Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the passage of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). This critical piece of legislation reauthorizes the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) and provides the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with additional resources to further promote and protect the public health. The FDAAA reinforces and expands FDA's comprehensive authority in all aspects of drug regulation--including with respect to drug safety and labeling--and takes the nation's drug safety system, which is already the most rigorous, and makes it even stronger. I commend my colleagues and their dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle who worked tirelessly to ensure that this bill was completed in a bipartisan manner before the September 30, 2007 expiration of the existing PDUFA program.

The funds from PDUFA are used to allow FDA to hire additional staff to perform its critical drug review functions while maintaining the same exacting standards for safety and efficacy. Additional funding provided as part of FDAAA will allow the FDA to expand drug safety monitoring, hire additional staff for post-market surveillance, and modernize its information technology systems. Expanded resources will also enable FDA to hire additional employees to review broadcast drug advertisements prior to public dissemination, helping to ensure that benefits and risks of prescription drug products are clearly and accurately communicated to the public. The legislation creates strong incentives for companies to submit

such advertisements to the FDA before they are aired.

In passing the FDAAA, Congress also reauthorizes the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) and the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), both of which were set to expire on September 30. Since its original passage, the BPCA has done more than any other initiative to generate vital information about the use of medicines in pediatric populations and to promote research on the use of pharmaceutical products in children. The BPCA and PREA were designed to work in tandem to promote and support pediatric research. Therefore, it is critical that these two programs remain linked, as they are in the

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Marcel Marceau, who died September 22, 2007, at the age of 84.

Marcel Marceau revived the art of pantomime, performing across the world beginning after World War II. Through his on-stage persona, ``Bip,'' Marceau was known for his ability to capture the full range of human emotions without using words.

Although he became famous as a performer, Marceau's most admirable accomplishment was not on the stage. As a French Jew born Marcel Mangel, during World War II he changed his name and joined the French Resistance to save Jewish children from the Holocaust. He and his brother forged documents to trick the Nazis into thinking that children were too young to be deported, and also helped kids escape into Switzerland.

Speaking years later about his actions and about those who were lost in the Holocaust, which included his father, Marceau said: ``Among those kids was maybe an Einstein, a Mozart, somebody who (would have) found a cancer drug. That is why we have a great responsibility. Let us love one another.''

Just as the Holocaust demonstrated the worst evil that humans are capable of, the response by individuals like Marcel Marceau represented the best in human compassion.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to state my support for Taiwan's admission to the United Nations. Taiwan has been a sovereign state with a democratically-elected government since 1949 and it is only fair that they be allowed to represent their 23 million citizens in this international body. Taiwan has a steadily growing economy, a stable, democratically elected government and their own educational and legal system. They are a strong ally of the United States, and it is only right that we support them in their ongoing effort to gain U.N. membership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kingston amendment.

I have got short time, but earlier this year the Energy and Commerce Committee had a hearing on drug safety, and my good friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), summarized the problem with drug importation by referencing a New York Times article just that week. She said, ``Counterfeit drugs made in China were exported to Panama for sale, and they included a deadly toxin . . . 365 families reported deaths as a result of the tainted cough syrup and fever medication.''

My friend, Ms. DeGette, continued: ``Mr. Chairman, the dangers from counterfeit and contaminated drugs are frighteningly real, even under the current construct. Permitting reimportation would significantly increase the risk of counterfeit, misbranded, and adulterated drugs that would end up in my constituents' homes.''

I agree with my friend from the other side of the aisle, the dangers related to drug importation the FDA needs the authority to prevent counterfeit medicines from coming into America.

I urge my colleaues to support the Kingston Amendment.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Ferguson-Langevin amendment that will set aside $10 million for implementation and to fund the Lifespan Respite Care Act.

I know the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin, will be speaking on this amendment as well. I really want to praise him and thank him for his great leadership on this issue over the years. He and I have worked together as friends and partners on this issue in particular. I have great respect and admiration for the work that he has done on this issue.

