Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be up here today to support H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. It has been a long time coming. I am glad we are considering this bill on the floor so early in this Congress, when we spent most of the last 2 years trying to enact it. I think it says something very positive about the commitment of this new Congress and of our new President to improving health care for all Americans.

H.R. 2 will allow us to enroll 4 million more kids in programs like Georgia's PeachCare who are just as eligible as the 7 million kids already enrolled. It is not a free lunch. Parents will still have to pay what they can afford to pay, but the kids will be able to go to the doctor, where they get good preventive care at the lowest cost, and keep them out of the emergency room, where they get the least effective care at the greatest possible cost to the taxpayer. That is more health care, better outcomes, at less cost. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do, and that is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 43 honoring the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and thanking those who continue to honor his memory by giving back to the communities in which they live.

Dr. King once said, ``Life's most persistent and urgent question is, `What are you doing for others?' '' Enacted in 1994 by Congress, the Martin Luther King, Jr., Day of Service was started to honor Dr. King's legacy by giving folks the opportunity to answer that question. Its theme, ``Make it a Day On, not a Day Off,'' urges Americans everywhere to spend their day off working to create a better society--as Dr. King did.

Despite all the hardships and discrimination he experienced in his lifetime, Dr. King never lost his profound love for all mankind. I'd like to thank those Americans who spend their holiday volunteering in their communities, helping out their brothers and their sisters. Your selflessness and sense of civic duty move America one step closer to Dr. King's vision of the ``Beloved Community.'' That is worth a day's work from any of us.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 34, supporting Israel and its government's right to defend itself against attacks from Hamas.

The relationship between the United States and Israel is based on a shared commitment to democratic values. Israel has stood on the front lines in confronting those who would use terror against civilians as a means of bringing about political change. During that time, the United States has stood for the political independence and physical security of Israel.

A government's first responsibility is to defend its citizens, and Israel has the same right and obligation to protect her people. If our people were being terrorized daily by a barrage of rocket fire, we would certainly act to defend ourselves, and we would expect no less of our Government.

Those who truly value peace and democracy are united in the belief that the only remedy to this crisis is a successful peace process. Working for peace is not an alternative to security, but is part of security. Without a peace process, and ultimately without peace, Israel remains insecure. That's why I rise in support of H. Res 34, recognizing Israel's right to defend herself, and that's why I voice my continued support for peace negotiations between Israel and Hamas. I hope that we can all look forward to the day when our countries will be able to devote less of our national treasures to the vital work of survival and self defense, and be able, instead, to devote ourselves to more profitable enterprises.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a milestone in the aviation industry and in Savannah, Georgia: the 50th anniversary of flight for Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, a world-class company that has become the leader in business aviation.

Fifty years ago, Grumman Aerospace was based in Bethpage, New York. That year, Grumman test pilots Carl Alber and Fred Rowley took the first aircraft specifically designed for business travel--the Gulfstream I twin-engine turboprop--on its maiden flight.

Since that first flight, Grumman Aerospace has become Gulfstream Aerospace, a company with a strong Savannah presence. Over the past 50 years--40 of those years in Savannah--Gulfstream has manufactured more than 1,800 aircraft. Thirty-four governments operate Gulfstream jets, and 22 countries use Gulfstream aircraft to transport their heads-of- state.

Today, Gulfstream employs more than 6,000 people in Savannah alone, making it the city's largest manufacturing employer. And Gulfstream is committed to Savannah's future. Their long-range facilities master plan calls for an investment of more than $400 million over seven years. Gulfstream announced their plan in March of 2006 and is already well on its way to completing it.

On August 22 of this year, Gulfstream dedicated the second phase of its Research and Development Center, which is part of that master plan. I had the honor of attending that event, and I look forward to attending more like it in the years to come.

I congratulate the employees of Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, and its parent company General Dynamics, on the 50th anniversary of Gulfstream flight. And I commend them for their commitment to the aviation industry and to their community. Congratulations on a job well done!

