Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the President's Iraq policy has been a complete catastrophe. It must be challenged. It must be changed. We must end this war.

The question we face is clear: Will Congress rubber-stamp a fifth year of a failed policy, or will Congress finally, after 4 straight years of lock-step compliance with an incompetent administration, compel a new direction that ends the war?

The President has arrogantly asserted that he will veto any measure with a timetable. Mr. Speaker, I will not support any bill without a timetable. If I had a chance to write this bill, like my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), I would bring our troops home yesterday. But I did not write this bill, so I must measure it based on three criteria: Does it impose accountability on the President and Iraqis? Does it revoke the President's blank check? Does it establish a date certain with the force of law that will end this war?

This bill meets each of these objectives. Regrettably if this bill fails, the war will continue, unchecked and unabated.

It is time for the Iraqis to accept responsibility for shaping their own future. Even President Bush has acknowledged the importance of imposing measurable benchmarks of success on the Iraqi Government. This legislation replaces Presidential lip service with congressional force of law.

There is a reason the President threatens to veto this bill: It is because Congress is finally revoking his blank check.

Mr. Speaker, there is no easy way to clean up the mess in Iraq or to avert further suffering. Our obligation remains to decide, at this time and place, whether to stay the President's course or to end this war as soon as possible.

I will support this bill because it finally puts us on the path to end the unconscionable war.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

You know, it is very elemental: you get what you pay for, you account for what you buy, you are responsible to the people that hire you, you are responsible to the voters.

The opportunity that I have had about addressing some of these issues of accountability, maybe I can just tell a few stories about some of the hearings we have had, because it is worse than I expected. I come from Vermont, where we don't know how to waste things. We do it over recycle, reuse, do all of those things. But, you know, I am on the Oversight and Government Operations Committee, and we have had a number of hearings. And let me just tell a few stories, because I think rather than have me give some conclusions, let people just hear what some of the facts are.

We had some hearings on Iraq expenditures, Iraq relief money. And the Government Accountability Office has come up with an audit that suggests that a minimum of $10 billion was wasted. But a couple of graphic examples came forward that just stunned me, frankly. One was that our Federal Reserve, at the orders of the government, sent $12 billion in taxpayer money, in cash, loaded in skids, shrink wrapped in plastic cellophane over to Iraq. Now, why did that happen? It wasn't accounted for, but it was sent over there to pay salaries for people who were working in Iraqi ministries. And of course it happened at a time when there was a desperate effort on the part of the administration to show some progress in Iraq. And one of the ways of trying to show progress is that we have these ministries up and running and we have employees who are working and doing the basic jobs of providing electricity, of dealing with pensions, and the things that are the functions of government.

Most of that money went missing because it turned out that some of it was literally handed out from the back of pick-up trucks in Baghdad, and it went to employees who were ghost employees. There were these various ministers in the Iraq Government who had a position of influence and saw an opportunity and they took it and made millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Now, you know, there is no Republican, there is no Democrat, there is no Independent who can fathom the idea of literally loading 347 tons of 100-dollar bills on C-147 transports and sending it to a foreign country to be handed out on street corners. At home, when I go to Vermont and I tell this story, I almost pinch myself because it is so astonishing that I am wondering whether it is true. Unfortunately, it is true. That is something that is happening with taxpayer dollars.

Another example: $57 million was spent, Madam Speaker, awarded a contract to a Falls Church company that was going to construct housing in Baghdad, I think it was outside of the airport, it was going to be for, Congressman Hodes is on that committee, so if I get some of these details wrong, you can correct me. But basically it was a housing contract that was going to provide housing for trainees of the Baghdad police. Not a bad idea. One problem: the housing was never built. The only residue of the $57 million are hundreds of mobile homes that are now parked, unoccupied, on a tract of land outside the Baghdad Airport.

Now, even our government got embarrassed at this. And someone in the State Department suggested that what we should do, since we had all these homeless people in Baghdad but they couldn't live there, we didn't have housing units set up, we just had these facilities, the suggestion was why don't we donate these mobile homes to the victims of Katrina. And I had the opportunity to ask the question everybody else would ask, was it their plan to move the folks in New Orleans to Baghdad or was it their plan to move the mobile homes from Baghdad to New Orleans? That actually happened, all right.

A third example: this isn't so much about wasting taxpayer dollars; it is about violating basic rules of political integrity really.

This whole question of global warming that people now recognize is real, it is urgent, and it is immediate. And I believe it is becoming a bipartisan consensus. We are not arguing whether it is true.

