Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 277, the Nadler Amendment to H.R. 4745. As a strong supporter of this amendment, my intent was to vote ``yes.''

I thank the gentleman. I thank you for your good work.

Mr. Rogers, I thank you for your good work, and we are going to miss you. Your leadership on the Intel Committee has been of great benefit to this institution. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I have been working with a number of my colleagues, particularly with Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, on a question that we think is quite important to the security status of our country, and that is more transparency in the budget.

This is debated because, by definition, if it is intelligence activity, it is ``secret,'' but on the other hand, the whole point of having transparency in budgets is so the rules of accountability apply across the board. We have 16 different intelligence-gathering agencies, and in all cases, the topline budget is absolutely secret.

The 9/11 Commission that was a bipartisan commission of respected national security credentialed people--Lee Hamilton and the Governor of New Jersey, Governor Kean--recommended that this topline number in the intelligence agency budgets be transparent.

Why? So that there is a basis for taxpayers and for all of us to start to evaluate whether we are getting our money's worth, whether there is duplication in efforts, whether one agency is stumbling into another, whether there is coordination, whether there is cooperation.

The same reasons that we would have the food stamp budget subject to rigid review and accountability applies as well to our security. In fact, it is enormously important that this country be getting its money's worth.

The principle of transparency would not in any way compromise, in the view of many respected intelligence leaders like Lee Hamilton, the intelligence gathering and the effort and responsibility to keep us secure.

So I was disappointed that we were not allowed to have an amendment on that bill, but I do appreciate the willingness of the ranking member to work with me and also of the chairman to listen to many of us in this body who would like that opportunity to make the case that Lee Hamilton made for transparency.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Shimkus amendment. The amendment is identical to H.R. 4342, the DOTCOM Act of 2014. It would arbitrarily delay the transition of the United States' role in the management of the global Internet domain name system to the multistakeholder community.

It really does represent a very drastic departure from the support Members of this body have expressed for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. In fact, despite the House of Representatives already voting unanimously three times in the past 2 years calling on the Obama administration to commit to a global Internet free from government control, the Shimkus amendment sends the exact opposite message by raising doubts about the strength and credibility of the multistakeholder approach.

NTIA's recent transition announcement will complete our 16-year-long effort to move management of the domain name system away from governments and into the private sector.

This objective has been the linchpin of U.S. policy, bipartisan through the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, and the entire rationale for having ICANN, a private U.S.-based nonprofit organization created in 1998 to assume key responsibilities for Internet functions on behalf of the Internet's multistakeholder community.

Some of my colleagues raise the specter of Russia or China taking over the Internet as a reason for supporting this amendment. These threats against Internet openness are real, but claiming this amendment does anything to address them is false.

In fact, by creating an artificial delay in the implementation of the consensus transition plan produced by ICANN, the Shimkus amendment suggests governmental meddling in the multistakeholder process is entirely appropriate.

The reverse is true. Authoritarian regimes are already using the U.S. Government's stewardship of technical Internet functions as evidence for a need to move these functions to another governmental or intergovernmental entity like the United Nations.

This amendment further plays into the hands of these antidemocratic nations by emboldening their efforts to seize control of the Internet.

So I would say to my colleagues to support this amendment or the DOTCOM Act, they either show a lack of understanding of what our government's role actually is or a lack of confidence in the multistakeholder model and its ability to resist governmental control. Both serve to weaken our role in the global stage, not strengthen it.

The best defense we have against a governmental takeover of the domain system is to empower our allies in the multistakeholder community. Our diplomats, who have fought hard to preserve an Internet free from governmental control in global forums, tell us that having this transition is a critical continuation of our efforts to build upon the success of the multistakeholder model.

Now is the time to continue our unwavering support of that model. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Shimkus amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois.

You know, we are pretty proud of the Internet. We want to keep it free and nongovernmental control. Multistakeholder basically means all of the stakeholders who have a stake in the Internet are going to be at the table having a discussion about how we are going to resolve this situation.

There is an apprehension that I don't think is well-founded that is reflected in this amendment. It is really, essentially, about delaying the process of these ongoing negotiations that have to occur in a very complicated global system which is called the Internet.

So the House has voted on this three times before. It has indicated its support through the Clinton, the Bush, and the Obama administrations. Every one of those Presidents, I think, shares the concern that every one of us in this House have about maintaining a free and open Internet. We have got to get on with the job.

