Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1501 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1501 provides for consideration of H.R. 7060, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule because American families and small businesses need tax relief now more than ever. This rule will allow us to bring legislation to the House floor later today that will not only strengthen our economy by directing tax relief to middle class families and creating jobs at small businesses, but also help to bring the country into a new future of alternative energy not dependent on foreign energy and foreign fuel.

Since being elected to Congress, I have voted along with this body to cut taxes for middle class families and small businesses on at least 14 occasions. In doing so, this Congress has upheld its pledge to the American people. And I have kept my promise I made to my constituents to provide much-needed tax relief and incentive for economic growth.

I know that there are many families and businesses in my district that are struggling in the current economic crisis. With talk of a $700 billion plan to bail out Wall Street, we cannot, in good conscience, fail to take action to help so many families facing the ever-escalating costs of gasoline and home heating oil into this winter. This legislation we will consider provides tax relief and incentives to those who need them most at a fraction of the cost for bailing out the financial industry.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has shown a strong commitment to the pay- as-you-go rule adopted last January. I applaud my Blue Dog Coalition colleagues for their outspoken leadership on PAYGO. When I explain to folks back home what PAYGO is, they always ask the same question. I ask, you have to balance the books each month, right? Why shouldn't the government do the same? And they all get it. My constituents get it. And the American people get it. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there are still some Members of Congress who are steadfastly against the idea of being fiscally responsible in balancing the Federal books in the same way our constituents balance their checkbooks. But it appears that even our colleagues in the Senate are beginning to come around. The legislation we will consider later today is proof that you can provide tax relief in a fiscally responsible way.

The legislation this rule provides for consideration of will extend a number of critical tax relief measures targeted at middle class families and small businesses to improve the quality of life and strengthen our economy. During these tight economic times, it is also absolutely critical that we pass legislation to invest in jobs for today and long-term development for tomorrow, including jobs in the alternative energy sector like wind and biomass that will reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and bring the price of gasoline and heating oil to levels that families and businesses can afford.

I am a realist. I understand that we can't bring back the millions of manufacturing jobs, including thousands in my own congressional district, which have been moved overseas. However, we can look to the future, a future of our Nation's economy that is green, and re-create jobs that we once lost. It is absolutely essential that we leverage every possible option, whether it is through tax credits, investment through research and development, or education to advance alternative and renewable energy development.

Mr. Speaker, tax credits for alternative energy production have the power to truly jump-start our economy and create good-paying, highly skilled jobs that cannot be outsourced overseas, the type of jump- start, Mr. Speaker, which is already happening in my upstate New York district with the creation of new green collar jobs. In the last 2 years, I have spoken numerous times throughout the debate over extending these renewable energy tax credits about the new businesses in my district that are utilizing the national investment in alternative energy to create good-paying jobs in upstate New York. Those businesses are to be commended. That is why I'm proud to support the approximately $15 billion in long-term, clean renewable energy tax incentives and investments included in this legislation which we will vote for later today.

I hope that by doing so, it will encourage other companies to follow suit, both in my region and across the Nation.

The underlying legislation extends and modifies critical tax credits for production of electricity from renewable sources, ranging from wind, solar and geothermal energy to closed loop and open loop biomass. Specifically, the legislation includes extension of clean, renewable energy bonds, efficient commercial building tax incentives, investment tax credits for solar and fuel cell systems, tax credits for energy efficiency upgrades to existing homes, tax credits for production of efficient home appliances, and tax incentives for consumer purchase of energy efficient products.

Most of these incentives either expired at the end of the last year or are set to expire at the end of this year. It is vitally important to sustaining the development of clean energy technology industries, which will lead to the creation of new jobs, that these tax credit incentives are extended.

The legislation also includes an extension of the Research and Development Tax Credit that allows companies to claim credit for a portion of their R&D expenditures. Extending the R&D credit is vital to ensuring that America remains on the cutting edge of innovation that keeps our domestic companies competitive. This credit is of particular interest in the area of New York that I represent, because its extension will further the expansion of microchip fabrication and nanotechnology industries which are beginning to blossom in upstate New York.

American companies rely on this credit and upon its continuing to adequately plan for their long-term research projects. I support this 2-year retroactive extension to provide that continuing extension, and I will continue to work for a much-needed permanent extension that would eliminate concerns over expirations or lapses.

The legislation also extends and expands and creates important tax credits for individuals.

Supporting this rule and the tax relief legislation we will consider later today is simply common sense. We can provide tax relief and incentives to the middle class, spur innovation, create tens of thousands of new jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile nations and reduce greenhouse gas. We can do all of this in a fiscally responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what my friend says, Democrats are not trying to make any political points here. In fact, it is just the contrary. We are trying to get something done here.

