Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Labeling Education and Nutrition Act of 2008'' which I believe is a first step towards providing consumers with the nutritional information they seek while hopefully providing restaurants with a workable framework for delivering that information. This legislation is a starting point for a bipartisan effort to address nutritional labeling. Senator Carper introduced the same legislation earlier this week in the Senate. With the introduction of the LEAN Act, I believe we have an opportunity to have a constructive national conversation about this important issue.

As we see in our own lives and daily eating habits, consumers increasingly choose to eat in restaurants. In my home State of Utah, restaurant jobs represent about 7.9 percent of the employment in my State. American adults buy a meal or a snack from a restaurant 5.8 times per week on average, and spend 48 percent of their food budget on food away from home, almost $1,078 per person annually. Unfortunately, we have also seen the toll diseases such as obesity and diabetes have taken on society. By providing nutritional information, individuals with special dietary needs will be able to make the right nutritional decisions for them regarding caloric intake or sodium levels.

I appreciate the interest and leadership some of my colleagues have demonstrated on this issue in the past. I believe my legislation represents a compromise effort that will allow consumers to make informed decisions while also providing for greater individual responsibility in dietary choices, Finally, I hope my colleagues will work with me on this piece of legislation and I look forward to building upon this legislation next year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2583, the ``Physician Workforce and Graduate Medical Education Enhancement Act.'' I am proud to join Representative Burgess as a lead sponsor of this legislation and want to thank him along with Chairman Dingell and the Energy and Commerce staff for moving this legislation forward.

Data shows that physicians typically will practice within 100 miles of where they train. While current residency training programs continue to excel at producing high quality physicians, they do not adequately distribute physicians to communities across the Nation. H.R. 2583 aims to create new residency programs in geographic regions that face physician shortages, especially those in the South, Southwest, Rocky Mountain, and West regions.

A major obstacle often preventing the establishment of new residency training programs are the costs associated with the creation of such programs. Under current law, a hospital starting a new residency program is not eligible immediately for direct graduate medical education or indirect medical education funding. This financing arrangement presents challenges for hospitals that operate on narrow margins, especially community hospitals that lack adequate reserve funds to offset the financial commitments associated with staffing a new residency program.

I believe this legislation provides the appropriate incentives that would lead to the creation of new residency training programs in geographic areas that lack an adequate supply of physicians, thus enhancing the Nation's ability to meet future physician workforce needs. If carried out over 10 years, the loan program established by the ``Physician Workforce and Graduate Medical Education Enhancement Act'' has the potential of assisting in the establishment of up to 50 new residency programs.

Thank you and I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 988, a resolution honoring MRSA awareness. I introduced this resolution with my colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Cubin. First, I would like to thank Representative Cubin for working with me on this resolution, as well as the staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee, several stakeholder organizations who advocated in support of this resolution, and most importantly over 80 of my colleagues who joined me on this resolution.

Since the 1940s, the widespread availability of antibiotics, such as penicillin, and the subsequent discovery of additional antibiotics have led to a dramatic reduction in illness and death from infectious diseases. Today, antibiotics continue to save lives and also have led to many other advances. However, bacteria and other infectious disease- causing organisms through mutation and other mechanisms are able to develop resistance to antimicrobial drugs. The more antimicrobials are used, whether appropriately or inappropriately, the quicker resistance develops. Worrisome recent examples of drug resistance which have been highlighted in the news include community-associated MRSA.

An October 2007 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that more than 94,000 invasive methicillin-resistant Staph aureus, MRSA, infections occurred in the United States in 2005. More than 18,500 of these infections ended in death. The CDC estimates that Americans visit doctors more than 12 million times per year for skin infections typical of those caused by staph bacteria. In some areas of the country, more than half of the skin infections are MRSA. In my home State of Utah, reported cases of MRSA are steadily rising. According to the Bureau of Epidemiology for the Utah Department of Health, there were 4,904 cases in 2006.

MRSA and other drug-resistant microbes that were once confined to ill hospital patients are now striking down otherwise healthy individuals, including schoolchildren, athletes and members of the Armed Forces. The resulting ``super infections'' are painful, difficult to treat, and cost billions of dollars to the U.S. health care system annually. Patient stories about this silent, yet sinister, pandemic are tragic and heart-wrenching. They should not go unnoticed and unanswered by Congress.

By bringing much needed attention to MRSA, this resolution will highlight the need for Congress and Federal health agencies to identify and coordinate efforts to address this growing problem.

Thank you and I urge my colleagues to support adoption of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, both for yielding the time, but more importantly I thank the chairman for his leadership on putting together a bill that really, I think, speaks to a number of issues that we all care about.

It's no surprise we're less than 50 days before an election that the rhetoric out here on the House floor may get a little hotter than usual, and on an issue as important as this, I think that's unfortunate.