Our view is that the Shimkus amendment would create confusion and delay and impede our ability to get to an end result that will make the Internet more secure, more free, and more open.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I seek to mark the start of Building Safety Month. Each May, we recognize the importance of building safety and the leadership of the International Code Council (ICC) that develops and publishes the model building safety and energy efficiency codes. These codes are used in my home state of Vermont, and throughout the United States, as well as in many other nations.

Building codes are the foundation for safety, stability and performance in buildings. Without strong building codes, flood would lead to increased damage, earthquakes would flatten communities, and countless lives would be lost. Strong model building codes also ensure our buildings are high performing and energy efficient.

So I want to congratulate the leaders of the ICC, who sponsor Building Safety Month, celebrated in May every year for over 30 years.

The leaders of ICC, including the President Stephen D. Jones, Construction Official for Millburn Township/Short Hills, New Jersey; Past President of the Board of Directors, Ronald Piester, Director, Division of Code Enforcement and Administration from the New York Secretary of State's Office; Vice-President Guy Tomberlin, Code Specialist for Fairfax County, Virginia; and Alex Olszowy III, Building Inspection Supervisor, Lexington/Fayette Urban County Government, Kentucky will join ICC's Chief Executive Officer Dominic Sims in Washington the week of May 19th, to discuss the critical need to support the adoption and enforcement of current building codes, to make sure Americans are safe at home, at work, at school and at play.

The model building codes, produced by ICC, allow every community in the United States to share the advantage of adopting building codes that are adaptable to local conditions, but at the same time incorporate the very latest research, materials, and building practices. This is achieved in a private-public partnership, saving local jurisdictions from bearing the large expense of code revision, updating and coordination. These model codes are produced through the cooperation of thousands of local officials, working with the building industry, to produce codes that represent a consensus on what the minimum safety requirements are for various building types.

Congratulations to the hard working members, and leadership, of the International Code Council.

Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago, America suffered an incredible tragedy; 241 Marines in Beirut lost their lives when terrorists bombed the barracks in which they were living. At that time, we had a President whose name was Ronald Reagan, and we had a Speaker of the House whose name was Tip O'Neill. Different parties.

That was an enormous tragedy. An investigation needed to be done, and it was done. It was done on a bipartisan basis. One investigation was done. And there was a presumption that no matter how tragic this was and no matter how important it was to hold people accountable--and that was done--that everybody involved had the best intentions for America's future strength.

And there seems to be a premise, at least to me, that this President of the United States has any less commitment to protecting the lives and safety of the American people than any other President.

I will tell you, I was an opponent of the war in Iraq, and I was critical of the policies and the decisions of our then-President George Bush. But never once did I question that his motivations were anything less than what he thought was best for America.

We are going off the rails here. This is a tragedy. But there is a real question, at least on the part of many of us, and I think many Americans, as to whether we are doing this right. How is it that there is such glee that the decision is made to go forward after seven other committees, 25,000 documents--more work could be done--but how is it that there was such glee on one side that they turned it into a fundraising opportunity? Who would do that?

Mr. Gowdy won't do it, and he is a good man. But do you know what? If we are going to proceed, it has got to be on the level. We have a seven-to-five committee that is being organized. It is not even-handed. You can't have these tough decisions that not only have to be made right but have to be made so that there is credibility with the American people that they are on the level and not political where you don't have a bipartisan approach, you don't have everybody weighing in on subpoenas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that the American people hold the Congress of the United States in such lowest esteem. We are providing them with some additional basis to have that opinion, and this here is what it is.

Number one, this was an important investigation. We should do it. We should do it energetically, and we should do it together. Instead, information was constantly withheld from the minority.

Our own ranking member was cut off with really quite a bold gesture by the chairman at a certain point; and it created an impression that it was going to be a one-sided affair, rather than a balanced, cooperative approach. That is essential to having any credibility.

The second thing is: What do we do about Lois Lerner who took the Fifth? We have a debate about whether the manner in which she did that caused her to waive that Fifth Amendment privilege. That is a fair and square question.

Your side thinks she waived it and, therefore, should be held in contempt. Our side--and I think we have the weight of legal opinion-- said she didn't waive it; but you know what, that is a legal question, and there is a document called the Constitution that separates the powers.