I certainly understand that Senator Reid has some considerations that he has to make in the Senate, but we have some considerations here in the House, and one of them is something that is very important to me, and that is paying for these provisions that we do, something important to the Blue Dog Coalition here and something important to Congress. We need to pay for it, and that is what this bill is doing. It is paying for it, and it is very important.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland, 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Kind.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have no further speakers.

I reserve my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I reserve the balance of my time.

As I understand it, the bill that is on the floor today is the very same bill that was before the Rules Committee earlier today.

As I understand it, it is the same bill that we saw in the Rules Committee. That's right.

Mr. Speaker, supporting this rule and the tax relief legislation we will consider later today is simply common sense. We can provide tax relief and incentives to middle class families, spur innovation, and creates tens of thousands of new jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile nations, reduce greenhouse gases, and we can do it in a fiscally responsible way. That is to say, we can do it without putting the price tag on our children and our grandchildren. We can pay for it today.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, under the rules, I withdraw House Resolution 1501.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 1333, which recognizes this September 2008 as Tay-Sachs Disease Awareness Month. I am proud to cosponsor this resolution, and I commend my friend from Ohio, Senator Brown, for spearheading a companion resolution in the Senate.

Tay-Sachs Disease is a progressive neurological disorder for which there is no treatment or cure. The most common form of it affects infants who appear healthy at birth and seem to develop normally at first; but at around 6 months, symptoms of the disease begin to appear. The baby gradually begins to regress, losing the ability to crawl, turn over, sit or reach out. Eventually, as paralysis sets in, the child becomes blind, deaf and unable to swallow. Tragically, few infants born with Tay-Sachs live past the age of 5.

This terrible disease appears most often in families with no prior history because the Tay-Sachs gene can be carried through many generations without being expressed. However, when two carriers of the gene become parents, there is a 1-in-4 chance that any child they have may be born with the disease.

While about 1.2 million Americans are carriers of the Tay-Sachs gene, certain populations are at much higher risk. About 1 in 30 American Jews, 1 in 50 Irish Americans is a carrier. French Canadians, Louisiana Cajuns, Pennsylvania Dutch are high risk populations, but all populations are at risk.

It's easy to reduce this terrible disease like Tay-Sachs to statistics, but there are real human stories behind these statistics that must not be overlooked. My wife's son, Joey Deon, was born a happy, healthy and all around pleasant baby. There was no warning he would be afflicted by this terrible disease. But at the age of 1 he began to show symptoms. His mother, like many other parents of children with Tay-Sachs, was forced to watch a once active, healthy baby slowly lose his bodily functions.

God came to claim his angel in his sleep one day before his 5th birthday. Thankfully, he did not suffer as many with this disease do suffer.

He did not suffer, but very often children afflicted with this disease suffer badly before death.

Madam Speaker, a simple blood test can identify carriers of the Tay- Sachs gene before they have children. But very few people, including those in high-risk populations, are aware of its

availability. This critical test can identify carrier couples before a tragedy occurs. Raising awareness of this terrible disease is important, but it is critical that we also put the words into actions.

Millions of Americans who suffer from rare diseases like Tay-Sachs and more common diseases like cancer stand to benefit from an expanded Federal commitment to stem cell research. We must also continue to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. Federal support for cutting-edge biomedical research will make treatments and cures for diseases like Tay-Sachs a reality.

I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1333 and Tay-Sachs Awareness Month.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1502 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1502 provides for consideration of H.R. 7060, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule because American families and small businesses need tax relief now more than ever. This rule will allow us to bring legislation to the House floor later today or tomorrow that will not only strengthen our economy by directing tax relief to middle class families and in creating jobs with small businesses but also help to bring this country into a new alternative energy future.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I do appreciate the passion of the gentleman from Oregon.

This is an important issue. It's so important that when this bill came to the floor back in June when Congressman DeFazio offered it, I supported it. I guess it's about priorities, Madam Speaker. And the priorities are what do you do to pay for it.

Now, first off, this bill is about energy, it's about tax extenders.

First off, the proposal, the amendment that the gentleman is talking about, is not germane to this bill, first and foremost.

Secondarily, there is no pay-for-it in it.

Now 2, 3 months ago when there was a pay-for in it, we couldn't get it passed because not enough people on the other side of the aisle would support it. And the fact of the matter is,

you know, we did pay for it with royalty payments from oil companies.

And for me it's very easy. Let's look at what our priority is. Let's see: the priorities of large oil companies or the priorities of rural school districts.