I think if we can, for just a few moments, maybe set that aside and really take a look at what this bill is and talk about what's in the bill, I think that would be productive, because, you know, this bill actually takes ideas and clauses and sections from a lot of different bills that have been introduced by a lot of Members of Congress. There have been all kinds of energy bills introduced by Republicans, by Democrats. This particular bill we're talking about tonight incorporates a lot of those ideas, and that's a good thing, and it reflects a cross-section of the House of Representatives in terms of point of view.

If we take a look at this bill, you will see that there are Democrats and Republicans who could actually come together and agree on a lot of these things. I suspect with the election coming up we may have more of a partisan nature on this vote than we would like. At the end of the day, I think we all spent a lot of time in August meeting with our constituents. We all have had the experience of going to the pump and paying a lot more than we are used to and a lot more than we like, and we've all felt the pain of that process. We've talked to a lot of our constituents who have also felt the unease of that circumstance, and they are anxious about looking for opportunities to move beyond that.

That's what we're looking to do. I don't think my constituents think the government can wave a magic wand and solve all this. When I talk to my constituents, they know that this is a complicated issue, that it is going to take a comprehensive approach, and a lot of the solutions are going to come not necessarily from government but from the private sector, the innovators in our country. That's why this country has always done so well in global competitions through innovation.

I've met with various businesses in my own congressional district just in the last few weeks who are making remarkable progress on technological advances, and it's exciting. It's invigorating. We should be optimistic about the future when you see what's going on out there in the private sector right now to help new technology move forward. We shouldn't be on the blame game of who's responsible for this.

Our caucus leader, Mr. Emanuel, said that the oil crisis first started 35 years ago with the 1973 oil embargo. Different parties have been in power in the White House and in the Congress, and we can look back in hindsight and say there may have been a lot of decisions that should have been made but weren't, or other actions that should have happened but didn't.

The blame game is not particularly productive. What we ought to talk about doing is how do we move forward as a country? How do we set public privacy that allows the private sector to innovate? How do we make progress with new technology? How do we take ourselves to a new position where we are no longer dependent on foreign energy? That's the type of discussions I think most people around the country want us to have. That's the type of discussion we ought to be having here on the floor tonight. And I'm not hearing enough of that, quite frankly, from both sides of the aisle.

This bill does increase production. It opens up substantial amounts of the offshore resource for exploration. The bill also includes oil shale production. A lot of people on the other side of the aisle said it does not, but it does. It eliminates the moratorium. It gives the States the ability to opt in to do that. It is a huge potential resource.

It includes the important tax credit extensions that so many people in this body on both sides of the aisle support. Oh, I know there are things in this bill that probably every Member of Congress could come up with something they don't like. I'm sure every Member of Congress could come up with things they would like to see in this bill that are not in it tonight. When you try to put together a consensus bill, that's the nature of the process.

But this is an important step. It's a step that allows us to say we are moving ahead with domestic production, we're moving ahead on accruing new technology, we're moving ahead on trying to reduce our dependence on foreign supply.

Again, I commend the chairman for his leadership. I ask everyone to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize Chairman Oberstar of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for working with the Science and Technology Committee in such a cooperative and constructive manner on this bill, and I will insert an exchange of letters between the committees into the Record.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, July 22, 2008.

Hon. Bart Gordon,

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Gordon: I write to you regarding H.R. 3957, the ``Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Research Act.'' This legislation authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a research and development program to promote water use efficiency and conservation technologies and practices.

H.R. 3957 contains provisions that fall within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure. I recognize and appreciate your desire to

bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious

manner and, accordingly, I will not seek a sequential

referral of the bill. However, I agree to waive consideration

of this bill with the mutual understanding that my decision

to forego a sequential referral of the bill does not waive,

reduce, or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure over H.R. 3957.

Further, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees

during any House-Senate conference convened on this

legislation on provisions of the bill that are within the

Committee's jurisdiction. I ask for your commitment to

support any request by the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure for the appointment of conferees on H.R. 3957

or similar legislation.

Please place a copy of this letter and your response

acknowledging the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure's jurisdictional interest in the Committee

Report on H.R. 3957 and in the Congressional Record during

consideration of the measure on the House Floor.

I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

James L. Oberstar, M.C.,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3957) to increase research, development, education, and technology transfer activities related to water use efficiency and conservation technologies and practices at the Environmental Protection Agency, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3957, the bill now under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, dwindling water supplies are creating concern across this country. Thirty-six States are currently or expect to experience significant water shortages within the next 5 years. That's why I introduced H.R. 3957, the Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Act. This bill would establish a research and development program within the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development to promote water efficiency and conservation.

Madam Speaker, tough decisions lie ahead for water managers who must balance the needs of agriculture, consumption by cities, industrial and energy production, transportation, tourism, wastewater treatment, energy response, and ecosystems. We are not going to solve this problem overnight, but H.R. 3957 will provide us with several important tools to address the coming issues we face with technology and innovative thinking. By encouraging research and development into water-use efficiency, we can create a path to increase our Nation's water supply.

H.R. 3957 would expand EPA's scope and involvement solving the Nation's water crisis through the development of technologies and processes to expand water supplies through storage, treatment, and reuse of rainwater, storm water and grey water.