Whether this person crossed the line or didn't is a legal determination to be made by judges, not by a vote of Congress. Since when did Congress get to vote on judicial issues?

If we want this to be resolved in a way that has any credibility, it should be decided by the courts. Send this to the courts. Let the judges decide whether this was a waiver or it wasn't; but the idea that a Congress--this time run by Republicans, next time run by Democrats-- can have a vote to make a legal determination about the rights of a citizen is in complete conflict with the separation of powers in our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill.

There are really two issues at stake. One is preserving the integrity of the ACA, the Obama health care bill. There is huge division in this Congress as to whether that bill should have been passed. It was passed. But there is unity of purpose now that where there is an identified problem, we should fix it rather than just having the ideological battle about whether the law should have been passed in the first place. That is actually progress because, as my friend from Pennsylvania said, there is a legitimate expectation on the part of the people we represent to solve concrete, discrete problems when, in the solving of them, we are going to keep 1,200 people working. And that is the real goal of this.

Is there a way where both sides--those who agree with the health care bill and those who disagree with it--can come together with a narrow fix that allows 1,200 people--500 in Delaware and 700 in other parts of the country--to keep doing their work? And, of course, we can.

There is a second question that has come up, and that is whether this bill right now goes as far as it needs to go. Is this crafted as well as it needs to be crafted? And that is debatable. The points that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) made were heartfelt, but there has been real progress because there has been engagement.

You have had Mr. Carney and Mr. Nunes working very closely with colleagues on both of their sides to deal with practical issues that have come up. You have had the White House meeting with Cigna, and both sides understood. Cigna understood that the White House had had some legitimate concerns as proponents of the ACA; the White House understood that Cigna had real and legitimate concerns about their business and their jobs.

So the progress is reflected in this bill. There is now a debate about whether that is enough progress. So we have to make a decision: Do we wait and try to keep negotiating here or do we move it on to the Senate?

In my view, we move it on to the Senate, partly because, as Mr. Nunes said, we have been grappling with this for 3 to 4 years. Second, we have got ACA supporters--and this gives me comfort--on the Senate side, Senator Carper and Senator Coons from Delaware, who are committed to making certain that the fix doesn't compromise the health care bill. That is important to folks like me who voted for the ACA.

So this is a practical step that we can take, working together in order to save jobs without compromising the underlying legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I am a strong ACA supporter. We have got to improve it. We have got to make it work, and that is the reason why I am supporting this legislation.

Some efforts that are brought to the floor about the ACA are about unraveling it, but those of us who are the strong supporters--when an issue is identified that can help jobs and make some improvements, we have the responsibility, in my view, Madam Speaker, to advocate for those changes.

We have the Member from Delaware (Mr. Carney), a strong supporter of the ACA, who has identified a specific problem, and I understand the concerns of the opponents because many efforts are being made to unravel the law, but there has been an acknowledgement that there is a problem, and that is what is being addressed by Mr. Carney.

If the language is not as good as it should be--and part of that may be because we didn't have as much time to consider it--we have strong allies in the Senate. Senator Carper and Senator Coons are both very strong ACA supporters who are willing to make the adjustments over there, not to mention the majority leader, Senator Reid.

So this is not perfect; but we have got a situation here where it is acknowledged by both sides, the opponents of this bill and the proponents of this bill, that there is an issue because of the language in the ACA bill.

If this Congress were working the way, ideally, it would, when there is a problem that we could identify, we would come up with a specific solution.

If we had more time, it might be better language, but the fact that we would act here to keep this alive, give some hope to those folks that Mr. Carney is concerned about whose jobs are at stake, and then work with our colleagues in the Senate to make whatever improvements can be made, we could maintain the strength of the Affordable Care Act; preserve the jobs that may be lost in Delaware, California, and elsewhere; and demonstrate some flexibility to make all our legislation that, by definition, is imperfect better.

That can be done on a bipartisan basis.

I thank the gentleman from Delaware, and I thank my colleague from California.

I thank the gentleman.

We are both making an argument that aligns with our points of view on the budget, and the bottom line here is that we have got to invest, we have got to have a balanced budget, and we have got to figure out how to do it. But the question I have about this budget is: What is going to happen to the potholes in America?

