Floor Statements

I thank the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress faces the challenge of acting on the direction of the American people, as expressed in the vote of November 2006, and that is to change the direction of this country and to restore a domestic agenda that serves all Americans.

We began, and again on a bipartisan basis, with 100 hours, raising the minimum wage, reversing wasteful subsidies to the big oil companies, and instead funding renewable energy, requiring price negotiations so our taxpayers didn't get ripped off in prescription drug prices, making college more affordable.

These measures are a down payment, but just a beginning. Today, the House takes up the eighth of 12 appropriation bills. This bill, under the leadership of Mr. Obey, more than anything else, is going to put a stamp on a new direction that this Congress is moving in.

It's a direction that says all Americans have to be included, not just the wealthy, not just those who can afford corporate lobbyists. All Americans have a right to affordable education, to quality health care, to safe working conditions and to a financially secure retirement. Getting from here to there is a challenge, but this is the road that this bill takes us on.

Let me mention just four different areas. First, the legislation restores $7.6 billion in funding to vital programs that have been cut by the administration. At the same time, it saves $1.1 billion from lower priority programs. There is a commitment here to fiscal responsibility.

We must invest in America's future generations, and the bill does that.

Second, again, I will just mention a few things that are important to us in Vermont. We have had unfunded mandates. Special Ed, No Child Left Behind are the poster childs of that. This bill increases funding for No Child Left Behind by $8.6 billion over fiscal year 2007.

This bill invests in vital rural health care programs, something that we in Vermont are very familiar with, by increasing funding by $307 million. That provides real services to real people with real health care problems. This bill increases funding for the vital Low Income Heating Assistance Program. That was cut in the administration proposal by $379 million, or 17.5 percent, below last year's level. That's simply not sustainable. That's going to inflict real harm on people who have no ability to control the price of home heating oil.

This bill is taking us further on the road of having a Congress who is committed to the needs of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I vigorously opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and now, well into its fifth year, the need for a new policy has never been clearer. The toll of this war has been devastating: more than 3,600 of our most courageous men and women killed, tens of thousands seriously wounded; the toll on civilians much higher still. And while we struggle to fund domestic priorities in Vermont, in all our States across this Nation, health care, a crumbling infrastructure, transportation, the cost of education, we now spend $12 billion every single month on this war.

From last November's elections, to public opinion polls, to the comments I hear from Vermonters every single day, the voice of the American people is loud and it is clear: we must end this war. And since the President refuses, absolutely refuses, to act, Congress must. Since the President refuses, Congress must make it clear that the United States will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq. Since the President refuses, Congress must denounce the use of torture. It must finally close Guantanamo Bay. And since the President refuses, Congress must bring our troops home and ensure they receive the care they deserve when they return.

Mr. Speaker, 7 months ago, under the leadership of the previous Congress, a bill like this never would have been allowed to come to the floor. Now, 7 months later, today, there is an emerging bipartisan consensus that the President must be forced to change his course.

By passing this bill today, Congress will demonstrate with the force of law what the American people well know: it is time to end the war in Iraq.

I cosponsored and voted in favor of legislation offered by my colleague Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts that called for redeployment of our troops from Iraq within 6 months. I voted against additional funds for the war without a timeline. And I cosponsored legislation that would close Guantanamo Bay, outlaw torture, defend the right of habeas corpus, and prohibit the establishment of permanent military bases.

At the end of the day, Americans know that no action in the House of Representatives is not enough until all of our troops are returned home. This bill provides a starting point for progress towards realizing that goal. Until our troops are home, I will not stop, and Congress must not stop in its efforts to compel the President to end this war.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

I thank the gentleman from Florida and for his ringing endorsement of public spending for public projects.

Two things: first, Democrats readopted in this Congress the principle of pay-as-you-go, acknowledging that we have to pay our bills, and that good intentions are not enough to balance the budget. We will do that as we did before. But in this bill we are proposing to spend 7.5 percent more than the President asked for. And the reason? That spending is necessary and required if we're going to protect the rivers, the waterways, the air and the land of this great country.