Well, we were arguing whether it was true. In our committee we had before us a press person that worked for the administration, and his job was to edit reports. Editing apparently included

taking scientific conclusions that were reached by scientists doing a scientific method, experimentation, drawing conclusions, maintaining academic integrity, and then putting them through what was an edit that was a political filter that actually changed the outcome of the scientific conclusions. And it was all intended to meet the political agenda of the administration that wanted to resist the conclusion that global warming was real, urgent, and immediate.

There are certain lines you can't cross, and that is one of them. The people of this country, obviously, are entitled to the benefit of honest science. Then we have to make a decision, all of us, about what to do with it, what policies should we pursue. But, bottom line, we have to have that integrity.

So these are just a few examples that I was exposed to as a Member of Congress serving on committees. And I think it reinforces the point that you are making because every American wants and is entitled to accountability, honesty in whatever element of the government we are working in, with our finances, with the services of scientists, and every other sector.

So my friend, Mr. Klein, those are a few of the experiences I have had serving on a committee here.

It is really true. And it is not a partisan thing. I am trying to figure this out because all these things did happen on the Republican watch. And it is a Congress that I think turned its back on its responsibility. But I sometimes wonder whether that concentration of all power and a reliance on ideology meant that if you had an ideology and you had a set of facts and if they didn't fit, you would throw the facts out and stick with the ideology. But it is not a productive and winning strategy. So I have been mystified by it.

And, Ron, you and I come out of State legislatures that are smaller, where Republicans and Democrats tend to work together. You have this close relationship and a lot of this stuff just doesn't happen there. So it is mystifying to me how it happens here. But I think it is a lot less likely to happen now that there is a cop on the beat and that our committees are just checking under the covers to see what is going on.

Yes, I do. Every American is appalled at what was revealed, the degrading circumstances for our troops at Walter Reed. There were many things that were obviously disturbing about it, the vermin, the rodents, the peeling paint, the unsanitary conditions.

But that is the tip of the iceberg. What was really heartbreaking when you met the veterans was that they were completely lost and abandoned. We had people with head injuries that had very severe cognitive problems who were in an administrative morass and nightmare. They were abandoned really for 4 months before anyone knew that they were there.

We had amputees who were a mile away from where they needed to be without prosthetics and were supposed to somehow find a way to walk to where their doctors' appointments were. The administrative breakdown was enormous, and it really reflected a culture of disregard.

One of the things that came out as we started investigating this situation out at Walter Reed was that the breakdown of services was very predictable because there was a substantial reduction in the number of personnel that were needed to provide the services.

Step one, you know that if you are having significant increased military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to anticipate you will have an increasing need for services to treat injured soldiers.

Two, in response to that, the government, the Bush administration, following its ideological hard line about privatization, put to bid certain services that were being offered at Walter Reed. It turned out that the government workers who were government workers had an opportunity to bid on that. They had the lowest bid. Mysteriously, and we still haven't gotten to the bottom of this, Madam Speaker, their bid was adjusted upward $7 million, not by them, but by the reviewer of bids. They then came in second, and the contract was awarded to a private company, IAP Worldwide Services.

Now, we don't know what the bottom-line connection is. What we do know is the following: Number one, what had been personnel of 300 went to 50. Now, it is cheaper to have 50 people on the payroll than it is to have 300, but you also don't get the job done, especially when the number of wounded soldiers is increasing. So that is shocking right away.

Number two, this company, IAP, had all kinds of problems, even though it received millions and millions of dollars doing Katrina relief.

Number three, the head of the IAP Company is a former very high executive in Halliburton, a company that I just have to say has ripped off the American taxpayer and made billions of dollars on this war in Iraq.

Now, how is it that there is a disposition that is so powerful that you put privatization and ideology ahead of a bottom line, the nonnegotiable bottom line that you are going to provide the services that our men and women in the service returning from Afghanistan, returning from Iraq need? It is absolutely and completely unacceptable. That shouldn't be a bipartisan thing. We ought to be doing whatever it takes to make certain that our men and women do get the services that they need.

Lack of accountability makes people lax. They are not looking over their shoulder knowing that somebody is going to be checking to find out if they are getting the job done, if they are ripping off taxpayers, if they are performing up to standards.

That is a major responsibility. We are candid with one another. We know that people are pretty fed up with government. The reason, there are a lot of reasons for it, but one of them is they don't have confidence that we are taking care of their taxpayer dollars. That gets so embedded in people's sense that they lose faith that the government will be there when there is a Katrina, when our soldiers are coming home from Iraq. Our job, together, is to restore that confidence by performance, not by talk; by accountability.

Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee intends to meet this week to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.

Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 55 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 21.

Amendments should be drafted to the bill as introduced. A copy of that bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee. Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 254 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. WELCH of Vermont asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 254.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 254 provides for the consideration of H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 60 minutes of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, and the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted.

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order to provisions of the bill, as amended.

The rule makes in order seven amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report and by the Member designated in the report. The amendments are considered as read, are debatable for the time specified, are not subject to amendment and are not divisible. All points of order against the amendments except, again, those in clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI are waived.

Finally, the rule does provide one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule which makes in order nearly all of the amendments that were brought to the Rules Committee. Even though many on our side had concerns about the intent and effect of certain provisions in the amendments, the Rules Committee, with the recommendation of the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, voted to allow the House to debate the amendments and let the votes fall as they may.

Besides the manager's amendment, the rule makes in order more Republican amendments, actually, than Democratic ones, four Republican and three Democratic amendments. The few amendments that were not made in order by the rule were either withdrawn, determined to be nongermane, or had already been voted on earlier by the House.

The rule also provides extensive time for debate on each amendment so that the House can have a very vigorous discussion on each of them. Under this rule, each of the amendments is debatable for 20 minutes. Two of the amendments are debatable for an hour each.

Chairman Frank came before our committee and testified that we should allow considerable time to debate each of these amendments on their merits and allow the views of all Members to be heard, even if that meant that we have to work late into the evening.

The Rules Committee agreed with the chairman, and I am pleased to bring forth this very even-handed rule.

Madam Speaker, as you know, Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 25, 2005, followed by Hurricane Rita on September 24 and Hurricane Wilma on October 24, 2005, causing extraordinarily heavy loss of life and dislocation of thousands of families. Hurricane Katrina alone devastated 90,000

square miles, made 770,000 people homeless and had a death toll of 1,464 in Louisiana alone.

Just by comparison, in 1906 the earthquake and fire in San Francisco killed an estimated 500 to 3,000 people, resulted in about 250,000 people homeless. The Galveston Island flood of 1900 killed as many as 8,000 people, in the island and the city. The Chicago fire, the famous fire of 1871, burned an area of approximately 3 square miles and made 100,000 people homeless.

In the aftermath of the storms, Congress approved $16.7 billion for Community Development Block Grants, and that's the portion of Katrina aid that we are talking about here, to aid the affected areas with rebuilding efforts. Of that, roughly $1.2 billion has been spent. There has been a lot of bureaucratic mismanagement, frankly, in FEMA, resulting in the delay of aid approved to the people who need it.

Tragically, many residents continue to be displaced, and the pace of home repair and reconstruction is much slower than had been hoped for. And tens of thousands of federally assisted evacuees from these hurricanes face impending deadlines later this year for continued eligibility for rental assistance. A great number of residents are still scattered around the country, many hundreds of thousands of miles from their homes.

Madam Speaker, we are aware that FEMA didn't get its job done in the aftermath of the hurricane. We are here, in part, to try to put this back together and make certain that the aid people need is delivered. In part, this Congress now is responding to the needs of the folks in the gulf coast again.

I am very pleased to support this rule and support the underlying bill because it does provide some overdue housing relief to displaced gulf coast residents. H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007, was passed out of the Financial Services Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 50-16. The bill is practical in speeding up the repair and rebuilding of homes and affordable rental housing to the displaced low-income victims to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.

Very specifically, the measure frees up for use $1.175 billion in funds that was previously made available to the State of Louisiana, but which has been held up by FEMA. Louisiana has proposed combining these funds with other Community Development Block Grant funds under its Road Home program for grants to homeowners, but FEMA won't approve use of the funds, thereby slowing down the program because of concerns about specific provisions of the Road Home program that provide incentives for homeowners to commit to return to the State of Louisiana and live.

This bill would transfer such funds to CDBG grants in order to expedite the availability of those funds. The bill also has a number of provisions designed to address the shortfall in affordable housing for low-income families. And, as we all know, it was low-income families who bore the brunt of suffering as a result of these hurricanes. This measure would prevent public housing units in New Orleans from being demolished until the Federal Government has a plan to replace them and grant displaced public housing tenants an absolute right of return to either their former neighborhood or one as close as possible.

Faced with a looming September deadline for the cutoff of some 12,000 families currently receiving Disaster Voucher Program assistance, H.R. 1227 extends this deadline through at least the end of the year and authorizes replacement vouchers to affected families when the program terminates, and that would continue as long as the family is eligible for voucher assistance.