No. You had your time, and I was courteous to you, and I would appreciate if you would allow me to finish my thoughts.

It's pretty easy for me when you look at oil companies and you look at school districts, that's a no-brainer. Yet people on that side of the aisle voted against it because it had a pay-for in it.

Well, Madam Speaker, I just think, one, this is not germane; two, it's not paid for. Clearly I will support it with the pay-for that was in it last month, but I think clearly without any question it's unfair for the gentleman to characterize it the way he has.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Is the gentleman asking me a question?

I guess I would return and ask you the question. Why wasn't it passed when we brought it? Why didn't you get more people on your side of the aisle to support it? I mean, it's a legitimate question. I voted for it. I think it was a good idea.

Nor did you answer my question. I think it's a legitimate question I asked. Why wasn't it supported?

Because there's not a pay-for for it.

No, there's not a pay-for in this--do you want to ask me the question?

There's not a pay-for in the amendment you are offering.

No, we could not have done that in the Rules Committee.

We could not have just brought it up in the Rules Committee.

I think the question is what is your priority--

I continue to reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the gentleman is very concerned with the real people on the ground. There's absolutely no doubt. It is the gravest concern to all of us.

The fact of the matter is, when you weigh the needs of the individuals against the needs of oil companies, how can you call that a bunch of baloney? If the royalties, the taxes that we're placing on oil companies are going to be there to help people in rural schools, that's nothing? That's not baloney. That's the real thing. That's what we're doing to help children, and yet they forget about that.

Yet he doesn't even mention it. He talks as if that doesn't exist, that it's just a bunch of baloney. It's not baloney. It's the real thing. That's what we came to Congress to do. And yet they want us to put the needs of oil companies ahead of the needs of individuals. It's just not the right thing to do.

This bill's not about that. This bill is about renewable tax credits so that we can become energy independent, so that we could stop being reliant on the big oil companies and on foreign oil so that we can develop renewable energy. That's what this bill is about. That's what this rule is about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, if what the gentleman says is true--and I have no reason to doubt that--that means that he voted against it despite the fact it would have helped all the other rural school districts in the country because it didn't do anything for his State.

And I certainly can sympathize with the fact that he would be upset that it didn't do anything for his State, but the bill would have done a great deal for the rural school districts throughout the rest of the country at the expense of large oil companies.

So again from my way of thinking, when you weigh the overall good of rural school districts versus oil companies, the rural school districts win every time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I do not.

I thank my friend from Texas for his comments.

You know, I used to be an attorney. And when I used to practice, I tried a lot of cases. And when we would start our cases and we would make our opening arguments and we would proceed through the closing arguments, I always knew how good the case was on the part of the other side, especially during openings, because when the other side talked about the facts in the case, you knew they had a very good case. But when they talked about everything else except the facts, you knew they didn't have a very good case. Such is what we are seeing here tonight. They're talking about everything but what this rule is about. This rule is about creating a rule so that we can have tax extenders, so that we can promote alternative energy in this country, something that everyone says

that we need to do, and we are doing it in a responsible way with a pay-for.

Now, it's great they talk about things that they would like to do, other proposals, other amendments, but no one says where the pay-for is going to come from. So where is that pay-for going to come from? Are we going to just borrow and spend our way to it? I mean, we're borrowing $700 billion now, what's a little bit more? We had a pay-for in it when the bill was offered 2 weeks ago, yet it wasn't voted for. But what are they talking about? Everything but what we're here for today.

Now they want to bring up oil again, as if the Democrats don't care about oil prices, as if the Democrats hadn't just passed a bill that did a number of things to bring energy prices down in the short term, in the middle term, in the long term; but that's not enough. They don't want to talk about what we're here for today because then the American people might look at it and say the Democrats have the right idea; they want to create tax incentives so we can have real alternative energy in this country and not be dependent on foreign oil, not be dependent on our big oil companies.

No, Madam Speaker, we do not have anything against the big oil companies, we just think our priorities should be here on this particular bill with a pay-for and with creating tax incentives so that we can produce renewable, green-collar jobs right here in this country, jobs that cannot be outsourced or shipped overseas. That's what this rule is about.

Supporting this rule and the tax relief legislation we will consider is simply common sense. We can provide tax relief and incentives for middle class families, spur innovation, create tens of thousands of new jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile nations, and reduce greenhouse gases at the same time. And we can do it all in a fiscally responsible manner, pay for it today, not spread it out on our children and grandchildren.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Congress and the Bush administration continue to discuss a proposal to help turn Wall Street around, it is important that the administration know that this Congress is not going to just hand over $700 billion without any accountability or oversight.