Second, the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt is alive and well in this bipartisan bill by Mr. Dicks and by Mr. Tiahrt. We are getting back into protecting the America that we are responsible to hand down to the future. This bill, a bipartisan bill, appropriates $266 million for climate change research across all Federal agencies. This bill creates a commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation that will review scientific questions that need to be addressed to adapt to global warming and to recommend action. This investment in furthering our understanding of the impacts of climate change is a down payment on our future. If there has been a debate about whether global warming exists, this bill puts an exclamation point that the bipartisan conclusion of Congress is that global warming is real, is urgent, and requires immediate attention.

The spirit of Teddy Roosevelt is also alive and well in this bill in the Forest Legacy Program. And thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member. The Forest Legacy Program brings communities together, protecting their forests. In my own State, two very small towns of Fairlee and West Fairlee have been working hard contributing their own money to protect their Brushwood Forest. The increase in the Forest Legacy Program, something that's been overdue, is going to give them a fighting chance to be able to do that.

The spirit of Teddy Roosevelt is alive and well in the bill's commitment to water quality. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund provides all of our States resources for local sewage treatment projects, one of the most important investments in the country towards public health.

The spirit of Teddy Roosevelt is alive and well in the self-help efforts in this bill in the small amount of money, $16 million, that provides for rural water technical assistance. This helps small communities across the State of Vermont and across the country get the technical assistance that they need in order to do locally what is required for the benefit of their own citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen on both sides of the aisle for their leadership in this overdue legislation.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the chairwoman.

Madam Chairwoman, thank you for your leadership on this bill; In particular, for your support and leadership of the Green the Capitol Initiative, which accounts for the House's global impact on global warming.

Also, I want to thank the ranking member Mr. Wamp, Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Brady as well.

Yes.

By making my office carbon-neutral earlier this year, my hope was to be able to take a small, but meaningful, step towards addressing the impact of my own congressional activity on global warming.

May I clarify my understanding that the committee report on the bill directs the Chief Administrative Officer to purchase carbon financial instruments to offset carbon produced by all House operations, and that these offsets will be fully transparent, verified, American, project- based offset credits?

I yield.

It's my understanding through conversations with Dan Beard, the CAO, that he has agreed to develop a plan to deliver a report to your committee in a timely fashion for accounting the balance of congressional offices' carbon footprints. This plan would expand the Green the Capitol Initiative to be inclusive of all Member official travel in district office operations.

I yield to the gentlewoman.

Thank you, Madam Chair; thank you, Ranking Member Wamp. We all really appreciate the way you have worked on this bill together. You make us all proud.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2366, the SBA Veterans' Programs Act of 2007. This legislation will assist our soldiers when they return home with opportunities and information about starting a small business.

More than a million and a half men and women have answered the call to serve their country since 2001. They interrupted their careers, put their families economic security at risk, and face big personal challenges upon returning home.

I recently visited Iraq and Afghanistan. That trip gave me an even greater appreciation for the significant sacrifices our soldiers must make and must cope with for the rest of their lives. If our soldiers faced mortal danger every day abroad, let us help them have economic security when they return home.

It isn't just the veteran who makes the sacrifice, their families do as well: their parents, their spouses, their children, girlfriends and boyfriends and siblings. They give up so much in defense of our country.

It is our job, as Members of Congress, to make sure that our Nation lives up to its commitment to our veterans. It is a simple pact we have made with our troops--and one we are obligated to fulfill: after they have sacrificed to serve our country on the battlefield, we must do all we can to serve them here at home. The cost of any war must include caring for the warrior.

This legislation helps our veterans get started with business opportunities in their communities. It does so by providing grants, information services, and personal assistance to help veterans evaluate business opportunities; increasing the number of veteran business outreach centers around the country, and encouraging further assistance to women veterans.

Countless soldiers are returning from their tours of duty with new confidence and skills developed during their time in the military. This SBA program will help to ensure that those new abilities are put to good use when they return to civilian life.

This bill because it is the right thing to do for those who have given so much but also because it will directly impact Vermont and every state around the country. Ninety-seven percent of all Vermont firms are small businesses. My office has been involved in helping the Vermont Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) run business readiness classes for veterans. The Vermont SBDC is the primary small business assistance resource sought out by small business clients, lenders, government agencies and other economic development partners. The Vermont SBDC is the keystone in a statewide business assistance infrastructure tying together all appropriate resources and serving as a ``one-stop'' gateway and clearinghouse to serve small businesses' '' needs. Drawing on collaborative relationships among service providers, Vermont SBDC leverages economic development resources of all kinds for advancement of small businesses, growing the local economy.