Madam Speaker, due to a death in my family, I was absent from the House of Representatives on Tuesday, July 29, and part of Wednesday, July 30, and missed several rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: H.R. 6445--yes; H.R. 6604--yes; H. Res. 1370--yes; H.R. 5892--yes; H. Con. Res. 398-- yes; H.R. 2192--yes; H.R. 6113--yes; and H.R. 2490--yes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend Mr. Stupak for his work on this issue over the years. Like Mr. Stupak, I have been working to restore the full veteran mileage reimbursement benefits since I got to Congress, and the deductible is a big part of the problem. I won't be satisfied until we get rid of the deductible altogether, and this is a big step in the right direction.

Last year the House adopted my bill, the Disabled Veterans Fairness Act, as an amendment to the Wounded Warriors Assistance Act. My bill would completely eliminate the deductible and fully restore the reimbursement rate to the level paid to Federal civil servants. But the other body wouldn't go along. As a result, the reimbursement rate was raised from 11 cents per

mile to 28.5 cents per mile, the first increase in 30 years. However, the secretary of the VA increased the deductible from $6 a round trip to $15 a round trip.

Under this bill, all veterans who currently get a travel expense reimbursement will get an increase from 28.5 cents per mile to 41.5 cents per mile. This amendment will prevent the secretary of the VA from taking any of that back by increasing the deductible. We ought to do a better job taking care of those who gave us the best years of their lives taking care of us.

This change won't completely close the gap between what has been promised and what has been delivered, but it will definitely help. That's what our amendment will do, that's why it's a good idea, and that's why I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6578) to provide for the sale of light grade petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and its replacement with heavy grade petroleum, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, gas prices are outrageous and we need to act. Families are hurting and are looking to us to do anything and everything that can help.

There's no silver bullet, but there sure are things we can be doing better. One way is to make better use of our energy feedstocks, use what we ought to use today and save what we need to save for tomorrow.

The goal of this bill, H.R. 6578, the Consumer Energy Supply Act, is simple: to increase the supply of oil in the United States that can be refined into gas. The bill will direct the Department of Energy to release 70 million barrels of light sweet crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The bill requires the sale or exchange of light sweet crude to begin 15 days after enactment and to be completed within 6 months. Under the bill the revenue from the release will go into the SPR petroleum account to purchase more oil so the SPR will end up with more oil than it started out with. The bill will make sure that the SPR level will not fall below 90 percent of the current level during the exchange.

Now, the type of oil that will be released from the SPR is light sweet crude, which is the easiest and the cheapest to turn into gas.

And the oil that will replace the light oil will be heavy sour crude which happens to be the oil that is best suited to be refined into diesel.

What we need more of in this country is the highest and best use of all of our energy feedstocks. And this bill takes the oil that we pump back into the ground to save for later and puts that oil to its highest and best use right now and replaces that oil with oil whose highest and best use is to be held in reserve for a true national emergency.

This bill makes it easier and cheaper to get this fuel to the market right now while making sure we aren't putting our future needs at risk. We need to use today what is good for today and save for tomorrow what is good for tomorrow. Because our refineries need more oil they can refine quickly to get gas and diesel on the market, this bill gives it to them. Adding heavy sour crude to the SPR in its place will make sure that the SPR will be more effective if a real emergency arises. That is because the heavy oil we will be swapping for light oil can be refined to the diesel fuel needed to power our trucks, our trains and our military needs in times of a true emergency.

In April this year, the acting director for natural resources of the Government Accountability Office, Frank Rusco, gave Congress a detailed report to modernize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and improve its flexibility and effectiveness. The Department of Energy has completed a study in 2005 which produced similar conclusions. This legislation will ensure that the SPR is more reflective of our Nation's modern refining capacity and that its strategic capabilities are better used while providing more oil available for refining right here in the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit these two documents for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will ease market tensions. It will help unlock some of the value in the SPR without negatively affecting the overall capacity or our strategic reserve policy. A release from the SPR will also help reduce the effects of market speculation on oil prices by sending the message that Congress is prepared to defend American families and businesses from these corrosive prices. That is what this bill will do. That is why it is a good idea for us to pass it. And that is why I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