The administration's proposal is a nonstarter, because it does not hold Wall Street executives accountable for their bad decisions. The crisis on Wall Street did not just happen. CEOs and other executives at the financial institutions made bad decisions, and we need to ensure their bad decisions are not rewarded.

For years, CEOs have been walking away from faltering companies with millions of dollars in compensation. Last year, the CEO of Merrill Lynch resigned after the company lost $10 billion, and its stock lost 45 percent of its value. Despite these failures, the CEO walked away with $161 million retirement package.

In any Wall Street recovery package, we need to ensure that the CEOs are not rewarded for their poor decisions with bonuses and other large compensation packages. They need to be held accountable. This is the taxpayers' money.

I'm here tonight, I rise to honor Mike McNulty.

You know, I think I'm probably one of the only ones that remembers Mike way back. I was a college student at University of Albany when Mike was representing the Village of Green Island as mayor. And I can remember listening to the news and hearing not only about Mike, but about his entire family that served the Albany area for so many years with distinction. And I can't even tell you how great an honor it was when I finally was able to meet him, and then to serve with him here.

But I want to talk about my experience with Mike McNulty in a little different way. I'm one of the new Members, one of the three new members of the New York delegation. And being a new Member, obviously, you look for people to get advice. And Mike, being the Dean of the Upstate delegation, I naturally turned to him. And so many times I would sit down next to him and ask him questions. And I can't tell you how many times he would turn to me and say, well, Mike, I think you might want to handle it this way, or think about it this way. And there was one time in particular when we were dealing with an issue that was difficult and I was a little bit concerned about it. And Mike sat down and said, Mike, really, you will see that it will work out, just think it through and handle it. And I don't think 2 days passed when exactly the advice that he gave me went exactly the way he said it would go, and the issue worked out.

And it wasn't just the fact that Mike is always there to give freshman Members like myself advice, it's not only the quality of the advice that he gives, but the way that he gives the advice, in a patient way, in an understanding way, never forgetting what it's like to be new, never forgetting what it's like to not be completely familiar with the procedure, and just having the patience of a brother, of an older brother sitting down and explaining things. And that means a lot, Mike. It has meant a lot to me, and I know it has meant a lot to the other freshmen.

What you have done for this institution, for the State of New York is incredible. And it's an honor to not only have been able to know you, but to have been able to have served with you.

So congratulations and good luck to Mike McNulty, the consummate gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, Democrats passed a comprehensive solution to the country's energy crisis, but for all of their talk about solving this problem, Republicans still oppose the effort. It's no surprise the Republicans are against this commonsense energy plan. The plan makes Big Oil pay royalties on land they've leased for years so Americans can start benefiting from oil companies drilling on our land. That's only fair. It is the American people's land. Shouldn't they get some of the benefits?

Our legislation also repeals tax breaks and subsidies that Big Oil has been getting for years, thanks to the Washington Republicans. Every quarter, Big Oil is announcing larger profits. They don't need corporate welfare. This comprehensive energy legislation will help people--those middle class Americans suffering from high gas prices and dealing with the failed Bush-McCain economy at the same time.

Madam Speaker, Tuesday's energy vote shows that Democrats are working to help the American people, not lining the pockets of Big Oil.

Madam Speaker, congressional Democrats have repeatedly urged President Bush to bring our troops home from Iraq honorably, responsibly, safely, and soon.

After rejecting 18 months of attempts by the Democratic majority to adopt redeployment timetables, the President now proposes a vague general time horizon that falls far short of a commitment to ending involvement in Iraq. The Iraq Government was more direct. For the second time this month, Iraqi officials have indicated their support for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces by the end of 2010.

Maybe these statements served as a wake-up call to the Bush administration. It appears they are finally getting the message that the war in Iraq cannot go on indefinitely. Perhaps President Bush should pass the message along to Senator McCain, who continues to believe that our commitment in Iraq will last 50 to 100 years.

Madam Speaker, we need a new direction in Iraq that allows our troops to come home and allows us to focus on the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world.

Madam Speaker, Americans are paying the price for President Bush's lack of an energy policy. It's this lack of a policy that has produced record prices for consumers and record profits for Big Oil. This President has the authority to send oil into the American market by opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, an action that would put oil on the market in 13 days and would provide relief at the pump immediately.

But instead of providing American drivers with relief from $4-a- gallon gas, the administration has decided instead to give their friends in Big Oil one last gift before they leave office. The President's action to lift the offshore drilling moratorium will do nothing to lower prices at the pump now. In fact, his own Energy Information Administration says opening up new areas for drilling won't lower gas prices for 20 years, and even then by only a couple of pennies.