I came out of a State legislature where we had constraints on us. We had to find ways to pay our bills within the means of the people of Vermont to be able to pay them. We had to deal with real problems. It required a confident approach to investing in the future. That has to be part of a budget.

America's roads are falling apart. Our bridges are falling down. This is a real disaster when it comes to meeting the infrastructure needs of this country. The American Society of Civil Engineers rates our infrastructure D-plus and estimates that the amount of investment needed by 2020 is $3.6 billion.

This budget accepts the looming insolvency of the highway trust fund, and it does absolutely nothing to fix it. Those potholes are not going to fix themselves. And that is not a Republican or Democratic deal. Those are potholes in your district and mine.

It is scientific research as well. Both sides of the aisle are proud of America's scientific achievements. What this budget continues to do is reduce and squeeze National Institutes of Health grants by about 1,400. Just in the State of Vermont, the University of Vermont has seen a 20 percent drop in those research grants that help those with Ph.D.'s find cures for diseases in the future.

A confident nation is going to fix its roads.

Mr. Cleaver, I appreciate you doing this.

You know, it is just staggering to think about what happened and all of those people going about their daily lives 20 years ago, on April 7, and knowing they are going to die, knowing their loved ones are going to die.

It is so unspeakable that we can't, I can't really imagine what it would be like to live in that country, to live in a neighborhood where you know your moment is coming, where you have a child who is going to die before your very eyes, where your daughter is going to be raped and then killed.

To have this sense of the horror of what is taking place, it is unspeakable. But the realization that the world is going to ignore it, and that happened, day in and day out. Most of us didn't even know about it. There would be reports, but it would be in a distant place. It wasn't anything that you could do anything about.

It was only as the stories fully came out and the horror was fully revealed that the collective gaze of the world that was not acting-- there were all kinds of reasons why I suppose we couldn't or we didn't.

But just try to put yourself in the place of the family, up and down that country, where the word is going from one village to another, from one community to another, from one family to another, that you have got to do everything you can to get out.

And where you live in a community where the majority is going to kill you if they find you, where, as you hide and try to conceal yourself or your kids, you can't figure out how to feed them,

and you have got to come out into the light of day and put yourself at the mercy of your luck, where do you find or meet somebody who might give you a meal so that you can carry on another day.

It is not anything that I can imagine, just the wholesale use of murder in ethnic cleansing, in order to achieve a political goal.

What is an amazing thing is what Mr. Cleaver just told us, about the recovery of Rwanda. These people go on.

Imagine living with the heartache that will never leave you, that you lost a son or daughter, a parent or grandparent. How do you get yourself up and start all over again?

How do you deal with the hatred that you have to fight because it will consume you and prevent you from carrying on yourself?

How do you do that?

The people in Rwanda are doing that and rebuilding that country, rebuilding their economy, and facing life on a day-in-and-day-out basis.

But having a moment to pause and remember is, I think, humbling for all of us. The capacity that we have, as people, to go awry and do things that never, in a million years, do we think was possible, reminds me of just how fragile life is and how really, in a lot of ways, fragile good governance is. You can't take it for granted.

I think all of us here know that there are forces that can get unleashed which, once they are, have an enormously powerful and destructive tendency. The challenge for all of us is to create ways where we can resolve conflict in peaceful and civil ways. The work of that is the work of this Congress and the work of this democracy.

It is fragile. It isn't anything we can ever take for granted. It has to be with that purpose of allowing people to find ways to resolve differences peacefully.

So this is an amazing moment, 20 years after the beginning of the slaughter of 800,000 innocent people, and a slaughter by very cruel and very painful and very relentless efforts.

So thank you so much, Mr. Cleaver, for allowing us to have this moment of reflection.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 125th anniversary of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the national association representing our nation's State utility economic regulators.

The work of our nation's public utility regulators often goes unnoticed and unheralded until the lights go out or our utility rates increase. But rest assured, the work these officials do on a daily basis impacts every single one of us in the country.

State utility regulators ensure the rates we pay for utility services are fair, just, and reasonable. They help make sure the utilities deliver these services--electricity, natural gas, water, and telecommunications--in a safe and reliable manner.