[From the United States Government Accountability Office]

Testimony Before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global

Warming, House of Representatives

Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Improving the Cost Effectiveness of

Filling the Reserve

(Statement of Frank Rusco, Acting Director Natural Resources and

Environment)

Why GAO Did This Study

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was created in 1975

to help protect the U.S. economy from oil supply disruptions

and currently holds about 700 million barrels of crude oil.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Department of

Energy (DOE) to increase the SPR storage capacity from 727

million barrels to 1 billion barrels, which it plans to

accomplish by 2018. Since 1999, oil for the SPR has generally

been obtained through the royalty-in-kind program, whereby

the government receives oil instead of cash for payment of

royalties on leases of federal property. The Department of

Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) collects the

royalty oil and transfers it to DOE, which then trades it for

oil suitable for the SPR.

As DOE begins to expand the SPR, past experiences can help

inform future efforts to fill the reserve in the most cost-

effective manner. In that context, GAO's testimony today will

focus on: (1) Factors GAO recommends DOE consider when

filling the SPR, and (2) the cost-effectiveness of using oil

received through the royalty-in-kind program to fill the SPR.

To address these issues, GAO relied on its 2006 report on

the SPR, as well as its ongoing review of the royalty-in-kind

program, where GAO interviewed officials at both DOE and MMS,

and reviewed DOE's SPR policies and procedures. DOE provided

comments on a draft of this testimony, which we incorporated

where appropriate.

What GAO Found

To decrease the cost of filling the reserve and improve its

efficiency, GAO recommended in previous work that DOE should

include at least 10 percent heavy crude oil in the SPR. If

DOE bought 100 million barrels of heavy crude oil during its

expansion of the SPR it could save over $1 billion in nominal

terms, assuming a price differential of $12 between the price

of light crude oil and the lower price of heavy crude oil,

the average differential over the last five years. Having

heavy crude oil in the SPR would also make the SPR more

compatible with many U.S. refineries, helping these

refineries run more efficiently in the event that a supply

disruption triggers use of the SPR. DOE indicated that, due

to the planned SPR expansion, determinations of the amount of

heavy oil to include in the SPR should wait until it prepares

a new study of U.S. Gulf Coast refining requirements. In

addition, we recommended

that DOE consider acquiring a steady dollar value--rather

than a steady volume--of oil over time when filling the SPR.

This ``dollar-cost-averaging'' approach would allow DOE to

acquire more oil when prices are low and less when prices are

high. GAO found that if DOE had used this purchasing approach

between October 2001 through August 2005, it could have saved

approximately $590 million, or over 10 percent, in fill

costs. GAO's simulations indicate that DOE could save money

using this approach for future SPR fills, regardless of

whether oil prices are trending up or down as long as there

is price volatility. GAO also recommends that DOE consider

giving companies participating in the royalty-in-kind program

additional flexibility to defer oil deliveries in exchange

for providing additional barrels of oil. DOE has granted

limited deferrals in the past, and expanding their use could

further decrease SPR fill costs. While DOE indicated that its

November 2006 rule on SPR acquisition procedures addressed

our recommendations, this rule does not specifically address

how to implement a dollar-cost-averaging strategy.

Purchasing oil to fill the SPR--as DOE did until 1994--is

likely to be more cost-effective than exchanging oil from the

royalty-in-kind program for other oil to fill the SPR. The

latter method adds administrative complexity to the task of

filling the SPR, increasing the potential for waste and

inefficiency. A January 2008 DOE Inspector General report

found that DOE is unable to ensure that it receives all of

the royalty oil that MMS provides. In addition, we found that

DOE's method for evaluating bids has been more robust for

cash purchases than royalty-in-kind exchanges, increasing the

likelihood that cash purchases are more cost-effective. For

example, in April 2007, DOE solicited two different types of

bids--one to purchase oil for the SPR in cash and one to

exchange royalty oil for other oil to fill the SPR. DOE

rejected offers to purchase oil when the spot price was about

$69 per barrel, yet in the same month, DOE exchanged royalty-

in-kind oil for other oil to put in the SPR at about the same

price. Because the government would have otherwise sold this

royalty-in-kind oil, DOE committed the government to pay,

through forgone revenues to the U.S. Treasury, roughly the

same price per barrel that DOE concluded was too high to

purchase directly.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

We are pleased to be here today to participate in the

Committee's hearing on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).