Together, we have worked to pass the Lifespan Respite Care Act. It was unanimously approved by this Chamber and the Senate last Congress. It deserves the funding necessary to launch this critically important program. Funding the Lifespan Respite Care Act will, for the first time, establish a national policy to help our Nation's 50 million family caregivers who provide daily care for their loved ones with disabilities or chronic conditions or illnesses.

This program allows families to care in home for their loved ones instead of an institutionalized setting. In-home family caregivers provide minute-by-minute special assistance to their loved ones due to disability or critical illness or chronic condition.

Family caregivers are remarkable people. They make extraordinary sacrifices to help those who they love so dearly.

I saw an example of this firsthand in my own family. Ten years ago my mom was diagnosed with cancer. For 6 years I got to watch my dad as he cared for my mom through this very difficult struggle with cancer. Three years ago yesterday she lost that battle with cancer, but it was a great example to our family and so many others that we know of a great example of a family caregiver who made extraordinary sacrifices. There are some 50 million people just like my dad who provide care for a loved one in their own family.

These are folks who may not be blessed with a support structure that we had in our family. We had my siblings and me and others in our family who were able to give my dad a break when he needed a break from that family caregiving. There are many people in our country who are not fortunate enough to have that support structure around them. They are desperately in need of a break from time to time.

While the benefits that come from in-home care can be enormous, for caregivers and for that loved one who is ill, the cost for the family caregiver, from emotional to financial, can really be overwhelming. Lifespan Respite Care will provide much-needed breaks for caregivers who are providing intense and exhaustive care 24 hours a day. An occasional break can literally be a lifesaver.

I had a conversation with a constituent from my district, Ms. Pinter, who told me that caring for her special-needs child can be a very joyful but also can be a very challenging experience. You know what? She is exactly right.

Two-thirds of caregivers report physical or mental health care problems linked to their own caregiving. Recent studies have found that family caregivers suffer poor health or even higher mortality rates than nonfamily caregivers. Currently our Nation lacks a coordinated approach between different levels of government or advocacy groups to aid those who are in need of respite care.

Respite care is in short supply or doesn't exist at all in some areas of our country. This legislation and these funds would change that.

Funding the Lifespan Respite Care Act would improve coordination and access for respite care to recruit and train respite care providers, would aid family caregivers regardless of age or disability or their family situation, help them to find and pay for respite services. Through competitive grants, States would get funding to make quality respite care available and accessible regardless of age or disability or family situation.

Respite care improves the health and the well-being of caregivers and reduces the risk of abuse or neglect. Importantly, it also delays or even avoids more costly hospitalizations or placements in nursing homes or in foster care.

I want to thank all of the family caregivers in our Nation who provide tireless care for their loved ones, and I also want to extend my thanks to the numerous groups and organizations around this country in their exhaustive effort to establish this Lifespan Respite Care program. Providing relief to our Nation's family caregivers is long overdue.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Once again, I am pleased and honored to have worked with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) on this important legislation.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a recorded vote on the Ferguson amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield to the majority leader.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to this important bill that would add an additional $50 million to help American students who require special education.

First, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their outstanding efforts to recognize that insufficient funds for special education that are so desperately needed in this country, I know that in committee they added an additional $335 million to IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. But having talked to and listened to the stories from teachers and educators and parents from my district and elsewhere who work in special education in my home State of New Jersey, I believe we must try to do even more, and we can certainly do more to recognize the important needs of these particular students and these particular programs.

Mr. Chairman, Congress, in 1975, enacted the landmark IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which mandated that every student, including those students who have special needs or disabilities will receive a quality and appropriate public education. The law also committed the Federal Government to contribute 40 percent of special education costs, which are often several times higher than the cost of educating other students.

Washington, of course, has never met this long-standing, but unfulfilled, commitment to aid States in paying for special education. And as a former teacher, I know firsthand the value of education for every student and the importance of ensuring that every child, including those who have disabilities, experience the thrill of learning.