Additionally, responding to numerous accounts of government waste in the gulf coast rebuilding process, H.R. 1227 includes a number of provisions to ensure effective oversight. Federal funds must be used efficiently, effectively, and legally. The bill requires the State of Louisiana to submit monthly reports on the progress of the Road Home program in making funds available to homeowners. The bill requires the Government Accountability Office to complete quarterly reports identifying any waste, fraud, and abuse in connection with the program. We have got to stay on top of this money. And the bill requires the GAO study to examine methods of improving the distribution of Federal housing funds to assist States with hurricane recovery efforts.

Finally, the bill authorizes reimbursement of communities and landlords for monies lost through providing assistance to displaced individuals. A number of communities and private sector landlords throughout the country did play a critical role in providing housing assistance to evacuees in the aftermath of the hurricanes. This was crucial at a time when housing was in short supply and hundreds of thousands of families needed that assistance. We want to encourage such actions in future disasters to restore people's faith that the government can be a friend and an ally at a time of extraordinary need.

Much of the gulf coast remains devastated. Residents continue to suffer from inadequate housing, health care, and other basic services. And, more than 1\1/2\ years after Hurricane Katrina struck, the situation in the gulf coast remains an emergency. We must act now to right some of the wrongs that have been done and not wait on the sidelines anymore. We urge that you support the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, just in response to the comments by my friend from Florida, this pretty much is an open rule. The ones that weren't allowed were nongermane. And then there was one amendment that was not allowed because it was an amendment that was earlier offered and rejected by this House, and that was at the recommendation of the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, who had a very open process in the Financial Services Committee considering numerous amendments and then has pretty much invited any Member who wanted to submit an amendment to have an opportunity on the floor to do so or for consideration before the Rules Committee.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chair of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank.

Madam Speaker, in response to my friend from Georgia, I would say two things. First, there are seven amendments that have been allowed. One of them included an amendment by the gentleman from Georgia that was not timely, but was accommodated by the Rules Committee. The amendment that was rejected is an amendment that has been rejected before.

The second point that I think it is important to make is that we have a responsibility in this House to get work done.

And the rules are intended to help us do the work of the American people, not be a political wedge to make bogus arguments about process. And it is a disgrace, it is a disgrace, that going on 2 years after these hurricanes, there are people who are still homeless because we had a Federal Emergency Management Administration that was incompetent and reckless. It was headed by a person whose previous experience was as a judge of an Arabian horse contest, and that happened under the administration and the Congress that was led by Republicans.

That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to this Congress. It is not acceptable to this party. It is not acceptable to this Congressman. It is not acceptable by a bipartisan vote of 52-16 of the Financial Services Committee.

We have business to do because there are people who are still in emergency situations well over a year after devastating hurricanes. This legislation is about doing something now that should have been done 1\1/2\ years ago.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my good friend from Florida.

Once again, Madam Speaker, this is, we believe, a fair and open rule that provides consideration for a much-needed, bipartisan piece of legislation. The rule makes in order nearly every amendment brought to the Rules Committee, more Republican than Democratic amendments, and with considerable time to debate the merits of each amendment that will be presented.

The underlying bill will provide increased flexibility for already allocated funds, provide new oversight for existing programs. It preserves public housing, assists evacuees with rental housing and provides support for landlords in local communities who assisted evacuees with housing.

Don't forget the displaced victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. That is really what this is all about. The Federal Government's response to the storms has been a national embarrassment, and it is just not acceptable. We have an obligation, all of us, to get our act together so that they can move on with their lives and put them back together.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, the issue here is global warming. There is a separate issue of Ethics Committee funding. It should be clear to all of us that we don't have to combine the two to let both defeat what is in the interest of this country to achieve. The crisis of global warming is real. It is urgent and it requires our immediate action. By embracing the challenge of global warming, we can open the door to innovative local approaches as we work towards solutions that are going to create jobs, improve the environment, and improve and strengthen our national security.

This is a very critical issue in my own State, as it is in every State. Even in a small State such as Vermont, we realize that we can and we must make a contribution towards a more sustainable local economy, a more environmentally friendly future. Meaningful Federal policy must be part of that.

I commend this House of Representatives' bipartisan action that in our first days we reversed those tax breaks that went to big oil companies and instead funded renewable energy. The leadership in this Congress has also set a priority on making a green capital initiative. We are going to work, I hope together with my friend from California, on greening this capital and putting our example forward as part of what can be achieved.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank my friend from California. What that is about, we can take concrete steps. Last month my office introduced a bill that would allow us to be a carbon-neutral office by working with a couple of local initiatives in Vermont to offset the 54 tons of carbon pollution that turning on the lights in my office here in Washington and my office at home in Vermont and my travel back and forth around the State generates.