NARUC offers its members countless opportunities for education, sharing of best practices, advocacy, and much more. Since March of 1889, the Association has provided resources aimed at improving regulatory practices. Since just about all of us pay utility bills in some way or another, we have all benefited from NARUC's work over the last century and a quarter.

One hundred and twenty five years ago the electricity industry was in its infancy. Alexander Graham Bell was still perfecting his groundbreaking invention called the telephone. We were still learning how best to transport water and natural gas.

We can now electrify our homes from solar rooftops. We can carry our personal computers in our pockets on our smart phones. We are using new technologies to find abundant resources of natural gas.

The one constant has been NARUC and the quality utility regulation it promotes. I want to thank NARUC and congratulate it on this 125th year anniversary.

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

Chairman Upton, Chairman Whitfield, and Ranking Members Waxman and Rush, I thank all of you for working with us to move this bipartisan legislation today.

Mr. Whitfield, I want to particularly thank you for your leadership on the subcommittee.

Thank you as well to my colleague David McKinley for partnering with me on this issue. Mr. McKinley has an extraordinary background as an engineer and small business owner. He has real practical knowledge that has been extremely helpful, and he has brought invaluable expertise to our committee. I am grateful to him, and this whole body should be grateful to him for his partnership.

The bill today also includes some very good ideas advanced by other Members of Congress: Representatives Eshoo, Rogers, Matheson, Latta, and Castor. I thank all of them for their leadership on this issue.

Lastly, I want to thank House leaders, especially Majority Leader Cantor. He and his staff--Steve Stombres--have been enormously cooperative in dealing with some of the thorny problems that arise whenever there is a complicated piece of legislation to be considered. So thank you.

Like Mr. Whitfield, I have long believed that energy efficiency is an area in which we have common ground in what is too often a very divided Congress.

Mr. Whitfield, I thank you for focusing on that common ground.

Why is it so good?

Because saving energy does three things. It creates jobs. All of the energy efficiency labor is done by local folks who need work. It creates manufacturing jobs because 90 percent of the materials used in energy efficiency are manufactured in this country. It saves money and it improves the environment.

So we can, and do, disagree in this Congress on the causes of climate change and the best fuel mix to meet America's energy demands, but we can all agree that less is more. Whatever your fuel source, if you use less, you save money, and that is good for all of us concerned.

We can also agree that creating demand for American-made energy- efficient products will also create good

jobs. In energy efficiency, our cheapest fuel requires, as I said, labor and manufactured goods that are made in America.

We can also all agree that cutting the energy bills of homeowners, businesses, and the Federal Government--therefore, the taxpayer--is a very good thing.

Mr. Speaker, Vermont, which I represent, has long been a leader in energy efficiency. My home State was the first to set up what was called an energy efficiency utility. That utility, Efficiency Vermont, has done outstanding work for the past 20 years.

Basically, what it acknowledges and understands is that a kilowatt saved is a cost avoided. Last year alone, Efficiency Vermont's work yielded a lifetime customer savings of $206 million for our small State in Vermont.

The Energy Efficiency Improvement Act is an important first step in making America more energy efficient. It includes the Better Buildings Act, also known as Tenant Star, which will drive private sector innovation in energy efficiency.

By the way, again, Mr. Whitfield, I appreciate this.

This is a public-private partnership. This is not a prescriptive arrangement. It requires good policy at the Federal level, with cooperation and opportunity-seizing at the private level.

Homes and buildings consume 40 percent of our energy in the United States. It is really huge. In commercial buildings, owners report that tenants consume up to 50 percent or more of the total energy output.

One of the challenges our commercial building owners and developers face has been the issue of split incentives. Building owners and renters are not always on the same page when it comes to energy performance. Part of the problem is that only one party is paying the energy bill. The other part of the problem is that, while we recognize energy efficient buildings through the Energy Star program, we have no similar recognition program for tenant spaces.

Our bill creates a voluntary Tenant Star recognition program for separate spaces in commercial buildings. When we combine Energy Star buildings with Tenant Star rentals, we can optimize energy efficiency in shortened payback periods.

A good example of this synergy can be found in Energy Star-certified Vermont Innovation Center, located in Burlington, Vermont. The Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, or VEIC, has its office in that building. VEIC took aggressive action to optimize the efficiency of its tenant space within the building. It converted the overhead fluorescent lighting to highly efficient LEDs and applied 6 inches of spray foam insulation to the exterior wells.