School administrators and teachers and parents all across my district tell me that more special education funding is needed to meet the growing demands in our schools. As teachers seek to improve academic standards and accountability, increased Federal special education funding is critically important to help schools to meet these important obligations to special education students and their families.

Washington, as we know, has never met that 40 percent funding threshold. And while Federal education funding has increased by more than 258 percent between 1995 and 2006, this year it still only represents 17.2 percent of the cost of serving students with disabilities.

My home State of New Jersey is a national leader in special education. Parents with kids who have special needs and disabilities literally move into our State. They come to New Jersey, particularly parents who have children with autism, they literally move to New Jersey so their kids can enroll in our State's special education programs.

This year alone, New Jersey education officials estimate that they're going to spend more than $4 billion in combined Federal, State and local funds to administer special ed programs to almost 250,000 students. Of course there's more than 7 million students nationwide who qualify for these programs.

Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House for 6\1/2\ years. And I know that certain years funding levels for special education have been increased and other years they have not been increased. It can be fairly characterized as kind of going in fits and starts. Some years we've made big and new investments, and other years, frankly, we haven't.

Six years ago, when I first came to this House and to this Chamber, the first bill I ever introduced in this body was a bill that would fully fund our special education classrooms. I did it with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). He and I have worked together, and I know many others have worked together, to work to fully fund our special education classrooms. Indeed, today I remain and I am the lead Republican sponsor of legislation right now that would fully fund our special education classrooms. But despite many of our best efforts, we have not reached that goal yet. And I know that the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and the ranking member, Mr. Walsh from New York, they have made extraordinary efforts toward this goal as well.

The spirit of this amendment, my amendment, is to make for this year one additional effort to move us in the right direction. Like many of you, I've been in these classrooms. I've observed some of our special needs kids in action. I've seen the heroic efforts of their parents and their teachers and the administrators who work so hard to give them the chance at success in life that they really need and deserve.

We've done some to help them. And this bill today, frankly, does even more. But thanks to the efforts of Chairman Obey and Mr. Walsh, and others, I really know we are working hard toward this goal. But I respectfully ask that we try to do just a little bit more this year, and by approving this amendment we will be able to do that.

I ask my colleagues respectfully to support this important amendment so that we can say we did everything we probably could to help these students who need that extra chance in life.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Ferguson

Amendment No. 66: Page 63, line 4, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased by

$10,000,000)''.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Commissioner Connie Hughes for a long and distinguished career as she retires July 1, 2007, after more than 30 years of public service to New Jersey and its residents.

A commissioner with the New Jersey board of Public Utilities, Commissioner Hughes was appointed to the board in July 2001 by then- Governor Donald T. DiFrancesco. She also has served as board president.

She has held numerous senior positions within the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, including serving as its representative to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Government Coordinating Council for the Telecom Sector.

Before joining the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Commissioner Hughes served as then-Governor DiFrancesco's Chief of Management and Policy; ex-officio Commissioner of Higher Education; and on the New Jersey State Planning Commission, the New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology, the New Jersey Commission on Environmental Education, the New Jersey State Board of Human Services, and the New Jersey Commerce and Economic Growth Commission Board of Directors.

Known chiefly for her expertise in telecommunications policy, Commissioner Hughes focused her career on issues affecting New Jersey and its consumers. My staff and I, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, had the pleasure of working with her on matters of mutual interest to the State.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Connie Hughes on her more than three decades of outstanding public service to my state of New Jersey and its residents.

I want to thank my friend from Washington and my friend from New Jersey, and others, for supporting this amendment.

I also rise in strong support of this amendment today. We can see here a picture of a beautiful polar bear. Recently, the polar bear was listed as threatened under our Endangered Species Act. I don't believe that allowing hunters to obtain permits to hunt these animals and bring them into our country is a responsible environmental policy, with the loss of habitat that these animals are enduring. And with a 30 percent population decline predicted in the next 35 to 50 years, we ought to be doing everything in our power to preserve this species, and this amendment seeks to do just that.