What we can accomplish by working together requires us to take concrete steps together. This committee, this special select committee, is something in my view that deserves bipartisan support because we have to focus the attention of this Congress on the big issue of global warming, but also on the concrete and specific steps that we can take that will reduce the damage that we do to the environment by our activities by creating jobs that will increase wealth and economic security for our country, and absolutely take steps towards reducing the stranglehold that foreign oil has on limiting our foreign policy options.

This is overdue and something that can be accomplished, and I commend the Speaker for her initiative in putting together this special panel that is going to help this Congress and this country make the overdue steps that are required.

Madam Speaker, our American democracy depends on a strong middle class, and our middle class has relied on institutions that support working Americans. The American institution that has done more to strengthen the backbone of our democracy and the rights of American workers is the labor union.

At a time when you would least expect it, the middle-class American is losing ground. Corporate profits are up. Executive pay is up. Productivity of our workers is up. And yet our middle class is under assault. Worker incomes haven't kept pace with rising costs for education, health care, energy, transportation, child care, and housing. We haven't faced greater income inequality since before the Great Depression.

Why is it that as our economy grows and CEOs have unfettered freedom to negotiate lavish contracts, our workers are left behind?

Many believe, as I do, that strengthening the rights and opportunities of workers will increase opportunities for all and strengthen the American economy. Our economy has done best when all share in a stake in its success and all share in its rewards.

Congress can help our workers achieve better wages, benefits, and working conditions. We can help level the playing field. The Employee Free Choice Act is based on the simple proposition that workers should have a protected right to organize when they choose to do so. That right must be straightforward, enforceable, and fair. If a majority of workers sign up for a union, they form a union. It is that simple.

Congress today can play a positive role in promoting the vibrancy of our democracy and helping workers get ahead. Last month we began to do so by raising the minimum wage, making college more affordable, and lowering the cost of prescription drugs. Today we act to protect the rights of workers as they pursue the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, today we begin debate on the question of whether to escalate the war in Iraq.

The administration's policy on Iraq has failed. It failed yesterday, it is failing today, and it will fail tomorrow. These failures have left America weakened, not strengthened.

Today, we must chart a new course. We must end the war in Iraq.

Each one of us is immeasurably proud of the service of our troops. They answered the call to duty, and they have done their job.

I am particularly proud of our Vermont troops and our families. No State has sacrificed more per capita in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than our State of Vermont. But while our men and women in uniform have done their jobs, the President's policies have failed this country and failed our troops, demonstrably and repeatedly.

Mr. Speaker, it is now our responsibility to chart a new direction; one that brings our troops home, restores diplomacy to foreign policy and improves the readiness of our military. And we start today. No more troops, no more phony intelligence, no more blank checks. We must end this war.

Top military commanders have made it clear that no amount of American military force can take the place of the political consensus required to end Iraq's civil war. We now face two questions: What is best for America and what is best for Iraq? And the answer to both questions is to end this war.

This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is just a beginning. The President has left us no choice. America must change the direction of the war. If the President won't, we will.

Today, we choose the path which offers us the best hope for success: escalating the military conflict, as the President proposes, or taking the first step in a new direction. To strengthen America, we must choose a new path. Top generals have said it, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group confirmed it, and the American people demand it.

Mr. Speaker, the troops have done their job. Now we must do our ours.

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming ever more clear that the troop escalation plan proposed by the administration is not-- is not--in our Nation's best interest or in the best interest of bringing stability to Iraq.

Last week, three different events demonstrated why it is absolutely essential that Congress accept its responsibility to debate the President's plan. First, the cost of the escalation: The President has advertised it to be $5.6 billion; CBO, nonpartisan, estimates it will be $21 billion.

Second, the number of troops required, the President is selling it, advertising it as requiring 21,600 troops. CBO estimates suggest that it will be at least 48,000 troops.

Next, Pentagon officials admitted last week that they do not have enough armored vehicles, armored kits and other equipment that is absolutely essential to protecting the well-being of our troops. We cannot be sending troops into battle without the equipment and the protection that they need.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 139) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 133 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

(Mr. WELCH of Vermont asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 133 provides for consideration of H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act, under an open rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the Committee on Science and Technology amendment in the nature of a substitute, now printed in the bill, as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be considered for amendment by section with each section considered as read.