Roughly 6 percent of deployed soldiers have small businesses depending on them. Veterans face a number of unique challenges, from increasing lengths and number of deployments overseas, to translating their military experience into business ventures. Yet, there is a lack of substantive programs to help these businesses survive through deployment, and to assist veterans returning home. This program is designed to meet current, real-time needs of people on active duty in business who now need to leave for protracted periods, or for those who have just come back and really ``need'' to do something new with their lives.

I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2366.

Mr. Speaker, to govern is to choose. For the past 6 years, the choices made by the Republican leadership in this Congress have been wrong for America: tax cuts for the very wealthy, budget cuts for everyone else in health care, in education and the environment. It has led to the largest deficit in the history of this country.

The new Congress is making a different choice, promising to invest in America's priorities, first by bringing back fiscal responsibility and then making government work for average working families. Last week this House passed a Homeland Security bill. It improves aviation and port security, restores cuts to first responders across the Nation.

This week we passed an Energy and Water appropriations bill that finally provides a significant investment in studying the effects of global warming, something that's been ignored for far too long.

This new Congress is moving this country in a new direction and has made a new choice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me this time.

I also join in the praise for the bipartisan work of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, the excellent work of Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf.

Mr. Speaker, the job of the next President of the United States, whoever that may be, whatever party that person may represent, is very straightforward. They are going to have to reintroduce America to the world. They are going to have to reintroduce the America of cooperation, of working together, of multilateralism rather than unilateralism, of diplomacy rather than force, and strength through persuasion and cooperation.

This Foreign Operations appropriations bill is the introduction to a new relationship that America will have with the world and a new relationship that our appropriations bill will have with the taxpayers of this country. It really does two things. One, it restores accountability. That is best seen in the fact that it does not give a blank check on more money to Iraq that will go down the sink hole. Number two, it recognizes that we have to be a participant in cooperating with other countries in order to solve global problems.

Mr. Speaker, our Appropriations Committee is to be commended for this strong bipartisan work. Our image in the world has been tarnished by the foreign policies of this administration, from the war in Iraq to the rejection of multilateral agreements such to the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, to human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Through this appropriations measure, we have the opportunity to send the world a different message about America's priorities. We do that in this bill by allocating $6.5 billion to combat global health crises, including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. We have provided needed help to those suffering from genocide in Darfur by investing $949 million in development assistance.

We offer needed food, water and shelter for refugees around the world, and we make good on our obligations to international organizations investing $334 million in multilateral programs to address the global challenges, and we pay $1.3 billion in U.N. peacekeeping operations. The bill also helps protect the American taxpayer and brings needed accountability from the administration.

I would also like to commend the committee for restoring funding for a small but extremely important initiative, the Middle East Regional Cooperation, or MERC program. Established in 1979 by my colleague from California, MERC provides grants for collaborative scientific research projects between Israel and its Arab neighbors. MERC grants have made it possible for many Vermont students to travel to the Middle East to conduct environmental research at an innovative program called the Arava Institute.

This incredible program, working together on difficult environmental problems, has allowed Vermonters and others to live and work alongside Israeli and Arab colleagues, working together on environmental problems that affect the entire region. MERC grants have made this experience possible, and I applaud the committee for working to make sure this invaluable program receives the funding it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to supporting important work in the Middle East, this bill implements needed changes to our policy in another conflicted region, Colombia, as was eloquently described by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). This bill recognizes that it is time for change in our Colombia policy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui) for her excellent work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in November Vermonters and the American people demanded a change in direction in Washington and a change in priorities. The past 5 months have been an important down payment on our commitment to change.

Today the House takes up the third of 12 appropriation bills where we will continue making this progress of taking America in a new direction. This is a balanced bill adopting the pay-as-you-go principle enacted by this House of Representatives.

This Energy and Water Appropriation bill represents a bipartisan approach to our response to a growing energy crisis. We're making real changes by focusing on commonsense priorities.

We know we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut our greenhouse gas emissions. This legislation invests $3 billion in addressing global climate change. It does so by researching effects of greenhouse gases and then working on the technologies that will make a new energy future. It also focuses on the growing renewable energy industry, making an investment in energy programs that both reduce greenhouse gases and help our Nation meet its energy needs.