Congress authorized the SPR in 1975 to protect the nation

from oil supply disruptions following the Arab oil embargo of

1973 and 1974 that led to sharp increases in oil prices. The

federal government owns the SPR, and the Department of Energy

(DOE) operates it. The SPR currently has the capacity to

store up to 727 million barrels of crude oil in salt caverns

in Texas and Louisiana. As of April 21, 2008, current

inventory of the SPR stood at 701.3 million barrels of oil,

which is roughly equivalent to 58 days of net oil imports.

DOE made direct purchases of crude oil until 1994, when

purchases were suspended due to the federal budget deficit,

and in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 approximately 28 million

barrels of oil were sold to reduce the deficit. Since DOE

resumed filling the SPR in 1999, it has obtained oil from the

Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service

(MMS) ``royalty-in-kind'' program. Through this program, the

MMS receives oil instead of cash for payments of royalties

from companies that lease federal property for oil and gas

development. MMS contracts for some of this royalty oil to be

delivered to designated oil terminal locations or ``market

centers'' where DOE takes possession. Because the royalty oil

often does not meet SPR quality specifications, and because

the market centers can be distant from SPR storage sites, DOE

generally awards contracts to exchange royalty oil at the

market center for SPR-quality oil delivered to SPR

facilities. Obtaining oil for the SPR through the royalty-in-

kind program avoids the need for Congress to make outlays to

finance oil purchases, but the foregone revenues associated

with using royalty-in-kind oil to trade for SPR oil imply an

equivalent loss of revenue because MMS would otherwise sell

the oil and deposit the revenues with the U.S. Treasury.

Interior estimates that the forgone revenue attributable to

using the royalty-in-kind program to fill the SPR were $4.6

billion from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2007.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed DOE to increase the

SPR storage capacity to 1 billion barrels and to fill it ``as

expeditiously as practicable without incurring excessive cost

or appreciably affecting the price of petroleum products to

consumers.'' It required DOE to select sites to expand the

SPR's storage capacity within 1 year of enactment, by August

2006. On February 14, 2007, Secretary of Energy William

Bodman designated three sites for the expansion, including a

160 million barrel facility in Richton, Mississippi, an 80

million barrel expansion of a facility in Big Hill, Texas,

and a 33 million barrel expansion of a facility in Bayou

Choctaw, Louisiana. In its June 2007 SPR plan, DOE

anticipated these expansions would begin in fiscal year 2008

and be complete in 2018. DOE also indicated that it would

prefer to continue using the royalty-in-kind program to fill

the additional storage capacity. DOE estimates the capital

cost for the SPR expansion at approximately $3.67 billion,

and estimates the cost of operating and maintaining the

expanded portion of the SPR at $35 to $40 million per year.

As DOE begins to expand the SPR, past experiences may help

inform future efforts to fill the SPR in the most cost-

effective manner. In that context, our testimony today will

focus on: (1) Factors we recommend DOE consider when filling

the SPR, and (2) the cost-effectiveness of using oil received

through the royalty-in-kind program to fill the SPR.

To address these issues, we are summarizing work from our

August 2006 report on the SPR and our ongoing review of the

royalty-in-kind program. For our August 2006 report, we

contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to convene a

group of 13 industry, academic, governmental, and

nongovernmental experts to collect opinions on the impacts of

past SPR fill and use and on recommendations for the future.