It is our responsibility to create responsible environmental policies to protect our planet for future generations, and I think this amendment does exactly that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia for the time. And I of course rise in strong support of this amendment. I am delighted to, once again this year, work with Mr. Weiner, Mr. Crowley and Ms. Berkley.

We've offered this amendment in the past. And each year that this Foreign Operations bill includes funding for Saudi Arabia we've offered this amendment, and each year we gain more and more support. Obviously we're disappointed that this bill does include some money for Saudi Arabia, but I'm pleased that offering this bipartisan amendment with broad support on both sides of the aisle, once again we will seek to strip that money.

The bill before us provides $115,000 in foreign aid for a country that has time and time and time and again proven that it doesn't deserve one cent of American taxpayers' dollars, not only because Saudi Arabia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but also because it's not a partner with the United States and other nations in our efforts to combat terrorism.

Saudi Arabia has a pretty poor record on a number of fronts. It's not just a poor record in joining with other allies around the world to combat terrorism. They have a pretty terrible record on human rights, pretty poor record on religious freedom, and they continue to support and participate in the Arab League's boycott of Israel. Now, even recently there was an Arab League boycott meeting in Damascus. The Saudi Government continued to participate in that meeting. All of this despite Saudi Arabia's repeated promises to dismantle the boycott and to support most-favored-nation status for Israel. And Israel, of course, our closest and most important ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia continues to undermine the efforts that we are building in the Middle East.

Clearly, Saudi Arabia is not a country that is struggling to make ends meet. Saudi Arabia doesn't need financial support from other nations. And they certainly can't be considered a strong ally of the United States or the global war on terror.

Last year, more than 300 Members of the House supported this amendment. I am really looking forward to continued broad bipartisan support for this amendment once again this year. And I'm really delighted, once again, to be working with Mr. Weiner and Mr. Crowley and Ms. Berkley in offering this amendment.

I thank you for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for the good work they have done on this bill.

I rise to offer this amendment which holds great importance not only to my home State of New Jersey, but really to the entire Nation. My amendment is a simple one and it is one that is a step in acknowledging the dangers that we are still faced with following the attacks of September 11, 2001.

My amendment would transfer $50 million from the DHS Office of Under Secretary for Management to grants, contracts and cooperative agreements to State and local law enforcement agencies for terrorism prevention activities.

Specifically, this amendment would increase funding for DHS buffer zone protection grants. These funds can be used to enhance security and protection around sites of national importance. These areas of national importance include not only banking and financial sites, but also government buildings and mass transit systems, such as the PATH in New York and New Jersey, the T in Boston, the BART in San Francisco. However, most importantly, this applies to chemical plants, which pose one of the most dangerous threats to our domestic security today.

These funds could be used to provide increased law enforcement patrols around chemical plants and to protect these critical infrastructures, as well as enhance information sharing among Federal, State and local officials and those in the intelligence community.

For example, in 2007, the State of California received $4.6 million of these grant funds. My home State of New Jersey received $1.5 million in these grant funds. Other States that have benefited from this grant program include Maryland and South Carolina, which have each received nearly $1 million. States like Illinois have benefited. Even States like Idaho, Delaware and Montana have benefited from this program. They have each received over $180,000 in these funds. In fact, in 2006, all 50 States in America received grants from this important program.

New Jersey ranks as one of the leading States for chemical production. Most unsettlingly, New Jersey chemical plans are specifically listed by Federal authorities as ripe targets for potential terrorist attack. Millions of people and essential transportation routes surround these chemical plants. An attack on one of these plants could not only cause tremendous loss of life, but also irreversible environmental damage by unleashing secondary explosions or toxic fumes and substances.

Make no any mistake, this amendment wouldn't only benefit New Jersey.

Countless states throughout the Nation that are home to high-risk targets also would benefit from this amendment, which would increase DHS funding for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to state and local law enforcement agencies for terrorism prevention activities.

In 2005, 225 members of the House voted in favor of nearly identical amendment, and dozens of lawmakers are on record as supporting increased DHS funding to bolster protections at our Nation's most high- risk targets. I encourage you to continue this record of support and show the American people that national security is a top priority for this Congress by supporting my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.