This Energy and Water bill provides a 50 percent increase in energy efficiency, renewable energy and important water projects, including $200 million towards solar, $235 million in vehicle technology to increase mileage efficiency, $146 million in energy-efficient buildings, $117 million in enhancing hydropower.

In addition, it invests over $5 billion, as the gentlelady from California said, in construction operations and the management of critical water projects around the entire country, including in the State of Vermont.

These programs are important not only when talking about the need to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gas emissions, but to make critical investments in new industries that can be seen across the country. If we make this commitment now, we can have a pro-growth, pro-high tech, pro-environment economy of the future.

In my district of Vermont, we have dozens of thriving, renewable energy companies rooted in our community and creating goods jobs. Efficiency Vermont, GroSolar, Agrefresh and NRG Systems, to name a few.

This is a timely bill. It invests in our energy independence and makes a down payment on the necessary progress to address climate change in our energy future. This Congress is committed to taking our country in a new direction, working in a bipartisan manner and in a fiscally responsible way. We're committed to making this an energy- independent country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that

(1) it be in order at any time for the Speaker, as though pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2642) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, which shall proceed according to the following order:

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.

Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.

Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill may be offered except:

Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate;

An amendment by Mr. Hayes regarding funding for BRAC 2005;

An amendment by Mr. Blumenauer or Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida regarding funding for BRAC 1990;

An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia regarding funding for VA medical services;

An amendment by Mr. Franks of Arizona regarding the conduct of studies of missile defense;

An amendment by Mrs. Capito regarding the submission of a report on the implementation of the Office of Rural Health;

An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding funding for extended care facilities;

An amendment by Mrs. Drake regarding a report on pending disability benefit claims;

An amendment by Mr. Brown of South Carolina regarding a report on

Mr. Speaker, this week we received more proof from Iraq that the President's troop escalation plan is failing.

A senior U.S. military commander told the Washington Post yesterday that if the President really wanted to stem the violence in Iraq, he would have to send an additional 20,000 U.S. troops there, something that no American would support. But even then, it appears that Iraq will remain incapable of taking full responsibility. Iraq is in a civil war, and our troops, it is not the job of our men and women in uniform to be refereeing a civil war.

Last week, one of our generals put a surveillance out to determine who was laying these IEDs that are killing our troops, and it turned out to be Iraqi security forces, people who work with us by day and then were trying to kill our soldiers by night.

It is time for Democrats and Republicans to work together to bring the President to his senses, to change the direction of the war in Iraq.

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

The question of earmarks really has two questions to it. But, first, why are we here having a debate about earmarks? We are because in the 12 years before the last election, the use of earmarks, something that has been around since the beginning of the Republic, exploded and it went from around $5 billion in the budget to around $13 billion in the budget. And it really raises two questions, aside from the political opportunism that may present itself in this debate.

The first question about earmarks is whether it is appropriate for individuals who have the most power in this Congress to take advantage of their situation to get appropriations that go to their districts. Generally, the projects that are funded are projects that are supported and worthwhile. But, in fact, in the budgetary process, it is the people who are in the right committees or have the most power that have the opportunity to get the greatest benefit.

By the way, that is a fairness issue just within this body, because if there is going to be allocation of resources, they should be extended for the benefit of the entire country, people in each and every one of the 435 congressional districts, people in each of the 50 States and our territories.

The second issue is a budgetary reform issue. If you have appropriation by earmarks, if highway projects are funded on the basis of who is on the committee or who is in leadership or who has the ear of the Chair, then it means that decisions are being made on personal relationships as opposed to public need.

I come from a State legislature, Mr. Chairman, where we had to wrestle with this question of earmarks. And every legislator had an immense amount of pressure on them to deliver for their district; in fact, the needs of the district were compelling and reasonable. We had to struggle with an approach that would take the limited funds that were available in our treasury and allocate them for highway projects on the basis of where the greatest need was in the State, not on the basis of who had the most clout.

So, Mr. Chairman, this debate that has resulted in eight motions to rise, spending over 10 hours on what essentially looks like a minor and very political amendment is really not about earmarks, because there has been a complete erasing of history in the role that the other side has played in getting us to the point where we are on earmarks.