We also reviewed records and reports from DOE and the

International Energy Agency. In addition, for our ongoing

review of the royalty-in-kind program for this committee and

others, we identified and reviewed applicable laws and

documentation on DOE policies and procedures for evaluating

SPR purchase and exchange bids, and interviewed officials at

both Interior and DOE. We have also drawn upon previous GAO

reports on the royalty-in- kind program. We conducted our

work on this testimony from January to April 2008 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards. Those standards require that we plan and

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for

our findings and conclusions based on our audit

objectives.

In summary

To fill the SPR in a more cost-effective manner, we

recommended in previous work that DOE include in the SPR at

least 10 percent heavy crude oils, which are more compatible

with many U.S. refiners and generally cheaper to acquire than

the lighter oils that comprise the SPR's volume. DOE

indicated that, due to the planned SPR expansion, such

determinations should wait until it prepares a new study of

U.S. Gulf Coast heavy sour crude refining requirements. In

addition, we recommended that DOE consider acquiring a steady

dollar value of oil over time and allowing oil companies more

flexibility to defer delivery of royalty-in-kind exchanges to

the SPR when prices are likely to decline in return for

additional deliveries in the future. In updating us on the

status of this recommendation, DOE indicated that its

November 8, 2006, rule on SPR acquisition procedures

addressed our recommendations; however, this rule does not

specifically address both how to implement a dollar-cost-

averaging strategy and how to provide industry with more

deferral flexibility. In subsequent comment, DOE noted that

the November 8, 2006, acquisition procedures do not address

dollar-cost-averaging, but they do address flexibility of

purchasing and scheduling in volatile markets.

Filling the SPR with oil purchased in cash is likely to be

more cost-effective than filling the SPR through the royalty-

in-kind program for several reasons. For example, the

royalty-in-kind program adds a layer of administrative

complexity to the task of filling the SPR, increasing the

potential for waste or inefficiency. Moreover, DOE has

evaluated the cost of cash purchases more thoroughly than

exchanges, increasing the * * *

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

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would like for us instead to proceed with the speakers that we have identified, and we will address this later on as circumstances warrant at the end of the debate time that is allotted.

So I do object at this time with the understanding that I will be glad to consider such a request at the appropriate time at the end of the time allotted for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I do need to object, and I would be happy to consider such a request at the end of the time allotted for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Just a quick question, was it 15 minutes that Mr. Barton was asking about?

We will consent to 15 minutes, but equally divided at the present time, 7\1/2\ minutes for each side.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

(Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield an additional 2 minutes to the author of this legislation, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield an additional 2 minutes to the distinguished coauthor of this legislation, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, before proposing accommodation to my friend from Texas, I would like to confirm the amount of time that we have left. It's my understanding we have 5 minutes remaining; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, what I propose to do is reserve the balance of our time and at the same time ask unanimous consent that my friend from Texas may be allowed to control 3 minutes of our remaining time.

We have no further speakers on our side. I would reserve the balance of our time.

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

In the course of this debate, from time to time it has seemed as though folks were talking about this as if this was draw-down authority, as if this was just a pure draw-down from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I think it's important to emphasize this is not a draw-down proposal.

This legislation proposes a swap. It proposes a swap for that which is best saved for tomorrow in exchange for that which is best used today. We propose to put in the ground what we should save for tomorrow, and put back into the system what we're getting out of the ground now which is best used today. We should use today what's best for today and save for tomorrow what's best for tomorrow.

Also, much has been made, or rather, little has been made of the fact that this is just 3\1/2\ days of national consumption being added into the supply system. Only 1 percent of national consumption is being talked about here.

When Mark Twain was born, he was the 100th person born in the town of Hannibal, Missouri. He said, you know, when I was born, I increased the population of my town by 1 percent. That's more than most folks can say in this world.

Well, by this legislation, we can increase the supply of oil and what we've refined into gas in this country by 1 percent, and that's more than we can say about most of the pieces of legislation that we get to vote on from time to time.

Also, it's important to recognize that this 3\1/2\ days, this extra 1 percent, is a far greater percent of the thing on which the world price rests. The world price rests on the very thin margin between daily worldwide production and daily worldwide consumption. What is that margin? That margin is a mere 1 million barrels a day. So we're talking about putting into the system 70 times the world's daily float, the difference between daily production and daily consumption.