Making these improvements in an Energy Star building optimized an already efficient tenant space, but VEIC expects to save nearly $11,000 a year in energy savings. Where I come from, that is real money.

However, there is no recognition program for these improvements, and we don't know what else VEIC could be doing to increase energy savings. Under this bill, we will study the best ways to optimize commercial tenant spaces and then recognize those spaces with a new Tenant Star label.

By combining energy efficient tenant build-out with Energy Star buildings, we will double down on a successful program and optimize energy savings in commercial buildings.

In addition to Tenant Star, this legislation includes three other important energy provisions. Again, I thank Mr. Whitfield for his leadership in allowing other good ideas to be part of this legislation.

First, it is going to increase the energy efficiency of Federal Government data centers. They are huge energy consumers. Data centers use massive amounts of energy. This legislation will finally begin to address the enormous Federal energy bill for those facilities.

Second, this bill addresses a serious regulatory problem involving large-scale water heaters.

Sometimes we have an argument back and forth about regulations. What I love about this bill, among other things, is we are fixing a problem, not just fighting about it.

It is going to make needed changes to energy efficiency standards for large water heaters that are used in demand response programs. These water heaters act as residential energy storage devices and allow utilities to curb energy demand during peak hours.

So we are giving some of our rural electric cooperatives tools they need to keep the cost and energy demand down.

Finally, the bill will disclose the amount of energy consumed in federally leased buildings and begin benchmarking these buildings.

The Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, comprised of these four components, is an important first step towards energy efficiency, but more work remains. In the coming weeks, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the McKinley-Welch-Shaheen-Portman legislation, which will establish national model building codes. We also need to pass legislation to encourage performance contracting in Federal buildings and to streamline the Federal green schools project.

Energy efficiency, as Mr. Whitfield said, Mr. Speaker, is a bipartisan issue. I am extremely encouraged by the steps we are taking today. I look forward to working with the chairman, ranking member, and House leaders to bring more bills to the floor in the coming weeks.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is going to take a lot more engineers to get this place operating a lot better, but this was a step.

Mr. Whitfield wasn't here when I was bragging on him, Mr. Speaker. You have got that practical knowledge from his year of experience in construction and that engineering background.

But here is the other thing. There is a big debate about carbon emissions. I happen to be someone who thinks it is a very, very serious problem. But if we--even under the Waxman-Markey bill, which passed the House and then did not pass the Senate, with a goal of reduction of 80 percent of carbon emissions by 2050, 40 percent were going to be achieved through energy efficiency. So this is a really big deal.

There are questions about a lot of things on energy policy, but where we do have this common ground with significant leadership on both sides of the aisle, that energy efficiency is an approach that really makes sense, then we can and should do it. So I am very grateful to all concerned in pulling together to take the first really solid step towards embracing an energy efficiency agenda as part of an all-of-the- above strategy on energy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Well, I will just close briefly. I don't believe we have any other speakers.

Again, there are several things here:

One is the wisdom of an energy efficiency policy, less is more; and whether you are consuming oil or solar, if you use less, you are going to save money. It is good for the bottom line;

Second, any energy efficiency means that we are going to keep in the ground for future use any other fuels that we may need down the road;

Third, any energy efficiency requires implementation of energy efficiency retrofits. That is local labor, good jobs, and the use of locally manufactured products;

Fourth, energy efficiency means that we do not have to build more generating capacity in order to generate. That saves money;

Fifth, what it does is it cuts down on carbon emissions. It is all a really good thing.

Then finally, several speakers have referred to Congress, and we all know we have had our challenges here, and it is a function, to some extent, of real debates among the American people that we reflect to some extent. We can't get out of our own way sometimes with some of our rules. But what we know is that, at the end the day, this institution has to be a problem-solving institution that works for the American people. And what we have done here, with Mr. Upton and Mr. Whitfield being the leaders with the responsible positions, is focused on areas where we agree. And they are meaningful areas. It is not a split-the- difference type of deal where we have just shaved so much off that it really is not significant. What we have done is put aside areas where we have real disagreement and haven't reached consensus and then doubled down on that area of efficiency where there is common ground.

We have taken good ideas, whether they have been offered by a Republican or a Democrat, and we have kept disciplined to have this legislation be about efficiency and a policy that is going to work for the American people, and we haven't turned it, either side, into a political Christmas tree that allows us to make some extraneous points. In my view, I think we need to do more of that.