Madam Speaker, deploying some oil from the Reserve would increase the supply of oil and help bring down the cost of gasoline. With so many Americans struggling in today's economy, it's time President Bush stands up for consumers and taps into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1344 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1344 provides for consideration of H.R. 3999, the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008 under a structured rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Transportation. The rule makes in order 11 of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee.

I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for his leadership in addressing the critical needs of bridges on our Federal highway system. I know that this issue is especially close to home for him, and my other colleagues from Minnesota, because of the tragedy that occurred when the I-35 bridge collapsed in Minneapolis last summer.

The staggering truth is that one-fourth of all bridges nationwide are deficient. Half of all of the bridges in use were constructed in the 1960s. It is projected that motorist traffic will double in the next 30 years. In the same time, freight traffic in the U.S. will likely grow 92 percent in order to accommodate forecasted increases in American economic output. Growing demand for the movement of goods and services will place an unprecedented strain on our aging system.

Our communities need the resources to ensure that our families and friends don't have to worry about their safety during their morning commute to work, quick trip to the grocery store, or the drive to drop their children off at school. We owe it to the American public to regain their trust in the safety of our bridges and highways.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation this rule provides for consideration will go a long way to regain that trust from the American people. The legislation authorizes an additional $1 billion for bridge repair and replacement, and setting inspection standards for such bridges. It ensures that funds are concentrated on the most pressing bridge safety concerns by mandating that priority bridges be inspected annually and all other bridges biennially.

I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the work of my Republican colleague from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and thank him for the opportunity to work with him and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) on an amendment that we will offer here today related to the rusting and corrosion damage to bridges. Our amendment expresses the sense of Congress that States should prepare corrosion mitigation and prevention plans when planning the construction of new bridges or the rehabilitation of existing bridges.

Our amendment calls attention to a serious problem: many of our Nation's bridges are simply rusting away because of corrosion. Many of our bridges have surpassed their initial life expectancy, yet we rely on them to support another 20, 30, 40 years of travel.

Corrosion is a significant factor in determining the useful life of a bridge. Without preventative measures, water penetrates and corrodes the steel rebar that reinforces our bridges, causing it to swell and fracture the concrete from the inside out. Weather and salt--especially in the northeast, where we must salt our roads in the winter--cause steel beams to rust and undermine the integrity of the whole structure.

But corrosion can be reduced by using widely available technology and construction methods if they are incorporated into the engineering and design phase of the bridge project. Prevention measures range from simple steps like selecting more resistant building materials, or using coated rebar in concrete structures, to complex methods that cause electrical reactions in water to prevent rust from forming. This sounds complicated, but the same technology is commonly used by the shipbuilding industry to prevent corrosion.

It is much easier and more cost effective to prevent or limit corrosion and rust at the beginning of a project. Corrosion prevention and mitigation plans can cost as little as a few thousand dollars to prepare during the design phase of a bridge project, but they can save municipalities hundreds of millions of dollars down the road in replacement and repair costs; delaying the need for maintenance by a factor of years. Having these plans up front can extend the life of the bridge, thereby saving both lives and millions of dollars in unnecessary repairs. I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the Conaway-Arcuri-Sutton amendment later today.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot pass up this opportunity. We rely on bridges too much for everyday activities. Thanks to Chairman Oberstar and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we can rest a little easier knowing that this legislation will make the bridges on our national highway system much safer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for his management of this very important bill.

I would like to say that very few things that we do in the House of Representatives are more important than this rule and the underlying bill because while energy is important and so many things we deal with are very important, nothing is more important than the safety of our family and the safety of our children, and that's what this bill is all about.

It is about the safety of our roadways, about our bridges. The crisis we face in maintaining safe bridges is just as pressing, if not more, than any of the other issues that we face today. We must act now while we have an opportunity to restore public faith in our bridges and to prevent another tragedy like the collapse of the I-35 bridge last year.

In my opening remarks, I mentioned that \1/4\ of all bridges nationwide are deficient. The State of New York is in even worse position with well over 6,000 of its 17,000 bridges rated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. In my upstate district alone, there are over 260 bridges that have been identified by the State Transportation Department as structurally deficient, and 9 of those are in my hometown of Utica, New York.

While that reality is troubling, the Congress now has an opportunity to take action to address this problem. Again, the legislation in this rule provides for consideration authorizes an additional $1 billion for Federal bridge programs next year.