Also, this debate on earmarks is taking place in the Homeland Security bill, which is a bill that traditionally has not had earmarks. We could be having a debate about the MILC price support program and arguing about earmarks, but there are no earmarks that have been part of the Homeland Security bill in this Congress or, to its credit, in prior Congresses.

So, why is it that we are arguing about, admittedly an important issue, the question of earmarks and what impact it has on questions of fairness and what impact it has on questions of fiscal responsibility in the Homeland Security bill, that has independent integrity and importance to the people of this country, and where the history has been that there are no earmarks?

It would allow a reasonable observer to conclude that essentially this is about politics. In fact, it is my view and, I think, the view of most people that we really should not be injecting politics into the question of homeland security.

Mr. Chairman, you come from the City of New York. You, better than anyone else, know the urgency of making certain that we have our borders protected, that we are taking aggressive and effective measures to combat terrorism, to detect terrorists coming into our country, to have adequate funds and resources for our local fire departments and our local police stations. So, Mr. Chairman, the loser here is one person, it is the American people. And who wins and who loses in this political debate, whether it's the other side or our side, we will let the commentators decide.

We are making no progress on moving ahead on an earmark reform approach, largely because the vehicle

that the other side has chosen to use is holding hostage a Homeland Security bill that doesn't have earmarks in it, won't have earmarks in it, in the past has not had earmarks in it.

I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2638, which makes appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, in November the American people asked for a change. They wanted us to do two things: one, change priorities; two, restore accountability to this government.

We began with a down payment by raising the minimum wage; ending the big subsidies for oil companies, instead putting money into renewable energy; requiring pharmaceutical price negotiation instead of giveaways; making college more affordable by lowering interest rates; and we supported small businesses. These were the beginning.

Today, we take up the first of 12 appropriation bills, and in each of these bills we must do what we promised the American people we would do; change priorities and restore accountability.

This bill on homeland security, brought before us on a bipartisan basis, does both. It funds the Department of Homeland Security. It was created largely in response to the tragedy of 9/11. Since its inception, the Department has been given a crucial mission, and that is protecting American soil and American lives, enhancing our overall security. They have a big job, and it is no small undertaking.

This Homeland Security bill addresses priorities and reflects our change, and it reflects accountability, our responsibility to taxpayers.

The priorities that I would like to speak to that are embedded in this homeland security bill are among the following:

One, it establishes as a key priority funding our first responders with the training and the equipment that they need. Each one of us knows that the first responders are the ones who are going to be there, and in each of our districts they need the training, they need the funding. This Homeland Security bill has rejected a $1 billion cut that was proposed by the administration and restores Homeland Security grants in Firefighter Assistance grants.

Second, it implements a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission by providing improved aviation security. This bill substantially increases efforts to purchase and install the latest explosive detection systems for checked baggage and other things that have been mentioned by the speakers.

Also, Mr. Price and Mr. Rogers both spoke about the need for accountability. The good intentions of protecting the homeland does not give this bill a pass when it comes to accountability. The bill mandates that all grants and contact funds be awarded through full competitive processes.

Finally, I want to thank Chairwoman Slaughter for leading to a sensible approach on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Thank you, Chairwoman Slaughter.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, in April, I had the opportunity to join five of my colleagues on a delegation trip to Afghanistan. And our six-member delegation, three Democrats and three Republicans, spent 2 days in Iraq, 2 days in Afghanistan. And we had an opportunity to speak with American, Iraqi, Afghani soldiers; military leaders; security forces; government leaders; and civil servants. And at every turn in our trip, we encountered these extraordinary men and women from our country that are doing incredible work in very dangerous and trying circumstances. And I had the opportunity to meet troops from my State as my colleagues met troops from their States, and all of us were incredibly proud at the selflessness of these troops who are performing the missions that we have assigned to them.

But the circumstances in each country and each war are very different. Iraq is in a full-blown civil war. The British, our last remaining significant ally in Iraq, will soon withdraw, and American forces are now viewed as occupiers. The situation is much different in Afghanistan. And I came away, as did my colleagues, with the clear impression that there is will on the part of Afghani leaders to step up and to take control of their future.

In Afghanistan, we have 37 allied nations joining with us to help the Afghanis drive out the Taliban and to restore order and to create a future for that country.