The program will also conduct research on water storage and distribution systems, research on behavioral, social, and economic barriers to achieving greater water efficiency, and research on the use of watershed planning.

As part of the program, EPA will develop a strategic plan to outline the best path forward to avoid duplication and work towards the most relevant problems facing our water supply.

My bill directs the EPA to facilitate the adoption of technology and processes to increase water efficiency and conservation. The new program will collect information on new technologies that achieve more efficient use of water and provide this information through a public clearinghouse.

I want to thank Chairman Gordon for his interest in this legislation and for his leadership in ensuring adequate water supply for the 21st century in this country. I also want to thank all of the members of the House Science and Technology Committee for their bipartisan support and for their collaboration--their thoughtful collaboration I would say--on this bill. In the full committee, amendments were adopted that were authored by Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Congressman Phil Gingrey, and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Their amendments made this a better bill, and I certainly appreciate their input.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just would encourage everyone to support this. The Science Committee reported this bill in a unanimous bipartisan vote. That's the tradition of the Science Committee to work in a bipartisan way.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2339) to encourage research, development, and demonstration of

technologies to facilitate the utilization of water produced in connection with the development of domestic energy resources, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2339, the bill now under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House will consider the bill, H.R. 2339, the Produced Water Utilization Act.

I particularly want to acknowledge and thank the ranking member, Mr. Hall from Texas, for introducing this bill. And I look forward to working with him on other water-related issues in the future.

Domestic production of oil, natural gas, and coal bed methane are essential to our Nation's economy. The term ``produced water'' refers to the water brought to the surface during the extraction of these fossil fuels. For every barrel of oil generated in the U.S., 10 barrels of produced water are created.

Since produced water comprises 98 percent of all waste generated by petroleum production activity, handling and disposal of this water can be a major impediment to efficiently increasing domestic oil production.

This bill before us, H.R. 2339, the Produced Water Utilization Act, creates a research, development, and demonstration program for beneficial water produced in connection with oil and gas extraction. The program will focus on improving safety and minimizing environmental impacts during produced water recovery.

The utilization of treated produced water will increase water supply, reduce injections into underground formations, and increase domestic energy production through cost reductions. At a time when water supplies are dwindling and oil prices are high, a research program to turn waste water into a clean reusable resource is just good common sense. I urge all Members to support H.R. 2339.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to organize a special order this hour on the part of the Blue Dog Coalition. The Blue Dogs wanted to take advantage of this opportunity tonight to speak about energy policy issues.

I think that there is no doubt that when it comes to domestic policy issues that this country faces, that energy policy is right at the top of the list. I think it is clear that this country should be looking for a comprehensive balanced energy policy, and I think that represents the type of politics the Blue Dogs in the House of Representatives have often supported.

We have a number of issues that we really want to work through tonight, and I have a number of my fellow Blue

Dog colleagues who are going to join me during this hour to talk about various energy policy issues. And I would like to start right now by recognizing my colleague from the State of Louisiana, one of the newest Members of the House, and someone who is prepared to really contribute on this issue, Representative Cazayoux from Louisiana.

I thank my colleague. And I appreciate the fact that my colleague from Louisiana highlighted the notion that there is not a single action that we need to take; that in fact we need a comprehensive effort, we need to look at a series of different opportunities to try to address both the supply and the demand side. And I appreciate his leadership on the issue and want to thank him for joining us in the Blue Dog hour.

Right now I recognize my colleague from Kansas, a long-time Blue Dog, Congressman Moore.

(Mr. MOORE of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Well, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for his thoughts, and I appreciate again the introduction of the notion that we need a comprehensive approach.

There is just not one silver bullet that's going to solve this circumstance. It really is consistent with what the Blue Dog energy principles that were adopted at the start of the 110th Congress say about fuel diversity, the recognition that long-term U.S. energy independence is going to come from putting everything on the table, everything from conventional oil and gas and from alternative sources such as oil shale and tar sands, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, coal, and biofuels. If we're really going to take this issue on, we've got to look at it in that comprehensive manner.

Again, the Blue Dogs have adopted a set of principles that recognize the value of a diverse fuel mix within this country as a long-term solution of creating energy security for this country.

With that, I now would like to welcome another fellow Blue Dog to speak, who is a fellow member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and who is cochair for communications for the Blue Dogs in this Congress-- Congressman Ross from Arkansas--who has in his years in Congress been a real leader on trying to address energy issues in this country. I welcome him to participate in this discussion.

With that, I will yield to him as much time as he would like to consume.

Well, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for spending time with us this evening but also for trying to take a thoughtful and comprehensive approach. That's really what Blue Dogs are about. I think we really try to discuss items in the context of policy.

I'd just like to introduce one other factor into this discussion about the high gas prices that we face today and what we can do in terms of the price of oil, and it's consistent with what Blue Dogs talk about a lot. People probably didn't think I'd raise the issue of fiscal responsibility relative to oil prices, but it turns out that there is a significant relationship here. It has to do with the fact that, during the current administration, so much more money has been borrowed.