Again, I thank Chairman Oberstar for his leadership and commitment to our Nation's infrastructure and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1344 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6566) to bring down

energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production,

encouraging the development of alternative and renewable

energy, and promoting conservation. All points of order

against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority

leader, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if

offered by the Majority Leader or his designee, which shall

be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for

40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank my friend for yielding. Although it has been a couple of years since I was 30-something, I appreciate your yielding me some time.

Thank you for being here tonight and for talking about some reasonable positions that we're taking with respect to energy in this country. It's sad. I've been here for the past couple of hours, listening to my colleagues and to my friends from the other side of the aisle who were talking about their perception of what Congress is doing. It's sad because it's a real revisionist sort of perception because they see it from a perspective that, frankly, just isn't the case.

When they say that nothing is being done, frankly, I don't know what they're talking about or what they're seeing, because there are a number of things being done. They may not be the things that they would like to see done, but clearly, a number of steps have been taken, and I think they are steps that are practical and smart and wise.

One of the things that troubles me is that the only thing we hear from the other side of the aisle is drill, drill, drill. All they ever talk about is drill, and that presumes that we are going to be drilling for oil and that we are going to be reliant upon oil. You know, that's what put us in the situation we're in now--the reliance upon a finite resource that is not going to last forever. They want to continue to drill, and it's important.

I was just reading an article, and it talks about how important it is to drill. I support drilling. I think we should drill. There are 68 million acres that are available to drill on, and we should be drilling on them. We should be drilling in Alaska on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That's why they call it the ``petroleum reserve,'' because there's petroleum there. We can be drilling there. We should be drilling there. The oil companies can do it. Why aren't they doing it? Well, if their companies are making the biggest profits in the history of their business, why would they do anything differently?

That's why we have backed legislation that says ``use it or lose it.'' It's the same thing that we do for the coal companies. If they have reserves, if they have leases on the properties, they should very well be drilling on them.

You know, recently, I spoke to a group of teenagers, high school students, in an organization called Boys State, in New York State. There were about 600 young boys, and I was speaking to them, and I was talking to them about how important it will be in the future for energy policy to be focused on not just finite resources but on the future.

It's interesting because, when you talk to young people about the future, when you talk to young people about renewables, when you talk to young people about geothermal, about wind power, about solar power, and about cellulosic ethanol, they get it. It occurred to me that our generation got it back in the '70s. When everybody was talking about the energy crisis back in the '70s, we got it. We understood exactly what needed to be done. Only it wasn't done, and the last generation passed the problem on to us. Now it is our responsibility to do something, not to pass it on, not to just drill, drill, drill, drill, and then in 10 years or in 15 years have our children and our grandchildren have to deal with the very same problems that we're dealing with today.

We need to have a responsible, reasonable energy policy. That's the difference between what our side of the aisle is developing and what the other side of the aisle is developing. They're not developing an energy policy. Drill, drill, drill is not an energy policy. You cannot drill your way to energy independence. All you can do is become more dependent.

I'm a former D.A., and it's a lot like being addicted to drugs. When you see drug dealers, people who are addicted to drugs, all they want are more and more drugs. We can not be addicted to oil. We can't just constantly look for more and more oil. That is part of the solution, but it is only a part of the solution.

It's also the renewables. It's natural gas. It's geothermal. It is cellulosic ethanol. It's biofuels. That is the future. That is what our country should be looking at. That's real energy policy. That's the futuristic kind of energy policy that I want to pass on to my children so that my children don't have to be saddled with the same problems that our generation is saddled with. Those are the kinds of things that we should be doing, as any good parent would do.

I heard my colleagues a little earlier talking about natural gas reserves. I'm fortunate to represent an area in Upstate New York that actually has one of the largest shale deposits of natural gas, the Marcellus Shale Deposit, which extends from northern Pennsylvania into southern New York and into eastern Ohio.

There, the Federal Government doesn't control or own any of that land. That's privately owned by farmers, by individuals, and we're starting to see some oil companies leasing small amounts of that property. Well, there's no governmental regulation here. There's no difficulty in terms of getting leases. If the energy companies want to come out and get the leases, they can do it. It is available to them. So, when we hear these arguments that Congress is putting some kinds of limitations on the ability of energy companies to drill, that just isn't the case. That isn't factual.

What we need to develop in this country is a real long-term energy policy that deals not only with the short term but with the middle term and with the long term. There are a couple of other points that I think are very important that I would just like to touch on.

Recently, we passed a piece of legislation that required the President to stop buying into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That was critically important. Additionally, we need to do a little more. Perhaps we need to have the President release some of the petroleum that is in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

You know, it's there for a reason. It's there for an emergency. I would say there is an emergency that we're in today. And perhaps that's the kind of thing that the President should be looking at now.