That is a very significant factor. It is not only a decent percentage of what we consume; it's a very significant factor of that very thin margin that contributes the most to the runaway cost of gas and oil in the world today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague from Texas for his conduct and debate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, due to Georgia's primary elections, I was absent from the House of Monday, July 14, and Tuesday, July 15, and missed several rollcall votes. Had I been present I would have voted in the following manner: H. Res. 1067--``Yes''; H. Res. 1080--``Yes''; H. Con. Res. 297--``Yes''; H. Res. 1259--``Yes''; H. Res. 1323--``Yes''; Passage, Objections of the President Notwithstanding, of H.R. 6331-- ``Yes''; Motion To Refer Kucinich Privileged Resolution--Yes; H.R. 5803--``Yes''; and H. Res. 1090--``Yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, without H.R. 6331 many doctors across the country will not be able to afford to see and treat Medicare patients. In a rural district like mine where a greater percentage of the population depends on Medicare for their health care, that's not acceptable. We are lucky to have world-class health care in this country, but health care is only as good as an individual's ability to get to that health care and their

ability to afford it. H.R. 6331 will keep our doctors in business so that our Nation's poor and elderly can get the health care that they need.

I am proud of the fact that H.R. 6331 contains some specific relief for folks in rural areas, making sure that rural doctors get paid fairly, increasing payments to critical access hospitals, and covering the additional fuel costs faced by ambulances in rural districts. This bill will also help poor seniors by increasing the amount of assets that a low-income beneficiary can have and still qualify for financial help with Medicare costs.

I recently spent a week touring just about every kind of health care facility in my district. Folks back home have a lot of problems with our health care system. While this bill doesn't fix everything that's broke with Medicare, it is a big step forward and we absolutely need it.

Mr. Speaker, we have until July 1 to stop these cuts from taking effect.

Unless we adopt this legislation before then, doctors all across the country will have to start turning away Medicare patients that they are seeing right now. We can't let that happen. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have until July 1 to stop these cuts from taking effect. Unless we adopt this legislation before then, doctors all across the country will start turning away Medicare patients. We cannot let that happen.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for his leadership on this matter. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on May 8, 2008, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll No. 295, on agreeing to the Hensarling amendment to H.R. 5818. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, in 6 days, on May 14, we observe the 60th anniversary of the declaration of the independence of the State of Israel. That's also the 60th anniversary, I'm proud to say, of the day that the administration of President Harry Truman recognized the State of Israel as a free and independent state.

Throughout the past 60 years, the relationship between the United States and Israel has been based on a shared commitment to democratic values. Also, for the past 60 years Israel has

stood on the front lines in confronting those who would use terror against civilian populations as a means of bringing about political change.

Throughout that time, the United States has stood for the political independence and the physical security of the State of Israel. But we usually find ourselves as being in the rear echelons as standing behind Israel more than standing beside Israel. But not any more.

Ever since 9/11, we in the United States have come to realize that we're members of the same club, that we, too, stand on the front lines alongside Israel in an ongoing war on terror. We not only belong to the same philosophical society, we're also serving in the same outfit.

As we congratulate Israel on its 60th birthday, we look forward to the day when each of us will be able to devote less of our national treasures to the vital work of survival and national defense and be able, instead, to devote more of our national treasures to more profitable enterprises.

On behalf of my fellow Georgians, I congratulate Israel on this milestone, and I pledge my best efforts to making the next 60 years of our relationship together years of peace and prosperity.

Madam Speaker, on May 1, 2008, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll No. 234, H.R. 493, The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I thank Chairman Miller.

Madam Chairman, what we have learned in my community since the Imperial disaster hit us is the experts have known about this problems for decades. There have been voluntary standards that effectively deal with this problem, but not enough people even know about the problem, much less the solutions, and those who do know about the solutions, aren't required to adopt them.

We have also learned that the only standards that are mandatory really aren't designed with this problem in mind in the first place, and they aren't working. So we have good standards that are not mandatory and inadequate standards that are mandatory.