When our current President took office, the national debt was around $6 trillion. We're approaching $10 trillion now. $4 trillion just in the last 7\1/2\ years. Do you know what that has done among many other things? It has created a weaker dollar. Now, oil is a global commodity. It's traded all over the world, and it's traded under one currency, and that's the U.S. dollar. That weaker dollar means that oil costs even more for us in this country than it does for other countries with stronger currencies.

I've brought with me tonight this chart to graphically demonstrate the relationship, according to the Energy Information Administration, between the lower dollar--the weaker dollar--and how much the price has gone up in terms of dollars per barrel. It's pretty self-evident that we had a strong dollar for a number of years. Then in the early part of this decade, as the debt started to increase, the value of the dollar dropped precipitously, and the price of oil went up at the same time.

It's not the only factor associated with how expensive oil is in the world today, but clearly, in all of the discussion that we've been having about why the oil price is so high in the world, in my opinion, this particular issue has not received much attention.

The Blue Dog Coalition has this fundamental principle about balancing budgets and about living within our means. We tell people that you may not see the impact of this debt right away, but here is an impact because, with all of that increased debt, we've had to borrow so much money as a country that we've weakened our currency relative to the rest of the world. Therefore, because that's how it's traded all over the world, the price of oil on a dollar-per-barrel basis has gone up a lot.

So I wanted to introduce this concept, which is very appropriate within a Blue Dog Special Order hour here on the floor of the House of Representatives, to talk about the linkage between the need for fiscal responsibility and how it affects energy prices, which is something that, I think, ought to be part of this debate as well.

With that, I'd like to yield time to another one of my fellow Blue Dogs, another individual who is very thoughtful and measured in his approach, and that's the type of approach we need for a comprehensive energy policy. He is my colleague Mr. Scott from the State of Georgia.

Well, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his thoughtful comments tonight. And it is no surprise. He's always been someone who tries to understand issues well. His comments really reflect a couple of the basic principles. You know, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the Blue Dog Coalition published a set of energy principles at the start of this Congress, and I think my colleague, Mr. Scott, really touched on two of the important components of those principles.

The first is that the Blue Dogs believe in the value of technology development, and energy policy should build on American strengths. One of the great things about this country is its ability to innovate. Research and development capability of this country surpasses any place in the world. Whenever this country has applied itself to solve a problem, it succeeds so well. And that type of innovation is what is going to allow technology to take us to a different place than we are today.

And I think Mr. Scott discussed some of those potential technologies in which he's familiar, and there is no question in the long run, if we are going to get to a position where this country is not as dependent on foreign oil, we need technology to take us to a new place in terms of particularly how our transportation and infrastructure are going to operate.

And the second Blue Dog energy principle I think Mr. Scott touched on very well is this notion of efficiency. You know, if you can do more with less, we all win. We use less energy, we save money, it's good for the environment. Energy-efficient technologies and energy conservation are other pieces to this puzzle.

I think an overriding thing we've said throughout this discussion tonight is that there is no single option here. There is no silver bullet. We, as Blue Dogs, support the furtherance of energy-efficient technologies. We think that we can continue to make progress and push the envelope and that, again, as a country that leads the world in innovation, we can also lead in terms of continuing to be more efficient in how we use energy.

Again, I thank Mr. Scott for his comments. As usual, very consistent with Blue Dog principles, and again, it helps further this debate about how we ought to move ahead in our national energy policy.

With that, I would like to recognize another of my fellow Blue Dogs, someone who has invested a lot of time and effort to develop an understanding of the energy issues and is a real substantive contributor to the policy debate, and that is my colleague from South Dakota, Representative Herseth Sandlin.

I will yield her as much time as she may consume.

Well, I want to thank my colleague from South Dakota who is always a very substantive participant in any public policy discussion we have here in Congress, and I know she's invested a lot of time and effort when it comes to the energy issue. I really appreciate her participating in this Blue Dog discussion.

There are a couple of points that were raised by my colleague from South Dakota that I think merit one more mention. The discussion of what we've done in this Congress, there have been some actions that have been taken, and one of them is going to bear fruit in the long run. We're not going to see a result right now. It's a process that came out of the Science Committee, of which I'm a member.

The chairman of that committee, Mr. Gordon, another Blue Dog, pursued a really aggressive effort to invest in basic research, in R&D, tried to put Federal funding out there to really get things going in a more aggressive way than it has in the past. He created a program called ARPA-E. It's designed after a previously created program within the Defense Department that's called DARPA, which created a lot of research that's helped us with technology advancements in the defense arena. And this legislation created a comparable effort in the energy policy arena, and our Blue Dog colleague, Mr. Gordon, has been a real leader on that. And that is another action this Congress has taken that is an important step to take. And I know we're frustrated by $4 gas today, and that program, the ARPA-E program, is not going to reduce the price of gas next month. I understand that.

But the point is there are a series of steps we need to take. There's some short-term, some mid-term, some long-term strategies, but we need to put them all on the table now. We need to do what we can do to make progress on this issue.