The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule and the underlying bill. As this Congress is well aware, our country faces a pressing need to chart a new energy future. In the crisis of global warming, it is real, it is urgent, and it requires our immediate action.

Furthermore, there is a growing recognition that our reliance on fossil fuels and foreign sources of energy threatens our economic future and our international security.

We as a Nation must seize opportunities, not miss them, to be a world leader and promote our own domestic economy, to take steps similar to what Brazil has done and has successfully demonstrated with the reliance on increasing access to biofuels.

Today, the Chair of our Science and Technology Committee, the Member from Tennessee, Chairman Gordon, with the assistance of the ranking member, the Representative from Texas, Mr. Hall, are providing us with an opportunity to take a concrete step forward to increase the use and the supply of alternative renewable fuels through research and development.

These alternatives provide hope for reducing our impact on global warming while giving a boost to our local and national economies. The particular beneficiaries of success in building capacity for biofuels will be our rural economies, Mr. Speaker.

We have a potential, if we embrace it, in facing the challenge we face with energy, to revitalize our rural economies. What this bill will do is a number of things. It will fund research to make renewable biofuels more compatible with existing infrastructure. One of the practical problems that we face in making biofuels generally available is infrastructure challenges.

Right now, the low sulfur fuels that are potentially available can do damage to the basic pumps and tanks that are in the 160,000 gas stations across this country. Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel has just 3 percent of the sulfur in traditional diesel. But current technology does not allow for the easy testing to ensure that this standard is met.

This is the second area where the bill will help, by establishing clear national standards for testing that will allow verification about what the sulfur content is in our biofuels. New low-cost testing methods will give rise to consumer confidence and create the possibility for greater demand.

To that end, this bill will make alternative fuel compatibility information more available to the public. You know, the expansion of biofuels is going to mean additional revenue options for local farmers, like those in my State of Vermont, and a cleaner environment with less dependance on foreign oil.

As gas prices rise, we are further reminded that we are held hostage by a single source of fuel that threatens our economy, constrains our foreign policy, and does damage to our environment. The most basic level, the budgets of our seniors and our schools, our farms, and our families are strained by high energy prices.

All of the time we are exporting dollars to import energy, we are depriving our local economies of job creation potential. This legislation takes small but very specific steps that will bring us closer to a readily available source of fuel that is local and can have tremendous potential for our local economies.

We are moving in a new direction. Our first step in this Congress, the 110th Congress, last month was when we stood up to Big Oil and we rescinded tax cuts that went to an industry that had been enjoying record profits, and instead put that money into research and opportunities for alternative renewable energy sources.

Many of us come from States that have been taking steps to focus on energy independence and clean energy sources. My own State of Vermont has established a utility called Efficiency Vermont that actually makes benefits for Vermonters by finding ways to use less energy, keeping money in our pockets.

We have created a clean energy fund, something in effect that we are on a start to do with the legislation we passed in the 6-for-06. We established appliance efficiency standards that when implemented can save Vermonters and other citizens from States that have joined us millions of dollars in energy costs.

You know, in addition to just the very practical steps this legislation is taking, having government assist in coming up with standards to measure what biofuel content is, having government help come up with research money so that we can add additives to these low sulfur, less polluting fuels, helping our small businesses, the mom and pop convenience stores that have gas pumps, and would face an expense of $30,000 to $200,000 to retrofit or to replace existing facilitates in order to be able to dispense the new fuels that our private market is producing, this is a concrete step where government is helping on the energy front, helping small business by assisting and coming up with practical low-cost ways to make it easy to dispense this fuel and get it to the consumer.

These are steps where the government is acting as a partner with industry, a partner with our small businesses and doing some things that require the practical and efficient application of resources of the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, there is also another element to this bill that I think is very important for the 110th Congress. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation, presented by the Science and Technology Committee. I want to quote some remarks that Chairman Gordon made at the outset. What he said, when he took the reins of that committee as the new chairman was this: ``I made a promise that this would be a committee of good ideas and a committee of consensus. We are here to solve problems. In fact, the entire Congress is here to solve problems.''

Mr. Gordon and his committee, with the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, have presented to us a bill that has broad bipartisan support. Why? Because it is practical. It does something concrete. It recognizes we have an energy crisis that requires action, and it has found constructive ways to address that.

The committee allowed the process to be open for new ideas, inviting Members to present amendments. The chairman then came before the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, and asked for an open rule so as to permit Members of this body who may have amendments that will strengthen or improve this legislation to have those considered by the full Congress.