Up until now, the argument has been between those who say we wouldn't go too fast in developing a national standard and those who argue we are going too slow. There are those who argue the costs of a comprehensive solution outweigh the benefits. I disagree. I say that if we can prevent just one of these disasters from happening, if we can prevent just one family from having to go through what families at Imperial Sugar are still going through, it would all be worth it.

But don't take my word for it. The Savannah Morning News reported this morning that the chairman and chief executive officer of the National Safety Board believes this bill will, and I quote, ``would save lives.'' He believes that the measure ``is good for business and the corporate world should support it.''

He told the editorial board back home, ``I wish I could take 50 business people at a time to the refinery and have them take a look at the destruction. This is what your facility could look like if you don't take care of the dust.'' Mr. Bresland ought to know what he's talking about. He's not a bureaucrat, he's a ``hard-headed businessman from the corporate world'' who worked for many years at Honeywell International. He is right. This bill isn't just good government, it's also good business.

I commend Chairman Miller and Ms. Woolsey for their hard work in support of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join us and vote in favor of it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I understand the appeal that the amendment has. I can appreciate its superficial appeal and what I think it is getting at. But the notion that we have to finish everything before we do anything is a formula to do nothing.

With the National Emphasis Program and everything that is going on right now at OSHA, it is perfectly obvious that the current folks who have got OSHA under their control can cram more activity into less action than anybody I know or any agency I know.

The time for us to take into consideration and to follow all leads and to learn as much as we can will always be with us, but the time to act is now. This is the time to take the actions and begin the process of fixing what's broke with the regulatory system at OSHA.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the Chair and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, the whole purpose of the SBIR and STTR programs is a generally recognized acknowledgement of the fact that in the bidding wars with the big guys for Federal contracting, small businesses are just generally outgunned. And while that is true for small businesses generally, it's even more true for a subset of small businesses. Minority-owned small businesses are at even a greater disparity and disadvantage when it comes to competing for government contracts, research and development.

Less than 10 percent of the SBIR grants are made to minority-owned small businesses. Now if SBIR and STTR are at the forefront of ensuring that American small businesses remain competitive, we've got to make sure that minority-owned businesses have an opportunity to participate. But too often, minority and disadvantaged small businesses don't even know about these grants. If they don't know about them, they can't compete for them.

My amendment seeks to address this in a carefully drawn and constructive manner. It does this by authorizing grants to partnerships between minority institutions, as that term is defined in the amendment, and nonprofit organizations that have experience in linking up minority-owned businesses with government contracting.

There are limits, carefully drawn limits drawn into the amendment. One of those is that the administrator of the SBA gets to set the terms and conditions for submitting and applying for these grants.

Second, it requires these grants can only be made to partnerships with experienced partners. Minority institutions, as defined by the amendment, consist of colleges that serve a minority, 51 percent or more of minority students. This is basically HBCUs, but not exclusively HBCUs, and also requires they be in partnership with nonprofits that have experience in linking small businesses with government contracts.

Finally, what the bill does is it doesn't create any authorization for spending new money. It doesn't appropriate any new money. What it does is it directs the administrator to set up a pilot program that authorizes him to spend up to $4 million in money that is already authorized and appropriated for such purposes.

HBCUs and local nonprofits, they have the experience in connecting small businesses with government contracts. My amendment allows them to work together to increase minority-owned business participation in government contracting. That's good for the government when it's the customer, it's good for the taxpayers, and it's good for the economy.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1473) to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to require child care providers to provide to parents information regarding whether such providers carry current liability insurance, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend their remarks and insert material relevant to H.R. 1473, as amended, into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, back home in Augusta, Georgia, there's a little 7\1/2\- year-old boy named Anthony DeJuan Boatwright, who is in a semicomatose state and hooked up to a ventilator. He wasn't born that way, but that is how he ended up. He ended up that way because of an accident, negligence, really, that never would have happened if his mother had been given the information that this bill requires.