The second point that my colleague from South Dakota said--and I just want to emphasize--is she talked about opportunities and activities that we can work with our partners, including in Canada. When she mentioned Canada, it reminded me of the fact that as a country Canada has placed a tremendous emphasis on developing their tar sands resources.

Now, I represent the State of Utah and a significant amount of the oil that is refined in refineries located right in the Salt Lake City area comes from Canada. It comes from the tar sand resource in Canada, and it is piped to the United States.

Now, we can do that here, too. We can maybe take a page out of the Canadian book on how they, as a country, made efforts to develop that resource. It's an unconventional resource, and they took the steps and they made a significant commitment. It has not been without costs. It has not been without setbacks. There are lessons to be learned there, too, which we as a country should do.

And I understand that the tar sand resource we have in the United States--and we have it in my own State of Utah--is a little bit different composition than the Canadian tar sands. I understand that there are differences, but there's so much that we can learn from that, and it's a viable source of production today in Canada.

And so I appreciate the mention of how we can learn from others and learn from our partners, and I don't know if you had something you wanted to add to that point.

I appreciate that. I'd like to hear from Mr. Scott.

I again thank my colleague for his comments. I think that he has helped describe the global picture. We haven't discussed that enough about we're part of a global market. And it's important for us to take the lead and develop fuel diversity and try to develop some level of greater independence, because outside of that, in some respects our actions are the tail wagging the dog. And we need to get beyond that as a country. That's not a comfortable position for this country to be in.

The first sentence of the Energy Principles Document that the Blue Dogs created at the start of this Congress is that energy independence is a matter of national security and economic security. This country faces so many great opportunities if technology does take us to a new place. We will be in such a better position in terms of our economy, in terms of our foreign policy, in terms of our position in the world. And we can make the world a better place with that technology development, too. That's the exciting opportunity for beyond our borders as well.

Blue Dogs supports promotion of a forward-looking, market-based comprehensive national energy strategy. As we've discussed many times tonight, there are short-term, mid-term and long-term issues. It's a complicated issue. In fact, each of the sub-issues on their own are complicated in their nature. And sometimes in the world of politics the rhetoric gets really simple. But on this one, it's time for us to roll up our sleeves and act in a way this body is supposed to act, in a deliberative, thoughtful way to generate comprehensive legislation that truly tries to solve problems and achieve progress. That's what we're elected to do. I think the Blue Dog Coalition approaches most issues in that way. I think we really don't care about if it's a Democratic idea or a Republican idea, we're trying to make progress.

And so as I close this hour and this discussion of energy issues, I suspect

that we will be back talking about this again. This issue is not going away. It's something that we all need to learn more about and we all need to work together. None of us have all the answers, but we need to work together as a Congress to try to find solutions as best we can.

With that, I thank all of my Blue Dog colleagues for joining me tonight.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important first step. This bill asks the CFTC to exercise its ability to determine if undue speculation is having an impact on oil prices in this country. We've heard witnesses before the House of Representatives testify before different committees that suggest this could be upwards of $50 of the price per barrel right now may be due to this type of activity. So I think it's important we take this first step.

But I call it a first step. I would encourage our colleagues to continue to work together in a consensus way to have a productive effort in closing what's called the London loophole.

I, along with many other Members in this body, have put forth legislation to stop unwarranted speculation in foreign financial markets. Such legislation may be the best available option we have got here in Congress to address oil prices in the short-term.

When we do address this issue more fully, however, though, I also want to offer a word of caution. We should be careful not to be too overzealous. While we need to address the London loophole, we must make sure we do not take action that would damage our market-based economy.

And finally, I will say this. While we do work on market manipulation, we also need to recognize Congress has other issues to deal with when it comes to the oil price issue. There is no one single factor. As much as folks come down on the floor of the House at times to talk about just one issue, this is a very complex issue that has many dynamics affecting the global price of oil.

I think market manipulation is an important one for us to consider, but we also need to look at a more comprehensive package of issues to try to fully address this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you tonight to lead a discussion among the Blue Dog Coalition as we talk about issues of fiscal responsibility, pursuing a balanced budget, and doing the right thing for future generations.

I would like to open this discussion by recognizing one of my colleagues, one of the newest members of the Blue Dogs, Mr. Cazayoux from Louisiana, and I would yield to him as much time as he may consume.

I thank my colleague for his comments, a new Member of this body, but someone who recognizes the importance of fiscal responsibility.

I think that it's important to expand on what PAYGO is. This is a term that gets thrown around a lot in Washington, but we really ought to review what it means. And at its basis, it's a pretty simple concept, and that is that if you have new spending, you've got to pay for it. You've got to pay for it by cutting spending elsewhere or raising revenues, but you've got to pay for it.

And, you know, this isn't a new concept even here in Washington. It turns out back in 1990, during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, Congress passed legislation to put a pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, policy into effect. And at that time, Congress came together in a bipartisan way and then President Bush signed that into law.