I was very heartened in Congress when we had a budget agreement that was reached with the leadership of Paul Ryan in the House and Senator Murray in the Senate. I was happy we had an appropriations bill that did reflect a lot of give-and-take on both sides, and I was very pleased we had a farm bill. Again, lots of things to debate in that farm bill, but we need a 5-year farm bill for the people.

And now, on energy, we finally pass something that both sides can legitimately be proud of because it is real policy. It is important policy that is going to be beneficial to the bottom line to the American people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Edward M. Murphy as he steps down after a decade as Chief Executive Officer of The MENTOR Network--a national network of local health and human services providers based in Boston, Massachusetts--and assumes the role of Executive Chairman. Ned has dedicated his career to leading public and private sector organizations that provide quality-of-life enhancing services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, children at-risk and their families, and people with brain and spinal cord injuries--including our nation's wounded warriors. In particular, in response to the establishment of the Veteran's Health Administration Assisted Living Pilot program by this body, Ned's leadership was instrumental in The MENTOR Network's development of innovative programs to serve Veterans with brain injury in the communities of their choosing.

Ned began his career working with young offenders in community reintegration programs and was appointed commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services in 1979. This began a sixteen-year period during which he held senior positions in state government, including commissioner of the Department of Mental Health and executive director of the Health and Educational Facilities Authority. After a successful career in the public sector, Ned moved on to the non-profit and private sectors, where among his notable accomplishments, he founded Alliance Health, before joining The MENTOR Network as CEO in 2004.

Ned accomplished all this as he helped raise a wonderful family; Owen, Meghan, Brendon and Jay; grandchildren, Rosa, Oona, Nora and Marlo. Ned and his wife, Ann Ellen Hornidge, continued to make a positive difference in Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for Ned's contributions to enhancing the lives of our nation's most vulnerable citizens and thank him for his continued leadership on behalf of these individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I understand our Republican colleagues are

about to head off to their annual retreat in Cambridge, Maryland, to discuss their priorities for the year, including whether to raise the debt ceiling or not. My hope is that the majority party listens to Speaker Boehner on the debt ceiling. Earlier this month, he said:

All I know is we should not default on our debt; we

shouldn't even get close to it.

The Speaker understands that America pays its bills. Good for him. The Speaker also understands that even the threat of default will harm the American economy. And he is right. The Speaker understands that holding hostage America's full faith and credit is a dead-end plan for his party and for America.

Speaker Boehner, I surely hope that you prevail on the majority party. America is not a deadbeat Nation. America pays its bills.

Mr. Speaker, we serve in an imperfect Congress, and we are voting on an imperfect farm bill. In some cases, we spend far too much needlessly and irresponsibly, and in some cases we spend far too little unwisely and irresponsibly. But a 5-year farm bill is absolutely crucial to America, and it is crucial to Vermont dairy farmers.

This bill takes three important steps for dairy farmers in Vermont and throughout the country:

One, it creates a modern-day insurance program which protects farmers against the wild swings in feed prices which are totally out of their control;

Two, it protects taxpayers, as well as farmers, by limiting insurance to a farmer's base production; and

Three, finally, it gives USDA the tools to intervene if dairy prices drop dramatically.

Mr. Speaker, with its faults and imperfections, America does need a new farm bill. Agriculture is changing all around us. Local food is a growing sector in my State. The organic sector is booming, and people are much more aware of their food and farms. This farm bill invests in local foods, provides insurance to small farmers, and puts organic farming on a strong footing for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the nutrition title in the Conference Report for the 2014 Farm Bill. I served on the House Agriculture Committee through the 112th Congress, when the Agriculture Committee began its farm bill deliberations and wrote its first version of the farm bill, including the nutrition title. I am very familiar with the changes to the nutrition title in the final conference agreement. This bill represents an imperfect but bi-partisan and bi- cameral compromise. While I am disappointed that the Conferees were not able to make new investments in SNAP to help the struggling families in Vermont and around this country put food on the table, the bill makes some modest improvements and has wisely rejected many of the cuts in the House bill.