I want to thank Congresswoman Boyda for her work on addressing this very important issue and of course Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica and all those who have worked so hard on this legislation. I am a strong supporter and cosponsor of the Safe American Roads Act.

This legislation takes a reasoned and commonsense approach to dealing with opening our borders to Mexico-domiciled trucks. Instead of providing blanket access to U.S. roads, this bill places important standards and restrictions on the DOT's proposed pilot program, ensuring that our roads remain safe and that our Nation's trucking industry remains competitive.

The heart of this legislation centers on establishing a pilot program that employs standards that we in Congress approved, while maintaining an open comment period to ensure that expert opinions are considered with respect to safety and compliance and enforcement.

The bill ensures accountability through both the administrative and legislative process, requiring an Inspector General review of the pilot program to determine whether Mexico-domiciled motor carriers participating are in full compliance with U.S. motor carrier safety laws, and requiring a report to Congress within 90 days of completion of the program.

The Safe American Roads Act does not aim to close America's roadways to foreign truckers. Instead, it requires the Department of Transportation to tap on the brakes, to slow down and make sure that the road we travel down is one that ensures the highest standards of safety and accountability.

Further, the legislation ensures the competitiveness of our Nation's trucking industry by preventing Mexico-domiciled motor carriers from accessing U.S. highways until U.S.-based trucking companies are given comparable access in Mexico.

Once again, I want to thank Congresswoman Boyda for introducing this legislation and her work with Mr. Hunter and so many others. I urge all of our colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in strong support of House Resolution 300, which commends the significant achievements of the Rutgers University Women's Basketball team.

I wholeheartedly join the citizens of our Nation, the people of New Jersey and my colleagues here in the U.S. House of Representatives in congratulating the team for a job well done.

I was not able to formally vote for this important measure that I proudly cosponsored yesterday, because I was in Bound Brook, New Jersey working with local, State and federal officials mapping out a plan to respond to the significant destruction many 7th Congressional District Communities sustained as a result of the massive Nor-easter weekend storm. Had I been present, I would have wholeheartedly voted Yes.

By advancing to the Final Four of the women's National Collegiate Athletic Association championship--the Rutgers University Scarlet Knight basketball team achieved a tremendous success. Each and every member of the team should be proud of their excellent season and their significant accomplishment. The team's 27-9 season record is testament to their hard work and dedication.

I am honored and proud to join our Nation and the citizens of New Jersey in commending the team and their coach C. Vivian Stringer for this accomplishment. Each and every member of the team are true heroes and provide a real inspiration to young people across the Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Michael L. Drozd of Hillsborough, New Jersey. He is dedicating his time and efforts to an important cause. On March 31, Michael will be running in the Cooper River 10K Bridge Run to support the Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund.

This fund provides financial assistance to Marines in combat and training and to their families. Since its inception in May 2004 through the end of last year, the Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund has provided more than $8 million to our wounded heroes.

At 23 years old, Michael has served in the Army, Navy, and the Marines. Michael is a senior First Classman who will be commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the Marine Corps when he graduates from the Citadel in May. He is the only Marine representative Cadet from New Jersey participating in the run and will be running in battle dress uniform, combat boots, and wearing a 50-pound rucksack.

I'd like to commend Michael not only for his selflessness and service to our country but also for his commitment and dedication to such a worthy cause. It is truly inspiring to see a young person like Michael give so much of their time and energy to help others in need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed emotions. I am proud of our troops and the sacrifices they have made in Iraq, their dedication, their perseverance and the love and support of their families here at home. I am disappointed that the strategies employed thus far have not been more successful and that our progress in Iraq has been too slow, and I am saddened that those who have drafted this resolution are offering no alternatives of their own for our mission in Iraq. Indeed, they are prohibiting consideration in this Chamber of any alternative.

Therefore, I will vote against this resolution.