Additionally, in Congress we've taken some intermediate steps like we reappropriated the Amtrak bill. That's critical. We've passed legislation that provides for rural mass transit. In a time when energy prices are high, people are going to rely more upon mass transit.

That is the kind of strategy that we need, a full-scale energy strategy that deals not just with drilling, that deals not just with nuclear, that deals not just with renewables, but across the board.

So I think that is clearly what the Democratic majority is working towards. It's working towards trying to move America off our addiction to finite resources like gas and oil and move it into something that makes more sense for our future, for our children, and for our grandchildren.

I would like to thank the gentleman very much for yielding the time to me.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Francis A. Leone, Sr., a former resident of my congressional district in Upstate New York, and his remarkable record of service as a WorId War II and Korean war veteran.

It is always a pleasure to recognize the service and sacrifices made by our military veterans, and Mr. Leone is no exception. In 1940, at the age of 19, Mr. Leone enlisted as a private in the Army National Guard. He was assigned to Company M 10th Infantry 27th Division. Stationed for basic and advanced infantry training in Fort McClellen, Alabama, he quickly moved up the ranks and was promoted to corporal. In 1942, his unit was dispatched to the Pacific Theatre of WorId War II. Throughout the next 3 years, Mr. Leone saw combat in Eneiwetok, Saipan, and Okinawa. During this period he was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant, where he was honorably discharged at the end of World War II.

Mr. Leone demonstrated his deep patriotism again in 1946, when he reenlisted in the New York Army Guard Truck Company. There he held the rank of first sergeant and was assigned as chief of small arms repair. In January 1950, he was appointed warrant officer junior grade, as a small arms and ordnance supply officer and joined the 132nd Ordnance Company stationed at Fort Pickett, Virginia. Later that year his unit was recalled to active Federal service for the Korean war. In May 1952, Mr. Leone and his unit were transferred to Germany where he served with the 93rd Light Aviation Maintenance Company. He was promoted to the rank of chief warrant officer.

Mr. Leone served the remainder of the war and following years in various assignments within maintenance. On May 30, 1981, at the age of 60, he was honorably discharged.

During Mr. Leone's time of service he received 17 awards and medals including the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation, and a Combat Infantry Badge, among others. However, his time in the military had a cost. During World War II, Mr. Leone spent 5 long years without seeing his family and loved ones, 3 of those years in combat.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Leone's dedication to this Nation and its citizens is to be commended. His service should be an inspiration to us all. Thank you, Mr. Leone, for your hard work and tremendous personal sacrifices for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1259, to congratulate the Hamilton College Lady Continentals on their NCAA Division III women's lacrosse championship.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today and represent such a talented group of athletes in New York's 24th Congressional District. The Hamilton Continentals this year completed the best season in the college's 29-year women's lacrosse history, and are the first team at the college to ever reach the national semifinals in any NCAA championship.

This truly phenomenal team has demonstrated passion and commitment to their sport, racking up an impressive 21-1 record this year and creating the longest winning streak in Division III women's lacrosse. This group of 20 athletes knows the true meaning of teamwork, while also proving that they are each formidable opponents on the field through their impressive individual records.

Ten Hamilton players have garnered an amazing total of 11 All-America awards throughout their college careers. This year alone, four Continentals won All-America awards this year, six players were selected to the all-region team, and nine players were selected to the all-league team.

Hamilton College, located in Clinton, NY, is a nationally-recognized liberal arts college that consistently ranks in the top 20 liberal arts institutions across the Nation. The college receives applications from around the country and around the world, contributing to a student body with diverse interests and talents with a great potential for achievement and innovation. Given the college's commitment and the dedication of their students, there is no doubt that it will continue its centuries-long tradition of excellence in scholastics and, now, athletics.

The accomplishments of the Hamilton Lady Continentals cannot be applauded without commending the efforts of their coaching staff. Head Coach Patty Kloidt, and assistants Amanda Nobis and Mackay Rippey, have guided the Lady Continentals to victory this year. This nurturing and inspiring coaching team was named the 2008 Liberty League Coaching Staff of the Year, and Head Coach Patty Kloidt was recently named 2008 NCAA Division III Coach of the Year by the Intercollegiate Women's Lacrosse Coaches Association. On behalf of my colleagues in Washington and in my district, I wish to congratulate this team on their success and recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to support this resolution congratulating the Hamilton College Lady Continentals women's lacrosse team, and to support them in their future endeavors as they continue to inspire athletes across the country.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5975, to rename the post office in Waterville, New York in memory of Corporal John P. Sigsbee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with both incredible pride and sadness that I address the House today to speak on this bill that pays tribute to the life and sacrifice of one of this Nation's fallen soldiers, U.S. Army Corporal John Sigsbee.