So what this bill does is two things: one, it presents us with a practical step that we can take that helps continue to move us in the right direction on energy independence, on reducing global warming, and on building our local economies.

Second, it is a model of how we can work together, the presentation of

good ideas in a bipartisan piece of legislation in an open rule where other Members are invited to present relevant and thought-out ideas that may improve this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, just before I yield to the next speaker on our side, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for his support for this open rule. As he knows, and I think the Members of this body know, the Chair of the Rules Committee, the Member from New York, is completely committed to fair debate.

And also, what we have seen is that there has been vigorous debate on the legislation that has already come before this body, resulting in votes of passage that included substantial support from the other party. So we have had a significant increase in the level of bipartisan support for the legislation that this body has passed.

Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall have presented to us a bill that will be considered by the body, that has broad bipartisan support. They had an open amendment process in effect in their committee.

Chairwoman Slaughter and the Rules Committee, with the support of the Member from California, presenting this bill once again on an open rule process. This side is committed to fair debate, and the Rules Committee will act in ways that are consistent with that.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from California if he is ready to close. I am the only remaining speaker on my side and will reserve my time until the gentleman is finished.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his kind remarks about the Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter. I also thank him, as we all do, for his support on both the open rule and the merits of this legislation.

The bottom line here is, we are all in it together. We know that we have major problems to solve. One of them is global warming and one is energy independence. This legislation is a practical step that was brought to us by the cooperation of both sides of the aisle on the Science and Technology Committee.

The Rules Committee is presenting an open rule. There will be more to come. Its commitment is to fair debate, and it is going to have to balance the responsibility of making decisions about how best to allow this body to debate clearly and directly the major issues that come before this Congress.

We can make progress by working together. It is our goal to continue to do so. That requires that the committees be given an opportunity to do their work. Amendments are going to be brought up in committees and recommended or rejected. That was done in this case. It is going to be the commitment of the Rules Committee to make the debate on all legislation that comes before this body as fair as it possibly can be.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important step. We have to give the American people some confidence that we can take concrete steps to move ahead, and that is legislation, day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year, where we are moving in the right direction.

What we have done on energy in less than a month is move away from an excessive and damaging reliance on fossil fuels by passing two pieces of legislation, if this passes, that move us in a new direction. That is the right thing for this country; it is the right thing for Republicans and Democrats to work together to achieve.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the previous question.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am a new Member of Congress and proud to be part of an institution that has been the cradle of democracy, and very proud to be part of this new class of Republicans and Democrats that came here in the year 2007.

Mr. Speaker, in Vermont, and I think across America, average citizens were somewhat bewildered when they looked at what was happening in Washington. When they saw us go from a record surplus to a record deficit, the only conclusion they could come to was we had lost our way.

When they saw that the drug companies prevailed in actually getting legislation that prohibited price negotiation to get the best price for taxpayers and seniors, they thought America had lost its way.

When they saw that over the course of 9 years, Congress had allowed itself nine pay increases totaling $31,000, but the minimum wage worker was stuck at $5.15 an hour, they thought America had lost its way.

When they saw that when major legislation was brought before this body and the vote was extended for 3 or 4 hours in order to arm-twist, persuade people to change their votes, they thought Congress had lost its way.

I believe what this election was about across America was people in Vermont and people in districts from Vermont to California saying that they wanted Congress to start solving problems. What this 100 hours was about was making a down payment to America, where we are trying to give confidence to Americans that this Congress can do the work that needs to be done to improve the lives of average, everyday people. The strength of our democracy has always depended on a strong middle-class and opportunities for people at the low income level who want to climb the ladder of opportunity.

What we have done in this first 100 hours, frankly, working together with many on the other side of the aisle, is establish that we actually can govern and we can pass legislation that will be meaningful. We have rejected politics as being about finding wedge issues that will divide us so that we can focus on economic issues that can unite us. And this is a beginning, it is not an end.

These first 100 hours, in my view, have been remarkable. We have changed the way Congress does business by enacting ethics reforms; no meals, no free trips, no free travel, and we did this with the support of 68 Republicans.

To return to fiscal responsibility, we adopted pay-as-you-go budgeting. That is going to impose itself on Republicans and Democrats, whether proposing spending increases for programs you favor or tax cuts you might want to advocate for. We did this with the support of 48 Republicans.

To help working families who have really been squeezed as our economy starts widening between those who have and everyone else, we passed cuts in student loan interest rates that will save the average student about $4,400 over the life of the loan, and we did that with the support of 124 Republicans.

We passed, of course, the first minimum wage increase in 10 years, and that is going to help America's lowest paid workers, and we did that with all the Democrats and the support of 82 Republicans.