In fact, the differences between these two situations in Iraq and Afghanistan was best summed up by three soldiers I spoke to who had completed full tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I asked, What is the difference in your experience? And the soldiers said, In Iraq it seems as though everyone is interested in fighting each other and us. In Afghanistan everyone is interested in fighting for their future.

What this legislation recognizes is that we have partners, 37 other nations, working with us in Afghanistan, and we have a partner, the government and people of Afghanistan, in our effort to restore order and to create a future for that country.

H.R. 2446, the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act, reinforces the United States' long-term commitment to support Afghanistan in its efforts to confront its challenges and to complete its transformation into a secure and prosperous future.

This bill enhances the narcotics operations. More importantly, it provides incentives to encourage greater participation from our NATO allies in the International Security and Assistance Force. If we have learned anything, it is that we have got to work together and not alone.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the openness of that committee, to let anyone with a good idea to help veterans to come in and have an opportunity to do that. Mr. Filner, Mr. Michaud, and, of course, Mr. Buyer and Mr. Miller, thank you.

Rural Americans have always served the Nation's armed services, National Guard and Reserves in very great numbers. In fact, though only 19 percent of the Nation lives in rural America, 44 percent of the current U.S. military recruits come from rural areas, and nearly one- third of those who died in Iraq are from small towns and communities across the Nation, Vermont very much among them.

And unfortunately, access to health care for many of our veterans in rural areas is limited by mileage, distance and just the difficulty of transportation. Especially true, the provision of mental health care in rural settings has historically been a challenge for all health care systems and providers, including the VA. And therefore, what we recognize in this legislation is that we need to help the VA develop innovative solutions to address the need for mental health services in remote areas, TBI being the big injury that's been discussed by my colleagues.

This legislation takes a significant step towards improving the mental health services available to geographically isolated veterans. It creates a pilot program where at least two mobile vet centers will provide readjustment counseling and mental health services to veterans in at least five Veterans Integrated Service Networks that have the highest concentration of rural veterans.

One of these covers New England and my home State of Vermont. These mobile vet centers will also provide information and outreach concerning veterans benefits and, when practicable, assistance with claims for benefits.

Rural individuals and their families have strong bonds and ties to their communities. These mobile vet centers will allow veterans to stay in their communities and prevent endless hours of car rides for the care they receive.

I urge support and passage of this legislation and thank the committee for its indulgence.

Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. The gas issue, obviously the price going way up is hitting people pretty hard. But it is a real metaphor in my view for the two economies we are seeing emerge in this country. We are at a time now where the stock market has never been higher. People who have significant assets have never been doing better. Large corporations are making record profits. Executives, CEOs at large corporations, have never gotten better and sweeter pay packages.

But the vast majority of Americans are finding that their wages are stagnant, and the prices of things that they need, daycare, gasoline to get to and from work, to and from daycare, groceries, those things are going up and concealing this so-called ``tame'' inflation.

So what we are having in this country is the emergence of two economies, and our goal here in Congress is to start having a Congress that stands up and represents the needs and aspirations of average folks. We give them a leg up.

Every time the price of gasoline goes up about 10 cents, that is like a $16 billion hit on the consumer in this country. So you think about it. We have got a chart over here that shows gas prices going up, really doubling during the presidency of George Bush. But just

take a $1 increase in the price of gasoline, that is like $160 billion tax increase that all comes out of the pockets of working Americans, the people who can afford it the least.

You look back at the last couple of years, what has happened when we have been talking about the oil industry are a couple of things. Number one, there has been very favorable legislation that has benefited the oil companies. At a time when the oil companies had record profits, $125 billion over 3 years, $125 billion over 3 years, at that time not our Congress, but the Congress that preceded us, the Republican Congress, gave tax breaks to the oil companies. The mature and very profitable industry got $13 billion out of taxpayer funds on top of the record profits they had received.

What we have done here is try to change the rules of the game and say that there has got to be a cop on the beat. It doesn't make sense for the prices to be going up on gasoline when we have seen the price of a barrel of oil go down and we haven't seen an increase in the demand, so that the laws of supply and demand are really being thwarted by the oligopolistic power of the very few oil companies that are able to manage the price and inflate their profits.