On January 16, 2008, Corporal Sigsbee of Waterville, New York was killed in action 50 miles north of Baghdad during his second tour of duty in Iraq.

The family he left behind while in the line of duty will soon receive his second Military Purple Heart on his behalf. Corporal Sigsbee was only 21 years old when his life was taken in service of our country.

John Sigsbee graduated from Waterville Central School in 2004 and attended Mohawk Valley Community College. Upon completing his first year of college, John decided to join the U.S. Army to further finance his higher education and became wounded one month to the day during his first tour of duty in Iraq.

John was sent home to recover at the Brooke Army Medical Center, where he was visited by Army personnel who awarded him for his bravery. These officers told John that he needed time to heal properly from the burns he suffered when his tank drove over two IEDs, and that he needed time to consider his decision to return to service. However, John replied, with his mother at his side, ``Give me one year and I'll be back.'' John did just that, and it was then that his mother started to know what ``sacrifice'' truly means.

John went back and gave all that he had to give. In his mind, there was no question that his place was back with his fellow troops in Iraq to fulfill his responsibilities as a young American soldier.

Corporal Sigsbee valiantly served as a member of the 32nd Cavalry Unit in the 101st Airborne Division, a dedicated young man who every day honored his responsibility to his country and his mission. Corporal Sigsbee's purpose and sacrifices will be remembered by the entire village of Waterville, county of Oneida and now, with passage of this bill, by the whole Nation.

During calling hours and funeral arrangements for Corporal Sigsbee, his family and loved ones received an outpouring of gratitude and support by the village of Waterville. Over 2,000 citizens attended calling hours to pay their respects for this young American, and 300 members from local veterans' organizations came to the local high school as a show of strength and unity for their fellow soldier. Additionally, a 50-car procession escorted his body from the Griffiss Airfield to Saratoga National Cemetery where he was laid to rest.

On that day, January 25, 2008, Corporal Sigsbee received a true hero's welcome from not only his family and friends, but from people who did not know him yet wanted to give their thanks, thanks to a man who paid the ultimate price for their safety and their freedom. The renaming of this post office may be considered by some as a simple act by Congress. But it will forever symbolize to the village of Waterville and the citizens of Oneida County, and to future generations, the deep appreciation that this legislative body has for this man's life and contributions, and for the actions of each and every member of our Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to support this legislation renaming the Waterville, New York, Post Office after and in honor of Corporal

John P. Sigsbee and to forever honor the life of this soldier, son, brother and American hero.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are looking to Washington for help in reducing prices at the pump. They don't really have a lot of interest in pointing fingers; they just want us to act in a bipartisan fashion to bring these record prices down. But of course that hasn't stopped the oil company executives from pointing fingers, and of course that is what they do. That is all they can do. Anything but let the American people see where the real fault is, with the oil companies.

Last month, nonetheless, Congress acted in a strong bipartisan fashion to pressure the administration to temporarily suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which experts agree will help drive down gasoline prices. This bipartisan House also overrode the Presidential veto on the new farm bill that makes an historic commitment to more affordable home-grown American biofuel and increased the oversight of commodity futures in order to detect and prevent market manipulation of energy prices.

Mr. Speaker, as this House prepares to debate more energy legislation this week, I hope we can work together to provide some relief at the pump.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, traveling across my district, there is one thing I hear about again and again, and that is gas prices. Whether it is at the grocery store or at the gas pumps, Americans are feeling the crunch. Skyrocketing gas prices are hitting hardworking families across my upstate New York district and across the country.

Today, we will take one more step to bring down gas prices by cracking down on price gouging by big oil companies. The Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act would provide relief for consumers by giving the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate and punish companies that artificially inflate the price of energy.

The largest oil companies have seen record profits and record paychecks for their CEOs, while middle-class families struggle just to fill up their tank. It is time to hold them accountable.

Under this bill, the Justice Department could impose criminal penalties of up to $150 million on corporations and jail sentences of up to 10 years to crack down on wholesale and retail companies charging unconscionable and excessive prices. Penalties from price gougers would go to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, to help families with heating and air conditioning bills. Already this Congress has fought to increase domestic oil supply and hold OPEC and speculators accountable for price manipulations.

We have invested in new alternative energy sources that will decrease our dependency on finite fossil fuels and create good-paying jobs in places like Upstate New York.

Mr. Speaker, we owe it to our constituents and to our children and grandchildren to do everything we can to bring down outrageous gas prices, put our economy back on track and make sure that this country is on a new path to energy independence and success.