And on and on; on stem cell research, on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and the commonsense step of ending tax breaks for Big Oil that costs taxpayers $14 billion, while it increased our dependence on foreign oil and put off the day when we embraced the challenge and obligation all of us know we have, to move towards alternative energy.

What we know is this: America has very severe challenges: Health care, 47 million Americans without it; health care for the Americans that do have it, that they are increasingly finding they can't afford; bringing our troops home from Iraq; restoring our budget to balance; moving in a new direction on energy.

What we know is true is that the only way we are going to solve those problems is if we work together. We are in it together, and it is by working together, as we have in these past 100 hours, that we can make progress for America.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, the issue for us in this Congress is procedure, but it is really about substance. In the last Congress, what happened was something that you can't make up. Oil companies have enjoyed $125 billion in profits over 3 years, were the beneficiaries of legislation that lowered taxes for them by about $14 billion. You can't make it up.

What this legislation is about is addressing that and for the first time taking a step in the direction of providing incentives for what every American knows is long overdue, and that is to provide incentives for alternative energy opportunities. We need that to strengthen our economy and create good jobs; we need that to strengthen our position in foreign policy so that we are independent; and we also need it to begin addressing global warming.

This legislation is the beginning, it is only a beginning. There is going to be an enormous amount of time for the committees to take up the large issues and for us together to take the broader steps that are required to become truly independent on energy.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand here before you today to celebrate the birthday of a great Vermonter, public servant, and friend.

For more than 50 years Jack Fraser has made public service his way of life. Jack first joined the Norwich Fire Department in 1955. At the time, Jack was simultaneously enrolled at the University of Vermont and participating in the ROTC program. When he graduated in 1960, Jack was commissioned as an officer in the United States Army.

Always one to take on the toughest challenges, Jack became an Army Ranger and served two tours of duty in Vietnam. He continued in the military after he returned home, teaching as an ROTC instructor at the University of Vermont. He retired from the US Army Reserve in 1990 with the rank of Colonel, having served his country for 35 years.

Meanwhile, Jack had continued his public service in the Norwich, Vermont Fire Department, becoming Fire Chief in 1995. Under the leadership of Chief Fraser, the Department modernized and improved its fire apparatus, its training equipment, its rural fire protection, and its rescue operations. Jack developed particular expertise in the field of hazardous materials, developing Norwich's first hazardous materials response plan. Largely as a result of his work, the town of Norwich earned one of the highest public protection classification rates in Vermont.

Jack officially retired from his civic duties on December 31, 2006. Please join me today in thanking Jack Fraser for all he has done for his town, his country, and the state of Vermont.

Madam Speaker, I am proud, as part of our first 100 hours, that Congress has committed to expanding higher education opportunities to more Americans. Education has always been the great equalizer in this country. With each generation doors are opened through greater access to education.

The health of our economy and prosperity of our middle class rests on having a highly-skilled and well-educated workforce. We all know stories of working class families struggling to make ends meet to put a child, sometimes the family's first generation, through college. It is a struggle millions of families go through, as college costs skyrocket year after year. Reducing the debt burden these families and students face is the least Congress can do to help meet their commitment and sacrifice.

H.R. 5 will provide a significant reduction in student loan interest rates for students who borrow under the subsidized student loan program.

This legislation is worthy in its intent and it is legislation I support. However, it is my hope to work with my fellow members and the distinguished Chairman of Education and Labor to recognize the important role small, not-for-profit lenders play in opening doors to more working families. I believe it makes sense to distinguish not only between large and small lenders, but those that lend on a not-for- profit basis and who reinvest all revenues into additional student financial assistance.

Our goal is to improve educational opportunities for students and it is a goal I know our non-profit lenders share.

Mr. Speaker, a special interest over the public interest, there is no more vivid example of special interests trumping the public interest than the Medicare Part D legislation that we must reform today.

Extending a drug benefit to our seniors on Medicare is the right thing to do. Even in its current form, it has helped thousands of Vermonters and hundreds of thousands of Americans.

But when this Medicare drug benefit was first passed, a worthy extension of this good program went terribly wrong because of the wrong-headed prohibition on the Federal Government's ability to do the obvious: negotiate fair prices for the taxpayer. This program fails on its most fundamental level, cost. Failing on cost, it impedes access.

The lobbyists who had such an influence in writing this bill bewildered our seniors and ripped off our taxpayers.

The public interest, the interest of our seniors and taxpayers are who we represent today and who we can help today with the passage of this bill.