And when it was passed, it put us on a path to where decisions had to be made where you had to live within a budget. Everybody in this town can come up with a new idea about how to spend money, both sides of the aisle, everyone can come up with those ideas. It's easy to say yes to that. It's a lot more difficult to say, you know what, we're going to live within a budget. But you know what, we ought to be doing that because that's what everyone in this country does, everyone who runs a business, everyone in their own household budget, everybody does that.

So let's look at what happened after passage of that law in 1990. There were a number of other things that happened during the decade of the 1990s. There was a strong economic growth period, the dot-com industry really took off, and a whole series of reasons, including restraint on spending in Washington, allowed us to move from annual deficits to annual surpluses. It was a remarkable period in our country's history to have that transition take place. And it was an exciting time for this country. And it was good for the government's books to be balanced and it was good for our economy, and it led to a stronger dollar. I mention that, and we'll come back to that later in this discussion, because today we all know we're suffering from a rather low dollar situation in the global economy.

So if that was such a good idea, if it worked so well, why is it that we aren't having both the House and the Senate live by that same law today? Well, it turns out that law expired at the end of 2001. And that was really unfortunate that it did because it provided that set of constraints, if you will, on Washington--on Congress, on the President, on everybody, on Democrats, on Republicans. It provided that constraint that asked people to live within a budget.

And after it expired, I think we all know what happened. You had over 6 years, 2001 through 2006, you had an explosion of spending. You had an explosion of debt. Annual deficits were so large. And over those 6 years, our national debt went from $6 trillion to $9 trillion. Now, you throw these numbers around, it almost gets to the point where it's hard to recognize what they really mean. But I think we all know a trillion dollars is a lot of money. And I think we all know that when you have $6 trillion created through the whole country's history through the first 42 Presidents, and then during the first 6 years of the 43rd President you add another $3 trillion, you're adding a lot of debt in a short amount of time. And PAYGO didn't exist. Spending took off at a huge rate, greatest increase in government spending since the 1960s, in fact.

That is what happened during those first 6 years. And the Blue Dog Coalition during all that time said, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let's not get into a deficit mode again. Let's not create more debt that creates a burden on future generations who have to pay the interest on that debt. Let's not ensure high taxes on future generations to pay the interest on the debt. Let's recognize that we have an obligation to future generations that they shouldn't have to pay for obligations that we have created on our watch.

But we could never get the PAYGO principles put back into place. We couldn't get a vote to put it into statute. We couldn't get it in a rule of the House of Representatives, either, until January of 2007. There was a change in control in the House of Representatives. And on the first day when we were all sworn in here to take the oath of office for the 110th Congress, we set the rules that we are going to work under during that 2-year session. And in that rule, pay-as-you-go was put in place for the House of Representatives.

And I am really proud of the Blue Dog Coalition for taking the lead on pushing that rule to be put in place. It is not easy to live under a budget. The PAYGO rule has been attacked. And yes, there have been a couple of circumstances where it has been waived. But I think that the Blue Dog Coalition deserves a lot of credit for taking a stand, forcing the tough decisions, and quite frankly, creating the dynamic where I think there has been a real restraint on this body in terms of what could have happened instead in terms of additional spending and adding to our national debt.

It is at the start of a real challenging period we face in this country, because we all know that as baby boomers retire and additional pressures occur on Social Security and Medicare that it is going to take a very thoughtful and aggressive effort by this body in a bipartisan way to navigate through that challenge and make sure that we maintain fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility. And pay-as-you- go, the PAYGO principles, provide a tool. They provide a tool that would benefit all of us.

So this isn't really, again, about Democrats or Republicans. This isn't about trying to place blame on people or anything else. It is really just talking about the fact that if you look at the way we are set up in this country as a government, in the Federal side we are allowed to run deficits. You can have deficits if you don't bring in as much revenues as you spend. In a lot of States, they have constitutional amendments that require a balanced budget. That doesn't exist here in Washington.

As a result, as I said earlier, it is easy to spend money. And over the years both parties have shown an ability to spend money. There's no doubt about that. And so we need this external constraint, if you will, of pay-as-you-go. And I will go beyond that to say the Blue Dogs support a balanced budget, as well. That is one of the guiding principles of the Blue Dog Coalition, is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It takes a long time to amend the Constitution. It takes many years to get enough States to ratify and whatnot. And that is an important goal. But pay-as-you-go we can do right away. We've had it as a rule in the House. We would like to see it as a law. We want a statute passed by the House and the Senate because it will serve us all so well.

I will close with one more comment. And I will recognize a couple of my colleagues from the Blue Dog Coalition to participate in this discussion. But I just want to come back, as I mentioned, to the issue of the low dollar we have today. When you're borrowing lots of money, and the United States has been borrowing a lot of money from foreign lenders, that devalues the dollar. It's a supply-and-demand issue. And we're having to borrow to pay for so much in this country. And we know that that low dollar has had some serious implications for us. Oil is priced on a dollar-per-barrel basis. The global market is one market for everybody. And as other currencies in the world go up, as the dollar goes down, that means the price per barrel in dollars is going up. That's just one example of where a low-dollar policy can have a serious impact on our economy and on the daily lives of all of us.