In fact, the nutrition title reflects the success SNAP has had providing nutrition assistance during the historic rise in need as a result of the Great Recession. Not only has the program been responsive to need, but it's maintained historically low payment error and trafficking rates. The farm bill makes some improvements to keep the program operating efficiently and to remain the lifeline that it is for so many of our neighbors. It also modestly invests in anti-fraud efforts and promising employment and training programs.

I would like to address the one significant cut in SNAP benefits in the bill that affects households in Vermont. The farm bill cuts about $90 a month to about 850,000 families nationwide by increasing the level of federal energy assistance required to trigger higher benefits among recipients. This provision changes the SNAP benefit calculation for households receiving very small LIHEAP payments in Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program benefits. This cut will cause pain for the households that will see their benefits reduced. Despite the change, it's important for people who have heating or cooling expenses to maintain the deduction they are eligible for. The conferees have assured us that the provision will maintain the fundamental link between traditional LIHEAP programs and SNAP.

For this change to be executed properly, it is essential that USDA work closely with states to ensure that no SNAP household who also participates in LIHEAP inadvertently lose benefits. Many of those that currently receive the SUA due to a $1 LIHEAP benefit may still pay for heating or cooling, and so they need a chance to show that they have those expenses. The process to do so should be designed to minimize the burden on these households.

More important is to ensure that households that do not receive smaller LIHEAP benefits are not adversely affected by any aspect of this provision's implementation. The Agriculture Committees debated several approaches to resolving this issue, and savings were never attributed to states that did not provide a smaller LIHEAP benefit. USDA must ensure that this provision's impact is limited only to household that receive a minor LIHEAP payment, such as $1. I do not envision that states will need to make changes to their forms or verification policies.

The farm bill also includes a number of improvements in the SNAP operation and administration. Like with the SUA provision, it's clear from these provisions that the conferees were committed to focusing on changes that placed the burden on state agencies, not households applying for or participating in the program. For example, there's a requirement that states check state lottery and gaming records to make sure no lottery winners who are ineligible, due to their winnings, stay on the program. It's a reasonable policy, and the conferees wisely require the state to rely on records to identify the rare instance rather than ask demeaning questions of every SNAP applicant. There are other examples--such as use of the national New Hire Database--where the bill charges USDA and state agencies to use databases, technology and back office functions to improve the program without burdening SNAP applicants and participants. I do not expect states to have to add questions to their applications seeking information on whether applicants were ever convicted of a heinous crime in response to the provision that reiterates current policy with respect to fleeing felons. Asking low-income families and seniors in need whether they have won the lottery or are a convicted murderer compromises the programs' image and would denigrate people for needing its help.

There are also some promising changes to the program for the retailers that participate. The farm bill authorizes pilot programs to test the use of mobile technologies in SNAP--things like smart phone apps that have become increasingly common in the larger retail world. This may be especially important to farmers markets and vegetable stands that are unable to install traditional EBT processing machines. While expanding potential options for retailers is important, it is critical to the long term success of the program that bad actors looking to take advantage of new approaches are kept out of the program. I urge USDA to set high retailer integrity standards and carefully monitor the pilots to prevent fraud. There's a similar provision that tests the feasibility of allowing the online purchase of food with SNAP benefits, reflecting a growing food industry trend towards online transactions with delivery. This can help make the program accessible to individuals who may have trouble getting to a store, but rigorous anti-fraud standards must apply to any new way of redeeming benefits, and it will require USDA to be actively engaged in monitoring the pilot.

I would like to point out that these new mobile and online technologies, common in the food retail world, do not rely on photo identification or other biometric information to authorize payments and maintain integrity. For both the customer and the retailer, the SNAP retail transaction should look like any other debit card transaction. Thus, I urge USDA to stop allowing misguided efforts at the state level to require photos on SNAP cards or to be presented at the point of purchase. USDA must increase its scrutiny of such efforts to ensure that all household members and authorized representatives can use purchase food on behalf of the household. Technology has made these conditions on the use of benefits obsolete in the retail environment, and so they should be eliminated from the SNAP retail environment as well.

I commend the work of the Agriculture Committee conferees to identify areas of bipartisan agreement that improve without imposing undue hardship on participating households. The Agriculture Committees have a long standing history of working together to solve difficult complex food and agriculture issues facing the nation. This farm bill is a solid step in the right direction and I urge my colleagues to support it.