Back in 2001, Juan's mother, Jacqueline Boatwright, was doing what millions of mothers all over the country do every day: she placed her child in day care so that she could work to improve her life and that of her child. She was a sophisticated consumer. She had done her homework and she shopped around and found a day care center. It was licensed by the State; it was clean and it complied with all sorts of Federal regulations under the Child Care Development Block Grant Act governing such things as the prevention and control of infectious diseases, building safety, premises access, and mental health and safety training for staff.

But there was one thing that Jackie Boatwright did not know: that these folks could take her money, they could take her child, they could harm her child, and they would not be financially responsible for any of the harm that they could do. That is because they had no liability insurance and there was no law, State or Federal, that required them to tell her that.

Mr. Speaker, sure enough, that is what happened. They ignored little Juan long enough for him to find a bucket of water. Like every child that age, he had just enough strength to pull himself up and to look over inside and to fall inside, head first, but not enough upper body strength to push or pull himself back up. It was a death trap, and little Juan fell into it. Well, Juan survived, but his life and that of his family have been ruined and changed forever.

This bill would have prevented all of this from happening. It would not have done it by creating a whole new bureaucracy of day care inspectors to watch the watchers. It would have done it in the least expensive and most efficient way possible, by simply requiring the day care center to tell Jackie Boatwright what they knew but did not tell her, that they were willing to accept the moral responsibility of taking care of her baby, but they were going to accept none of the financial responsibility for failing to do so.

That would have prevented this from happening, because that is all it would have taken to prevent this tragedy from happening. Because if Jackie had known that, she would have done what any other parent would do: she would have taken her business someplace else, someplace where they accept some degree of financial responsibility for the consequences of their negligence and incorporate the cost in the cost of doing business, just like every other financially responsible business does.

Jackie has tried to make something positive out of this. She has determined to prevent this from happening to anybody else. Thanks to her efforts, financial responsibility disclosure laws are now on the books in four States: Georgia, California, Virginia and New Hampshire. This bill will close the gap by requiring financial responsibility disclosure for licensed day care facilities in the rest of the country.

In 2005, there were literally millions of kids in this country receiving day care in facilities that are governed by the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. Only a fraction of these kids live in the four States that have now stepped forward to enact financial responsibility disclosure laws. That means that millions of kids still go to licensed day care facilities all around the country today whose parents have no idea that their day care centers can harm their child and accept none of the financial consequences of doing so.

This bill will give the parents of these millions of children the same information that parents are entitled to as a matter of law in the States of Georgia, California, Virginia, and New Hampshire. These parents have just as much need to know about the financial responsibility of the folks they give their kids to, and this bill will give them the same information.

This bill does not require any day care facilities to go out and get liability insurance. It merely requires licensed day care centers to tell parents

whether or not they have insurance, and, if so, how much. That is all. It then leaves it up to the parents to do what Jackie Boatwright would have done if only she had had this information, and that is to decide for themselves whether or not to leave their child with someone who wants to accept the responsibility for caring for your child, wants to take your money for doing so, but is unwilling and unable to accept any of the financial consequences for failing to fulfill this responsibility.

Indirectly, Mr. Speaker, this bill actually does more than that. By giving parents the information that they have a right to know, it places a powerful economic incentive on all day care centers to do what all of the responsible day care centers are already doing, and that is to assume the financial responsibility and to incorporate the costs of that into the cost of doing business that goes along with the moral responsibility to take care of the children in their care. Anyone who wants to do business without doing that will be at a competitive disadvantage compared to those who do.

This approach gives the invisible hand of self-interest the opportunity to do some good in the marketplace; the interests of day care centers to do the right thing or compete at a disadvantage compared to those who do, and the interests of parents in placing their children in day care centers that are ready, willing and able to do the right thing if and when they mess up.

We have truth in labeling; we have truth in lending and truth in advertising. This is truth in day care. The States have led the way, and now it is time for the Federal Government to follow their lead. The families that end up being harmed because they are kept in the dark deserve no less.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his remarks in support of the bill, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

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