needs fixing in this program to achieve the ends that we ought to be able to have as our goal.

Now, the basic underlying theory of our amendment is simple. Before you take away a lifeline from some American to solve a problem that thousands are experiencing, come up with a substitute, come up with an improvement, come up with an alternative. And that's what our amendment simply says. If we're going to eliminate this program in its current embodiment, let's come up with an alternative and have it implemented in a way that we keep this lifeline out there.

Now, the reason we feel that this is important is that all too frequently in this Congress we have seen the majority party remove these solutions to programs and not replace it with an alternative. We've seen this in health care, where they have wanted to remove a health care program arguing it's ineffective or they think they have a better program but not come up with a substitute to replace it. That's not good enough. Americans deserve better.

The same thing with the Environmental Protection Agency. Today, my friends in the majority party sought in the Energy and Commerce Committee to eliminate protection against airborne pollutants that are hurting human health, but they did not come up with any alternative to solve that problem.

Now, we want to join in a bipartisan fashion, if there are impediments or imperfections in this bill, to come up with a solution. Let's not allow those Americans to be hanging out there without a lifeline. My amendment would do that. And I would commend it to my fellows.

Point of Order

Thank you.

Briefly, I would hope that the Chair would consider a couple of salient points. Number one, it is our intent, and I believe universal intent, that by this amendment we don't intend to change the basic nature of this program. It does apply this benefit to those homeowners who are current on their mortgage obligations. We would intend that that standard and condition would continue.

And I would point out to the Chair the language of our amendment specifically says that this program would only be carried out under ``appropriate guidelines and standards.'' We think this solves that problem. We seek our congressional intent to continue. We hope that the Members will be able to be heard on this.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, one thing that I think there is universal anger about, Republicans, Democrats and independents alike in this country, is the lack of responsibility that has been shown, criminal responsibility, for the huge malfeasance and criminality that got us into this economic pickle that we are in. To my knowledge, there has been not one person go to jail as a result of the economic collapse precipitated by the shenanigans and outright criminality in the highest financial places in the land. All Americans, I think, are very angry, with justifiable reasons, about that. If you read any of the books about the collapse on Wall Street, you will share that anger, if you read any of those books.

We do not want to see that replicated in this scandal regarding the mortgage servicing situation. We are now advised that there are multiple cases of people knowingly signing affidavits that were false. We are told there are numerous occasions of this robo-signing situation. These nefarious acts have resulted in losses by Americans that should not have happened.

We want to send a message, on a bipartisan basis, that the criminal laws need to be respected. My amendment would simply call upon the attorneys general, both Federal and State, to prosecute, as appropriate, these criminal violations. The amendment does not change the responsibility under the criminal statutes for any officers or directors if they are not personally responsible for these wrongful acts. There's no criminal liability. But we do think where there were violations of these criminal statutes, they ought to be prosecuted.

This Nation has been brought to the brink of financial ruin because of many, many instances of violation of these standards. The least we can ask is that we prosecute these cases where it is appropriate.

We think it's the right thing for us to do on a bipartisan basis to make that statement today. I hope that Members will join me in making that statement and make sure justice in fact is meted out here where it has not been in other instances.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Offered By: Mr. Inslee

Amendment No. 12: Page 6, line 16, before the period insert

``and Replacement Program''.

Page 6, line 19, before ``the extent'' insert ``(A)''.

Page 6, line 20, after ``section 2'' insert ``,

including''.

Page 6, line 21, before the period insert the following:

``, and (B) the need, and appropriate guidelines and

standards for, a mortgage insurance program of the Secretary

that (i) provides for loan modification involving a write-

down of the remaining principal balance on existing mortgages

on 1- to 4-family residences under which such principal

balance exceeds the appraised value of the mortgaged

residence, and (ii) serves the needs of covered homeowners

with such mortgages''.

Page 7, line 1, after ``paragraph (1)'' insert the

following: ``, setting forth the Secretary's determination of

the need for, and the appropriate guidelines and standards

for, the mortgage insurance program determined pursuant to

paragraph (1)(B),''.

Page 7, line 1, after ``best practices,'' insert

``including''.

Page 7, line 3, before the period insert the following:

``and to the mortgage insurance program identified and

described pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)''.

Page 7, after line 17, add the following:

(4) Implementation.--Upon the expiration of the 90-day

period beginning upon the submission to the Congress of the

report required under paragraph (2), the Secretary of Housing

and Urban Development shall implement the mortgage insurance

program described in such report pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)

through issuance of appropriate guidelines and standards set

forth in the report.

Offered By: Mr. Inslee

Amendment No. 13: At the end of the bill, add the following

new section:

Offered By: Mr. Inslee

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill, add the following

new section:

Mr. Speaker, one thing we share on a bipartisan basis is Republicans and Democrats like to breathe clean air. We don't want to see our kids exposed to aggravated asthma problems.

That's why it's very disappointing that the Republicans are trying to threaten a government shutdown if they don't get to pass their dirty air act. Now, their dirty air act is a bill that they want to pass, and I am not making this up. They want to pass a bill that would make it illegal for the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the provisions of the Clean Air Act that will reduce air pollution.

This is amazing to me. You want to shut down government, if you don't shut down government in enforcing pollution. Now, I always thought that the American people thought that that was a really bad idea.

I want to share my colleagues' proof of this. In polls done in 19 congressional districts recently, including the Speaker's own district in Ohio, 68 percent of Americans said that we should move forward with the EPA in this; 6 out of 10 said the Republicans' dirty air act is a really bad idea.

We need to keep the government to keep this clean air. Reject the Republicans' threat of a government shutdown.