A strong dollar and a dollar that we can be proud of can be reinforced by public policy that encourages balanced budgets. A government that lives within its means has a stronger currency. And again, that shouldn't be about Democrats or Republicans, or the left or the right. That's about what's right for this country. And that's what the Blue Dogs are about. And that's why I'm proud to be a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, because the Blue Dogs like to look out for what's right for this country. And they take an independent approach. And they want to sit down, roll up their sleeves, tackle these issues and work with everybody on these issues.

So that's why we are here tonight, to talk about pay-as-you-go, to talk about the benefits of this country. I have been joined by some of my other Blue Dog colleagues. And I would like to now recognize my good friend and colleague from the State of Georgia, Representative David Scott, for as much time as he might consume.

I want to thank my colleague from Georgia for those words. He is an excellent member of the Blue Dog Coalition.

And Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield back my portion to let Mr. Boyd control the rest of the 60 minutes if I could.

Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot of concern about PAYGO. I have to tell you that when it comes to having credibility on this issue, as someone who is not a particularly partisan person, I always like to work on both sides of the aisle, I am a little upset that we are hearing this criticism about PAYGO from a group of folks who when they were in charge let the law expire.

It is a law that existed for 12 years. It helped move us from deficits to surpluses. It moved us on the glide path to where we wouldn't be burdening future generations with debt, and that law expired. The bottom line is that law as it was written would have allowed this unemployment compensation legislation to go through under emergency spending.

Now, the way that the law is written in this Congress, quite frankly, I think the law wasn't crafted properly because it should have allowed this to be emergency spending. That is why I, as a Blue Dog, am comfortable with this bill.

But let me assure you, actions speak louder than words. There are so many words that get thrown out on the floor of the House, but actions speak louder than words. And the actions are this: who cares about deficits, who thinks deficits matter? I am not sure that the other side of the aisle does, and their track record demonstrates that.

We've seen debt go up by $3 trillion during the first 6 years of the Bush administration with a Republican Congress. Come on, we shouldn't be criticized about our good-faith efforts to try to encourage PAYGO and live within our means. If we have not been perfect on this side of the aisle, we have made the effort. And I have heard no response from the other side whenever we bring up a bill that is paid for to offer an alternative that is also paid for.

So if you really care about your future generations, which I do, I think of my two young sons, and I think about the debt burden that we are placing on them, I think that we have a moral obligation to do the right thing for future generations.

So please, let's tone down the rhetoric a little and let's acknowledge that if you really care about deficits, instead of just talking about it, do something about it.

This side of the aisle has attempted to do something about it in this Congress. They established a PAYGO rule. I am proud of the fact that the Democratic Caucus has done that, and we should all work together because it shouldn't be a partisan issue. If you care about deficits, whether you're Democrat or Republican, let's work together and let's secure the future for our children.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, this amendment is an effort to refine the reporting of requirements in the legislation for schools that receive grants under this program relative to the flooring that is installed in these schools.

Schools and local educational agencies receiving grants under this bill would report if they install flooring, whether it was low or no volatile organic compounds flooring; whether it was made from sustainable materials, and report on the cost effective nature of that decision to install that type of flooring.

I just want to be clear though. This amendment is not a mandate. It doesn't require schools to install any particular type of flooring. It really is a purpose just to gather information to find out if or not this material has been used in the installation process.

One of the motivations behind this amendment is to ensure that we raise this issue about the opportunity for both children and teachers who are in schools, that they are put in the best learning and teaching environment possible. The reason for that is because materials such as flooring in some schools can contain potentially unhealthy levels of volatile organic compounds that can lead to unsafe indoor air quality for both students and teachers.

Again, I think this is a relatively straightforward amendment just to increase the reporting requirements to say what happened in terms of how the flooring was required. It does not require any particular type of flooring to be installed, but it helps us gather information and raise awareness about the benefits of using low or no volatile organic compound flooring.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Just very briefly, Madam Chairman.

Last week, I had the opportunity to visit Daybreak Elementary School in West Jordan, Utah, the first LEED-certified school in our State. In that location this school used low VOC paint and carpet.

I think that there are a number of issues we need to be talking about in this Congress today. But I do think the notion of having a safe indoor environment for teachers and students has merit, and actually collecting data and reporting what type of materials are used in school construction makes sense.

I urge adoption of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

First I would like to commend Chairwoman Velazquez, Ranking Member Chabot and the Small Business Committee, as well as Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall and the Science and Technology Committee, for all their hard work in bringing this important bill to the floor today.

I think we all agree that the U.S. economy is built on the growth and success of small businesses and we in Congress should continue to look for ways that we can support small business so it can succeed. That is why I am offering an amendment to H.R. 5819 today.

My amendment helps incentivize energy efficient practices for small businesses by rewarding business that seek to reduce their costs through a reduced carbon footprint. This amendment gives priorities to applicants of SBIR, STTR and FAST grants that have demonstrated an ability to reduce their carbon footprint.