What we are doing is first taking back those tax breaks that went to big oil. We did that earlier on this year, hoping our friends on the Senate side join us. But, secondly, we are saying that the Federal Trade Commission should be active and aggressive in answering these questions on behalf of the American consumer.

Every 10 cents, $16 billion, that is a tax increase right out of the pockets of working Americans. Our responsibility to the American people is to make sure that consumers are protected so they are not getting ripped off. It is that simple. They need to keep that money in their pocket and not just be subject to the abuse of the monopoly power really of big oil.

So, that is a little perspective from Vermont. I will turn it over to my colleague from Connecticut, Representative Murphy.

I think people are making fun of me.

First of all, Mr. Perlmutter is right, oil has made us vulnerable in foreign policy. A big reason we are in Iraq clearly is related to oil. I think we have to be much straighter with the American people than Congress has been.

We are doing two things here. One, with this legislation, the price gouging legislation, we are providing basic protection against rip- offs, and that is just the fundamental responsibility that people's government has is to make sure that the people with a lot of money, corporate power, don't use that power to rip them off. That is one.

Second, we have to develop an energy policy. An energy policy, as has been said, is going to give us a lot more freedom in foreign policy, not create these enormous pressures to get involved in wars that we shouldn't be involved in.

Secondly, it is obviously good for the environment.

Third, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley) has been saying, it is good for the economy. The legislation we have to pass is not just on protecting the consumer, it is about creating a projobs, pro-high-tech, progrowth approach to addressing in a straightforward, confident way the energy challenge that we face.

One of the small bills that I have sponsored and you are a cosponsor of, Mr. Perlmutter, and I am soliciting more, is to make our offices carbon neutral here in Washington. When I got here, I was concerned about global warming. I checked into how much carbon pollution did I create just by turning my lights on here in Washington and Vermont, flying back and forth to my district, and then driving around. It is quite staggering: 754 tons. That is a lot just to show up for work.

I tried to find out how to offset that. Change the light bulbs, turn the thermometer so you don't use as much air conditioning or heat, and then invest in renewable energy that would allow a farm in southern Vermont to do a digester, a methane digester, which adds to the bottom line of farms, and all of our farms are struggling to make ends meet. We have to keep our farms in production and have local production of agriculture for the ag economy, but also for a way of life that a lot of folks in Vermont and Iowa want to maintain.

Right. What you are describing is the fact that you are going to produce your energy locally, so you are not going to have to go to the Middle East and ship it all of the way back here. The money you spend on energy are going to be dollars that stay in Colorado or Iowa. Every dollar you keep in your local economy gets circulated and multiplied. That is what creates jobs. We have to break the stranglehold of our addiction to oil. It is all about building a local economy.

A good chicken sandwich, $7.16.

That was illegal. That was beyond us. That was pure criminal conduct.

It's very important the American people know that.

Remarkable.

I agree with you. It is very exciting and an incredible privilege for all of us to be here. And there aren't free meals and there aren't free trips and all of the things that have been abused in the past, and that cuts across Republicans and Democrats, and it's all so that we can try to do a good job and give confidence to the American people.

But the challenge we have is giving us confidence, giving this Nation confidence that the Congress actually has as its first priorities the needs of the American families, not the needs of the corporations that are doing really well, which is not to say get in their way because we've got to have jobs and corporations do good things and create wealth, but we have to have a commitment to building a middle class.

What's always been the great hallmark of American democracy has been we've had an economic agenda that has said to people, who are willing to work, that they could climb the ladder of opportunity, and we pursued policies that gave them the chance to do it. Affordable and accessible education, affordable and accessible health care, nondiscrimination, the big fight that this country had for years that ultimately we've made enormous progress on. So people, regardless of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their religion, they have something to offer and they want to work, they're going to have a chance to get ahead.

Much of what we're trying to do on ethics, I agree with you. We served in the State legislatures. We had sunshine laws. We didn't have lobbyists buying things. It's all an alien situation that has been described here in D.C., but we're trying to bring the Iowa values and Vermont values, Florida, Colorado, here to D.C., and we've got to hang on to that. But it's all in service of trying to get the job done so that we have an economic agenda that helps average people.

Hundreds.

Well, all of us come from States where you've got to pay your bills.

Pay-as-you-go.