I believe most Americans share the same goal for Iraq, a stable government that can serve its people, a strong security force that can protect its people, and a growing economy that can encourage prosperity for its people.

We want the Iraqis to succeed, and we want our troops to come home. There is no question and no denying that mistakes in the planning and execution of the war have led us to where we are today. Hindsight is 20/20, and we can all offer suggestions for how things should have been done differently, done better, done more effectively during the past 4 years.

But that is not what is going on in this Chamber here today. Members are being cynically asked to vote on a resolution that does not address victory or success. It does not offer a pathway toward the peace and the prosperity that are vital to the region. It simply plays politics with the war and, in so doing, does our troops and their families here at home a terrible disservice.

While no one in this Chamber or any general in uniform can guarantee the success of this new initiative in Iraq, we can safely say that not pursuing it and continuing the status quo will lead to failure. Iraq then likely would fall into further chaos and transform itself, much as Afghanistan did a decade ago, into a breeding ground for terrorists, who plot attacks not on our troops in Iraq but upon our civilians here at home.

Make no mistake, failure of the U.S. mission in Iraq will not end the war. It will only shift the battlefield. The terrorists are at war with us, whether we fight back or not.

The consequences of failure in Iraq would be as dramatic as the fruits of victory. An Iraqi government stable enough to take the lead role in providing for its own internal security will allow us to achieve our collective goal, the return of U.S. troops. Rather than being allied with terrorists, Iraq would be an ally with America and the war on terror. In so doing, it would honor the more than 3,000 American men and women who have died fighting for its freedom and countless more who have been wounded and will bear for their lifetimes the scars of battle.

The status quo in Iraq is unacceptable. We need a new strategy, new tactics, new commanders on the ground, and a new and sustained commitment from the Iraqi government that they will do more of their share.

We know that the road ahead will be difficult and that the prospects for success are dwindling. But I believe a renewed and amplified effort by U.S. forces and Iraqi troops to retain security in Baghdad may offer the best hope we have for the lasting success of the U.S. mission and for the future stability of Iraq's government. It may also be, I believe, our last chance for victory. The President knows this, and I believe the Iraqi government and its people know this, too.

It is in that spirit and with that understanding that I will vote against this resolution. Our collective prayer is for the safety of our troops, for their success, and that they will be reunited with their families here at home as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and I thank our friends Ms. Eshoo and Mr. Lampson for their efforts, and I rise in support of this bill; but I think the bill can be better, and I rise in opposition to the second-degree amendment because I frankly think it would weaken the Burgess-Ferguson amendment that would really strengthen this legislation.

The amendment that Mr. Burgess and I are offering would help take a significant step forward in advancing fuel technology and helping to secure our Nation's energy independence, but it also is key to stopping a potential environmental problem before it starts.

I have been a champion for renewable energy technologies and new developments in alternative fuels, and I really believe that we have to ensure that these new technologies do not contribute to the ongoing environmental problems that we are facing today.

While the gentlewoman from California has offered an original amendment and has offered a secondary-degree amendment to our amendment, they sound familiar, but they are very different amendments. I believe this second-degree amendment to our amendment would significantly weaken the improvements that our amendment would make to the bill.

I commend her for her commitment to improving this legislation, but our amendment is more comprehensive and frankly just goes one step further. While her amendment would seek to minimize emissions from stationary sources at the end of the process, like at gas pumps, ours would seek to minimize emissions at both mobile and stationary sources. It is more comprehensive, it is a stronger amendment, and it would help to ensure that we are careful to recognize the possible environmental impacts that these fuels have as they move from production to the end product that ends up in your gas tank.

So in my home State of New Jersey, we undergo a constant struggle with clean air issues. Our amendment would go so far as to ensure that any new fuels that are added to our market to decrease our dependence on foreign oil do not have an adverse impact on the quality of the air that our citizens are breathing.

Let me be clear. This is a good bill. I intend to support the bill. I think it can be better. I think it can be better with the Burgess- Ferguson amendment. I think it would be weakened with this Eshoo second-degree amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the amendment.