Many small businesses have already developed practices to reduce their carbon footprint. By adopting energy efficient practices, they are reducing costs

for themselves in the long run and making themselves more competitive with other businesses.

A number of companies in my home State of Utah have benefited from SBIR grants. One such company is TechniScan, which has developed a technology intended to aid physicians in diagnosing breast cancer. It has already adopted certain practices to reduce its energy usage and hence reduce its carbon footprint.

Many other small businesses across the country have likewise reduced their carbon footprint and would therefore be given priority for receiving these grants under my amendment.

I have worked to help government and private entities alike conserve energy. As cochair of the Green Schools Caucus, I have worked with schools to become more energy efficient, which reduces their costs. Small businesses that also seek to reduce their carbon footprint should be rewarded for their efforts as well.

This amendment will help position small businesses better as they continue to grow and expand while reducing their energy costs.

Again, thank you to Chairwoman Velazquez, Ranking Member Chabot, Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished Chair of the Small Busi- ness Committee, Congresswoman Velazquez.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of an important program to my district and my state which has been consistently flat funded for the past seven years: the Head Start program. As you know, Head Start is an early childhood program with a proven track record of providing comprehensive developmental, educational, health, nutritional, and social services to low-income preschool children and their families, giving them the tools they need to succeed. By emphasizing parental involvement, Head Start also benefits the entire family and the broader community. For decades, Head Start has served thousands low-income children and their families in Utah, ensuring that they are educationally, socially and medically ready for school.

I have always been a strong supporter of Head Start. After years of stalemate on proposed changes to the program, I was pleased to vote for a reauthorization this May, and again in final passage this November, that includes expanded coverage for low-income children, increased funding for teacher and staff salaries and professional development, and strong accountability measures to better ensure that Head Start funds are used appropriately and efficiently. This bill, HR 1429, was signed into law by the President on December 12, 2007.

I have appreciated working with countless Utah parents, teachers, and administrators on the importance of the program but also on ways to make it stronger and meet the needs of the community. These perspectives and stories have enhanced my understanding of the valuable role Head Start plays in the lives of disadvantaged children. I believe that Head Start is a program with a long-term record of success with enrollment correlating to IQ gains, improved high school graduation rates and higher achievement in writing, vocabulary and social skills.

I applaud my colleague, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for calling attention to this important program.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 2464, the Wakefield Act. I am the lead sponsor of this legislation, along with Representative Peter T. King on the other side of the aisle.

Today, the hospital emergency department is such a fundamental part of our health system that it's easy to forget that emergency medicine is a relatively new specialty. Emergency rooms were first established in the 1970s as medical personnel returned from the Vietnam War. The skills developed to save soldiers' lives on the battlefield were being put to use saving victims of car crashes and other traumas.

However, the bodies of adult soldiers are very different from those of kids. By the early 1980s, doctors were seeing marked disparities in survival rates among adults and children with similar injuries. In fact, kids had twice the death rate in emergencies as adults.

In 1984, the Emergency Medical Services for Children program was first created. This unique act has driven fundamental changes in America's emergency medical system. Since it was established, child injury death rates have dropped 40 percent. The research that resulted from this legislation helped establish pediatric emergency medicine as its own specialty.

Program grants have provided seed money to every State and territory to help first responders and hospitals improve children's emergency care. In the mid-1980s, emergency personnel received little training in caring for children. Now, thanks to this program, paramedics can be exclusively trained, and their ambulances are stocked with the equipment and supplies needed by seriously injured kids.

Nowhere has this been more critical than in rural areas where the closest emergency room is often many miles from the scene of an accident. Getting it right for these small patients in the first critical minutes often means the difference between life and death.

Data collection and training seminars offered under this program, including from the Emergency Medical Services for Children Data Analysis Resource Center based in my district at the University of Utah, help ensure that best practices are developed and disseminated across the country.

The Emergency Medical Services for Children program's authorization expired in September 2005. In the summer of 2006, the Institutes of Medicine released a report which documented the value of this program. It noted the gaps that still remain in providing quality emergency care for children. And there is still a serious gap between the percentage of kids who end up in the emergency room and the percentage of emergency rooms staffed, trained and equipped to respond appropriately. The report said this program is ``well positioned to assume a leadership role'' in closing this gap.

I am pleased that H.R. 2464, the Wakefield Act, has bipartisan and bicameral support, including support from 75 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives. The bill is endorsed by over 50 organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Medical Association, the Emergency Nurses Association, and many more.

Madam Speaker, this legislation enhances the program by authorizing the appropriate funding needed to ensure

the program can drive improvements in emergency and disaster care for children.

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the bipartisan nature in which this bill moved through our committee, working on both sides of the aisle within the Energy and Commerce Committee. We worked together to make this bill as good as it can be.

Madam Speaker, nobody likes to see a child get hurt. Together, we can assure that when that happens, children have the best possible chance for recovery and a good outcome. I strongly urge the adoption of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.