Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of this resolution recognizing National Engineers Week and the important contributions to society made by engineers. A range of activities and programs highlighting Engineers Week will be taking place across the country. Communities, schools, and museums will host events to excite young people about engineering by helping them see the role this discipline plays in the world around them.

This resolution and National Engineers Week come at a fitting time. We are in a dire economic situation, in part because of a failure to sufficiently support science and engineering in the past. Research and development will be the foundation for the discoveries that will fuel our economic recovery and sustain our long term economic growth. Engineering is often the critical bridge between the basic science and the productive innovation or the marketable product. It is entirely proper that we acknowledge this important field at this critical time.

National Engineers Week is the most visible event in an ongoing, year-round effort by the National Engineers Week Foundation to support and encourage interest in engineering and technology. As Congress supports the excellent programming of National Engineers week, it should follow the Foundation's lead in making a commitment to science, research, engineering, and education. Congress should work to ensure that all individuals who choose to pursue an education in engineering and related fields have the opportunity to do so. And Congress should fully fund the America COMPETES Act and make a sustained investment in our national innovation infrastructure.

This resolution recognizes the value of National Engineers Week and engineering-related disciplines generally. I am delighted to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 154, which honors John Dingell for being the longest serving member of the House of Representatives.

John Dingell came to Congress in 1955 at the age of 29 and in his more than 53 years in the House, including 16 as the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, has represented energetically and effectively the constituents of his southeastern Michigan district.

Longevity alone, however, does not distinguish John Dingell, and the Dean of the House has been at the center of almost every major legislative accomplishment of this body since his earliest days in Congress. In 1965,

Representative Dingell presided over the House chamber when the House passed the Social Security Act of 1965, creating Medicare. Years later, the one-time forest ranger, and avid outdoorsman, helped usher through Congress the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Clean Air Act of 1990.

Throughout his distinguished career, he has led the fight to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care, fought to close corporate loopholes, investigated government waste of taxpayer dollars, and advocated for the safety of consumers. Most recently, Representative Dingell played a key roll in the passage of the. Consumer Products Safety and Improvement Act, which was signed into law last August.

In my few years in the House, I have been honored to have served beside John Dingell. I have learned a great deal from such a thoughtful, serious legislator, and I look forward to working with him as Congress continues to address the country's economic, health care, and climate challenges.

I join my colleagues in honoring an institution in the House of Representatives, John Dingell, for his service to his constituents, the Congress, and the country.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate New Jersey State Senator Raymond Lesniak on winning the Memorial de Caen International Human Rights Competition. Senator Lesniak's address, entitled ``The Road to Justice and Peace'' was chosen by an international panel of judges over a number of entries from all over the world. In his speech, Senator Lesniak makes the case that the death penalty has failed, gives examples of miscarriages of justice and argues that the death penalty ``serves no penal purpose and commits society to the belief that revenge is preferable to redemption.''

When New Jersey became the first state to abolish the death penalty since the Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976, Senator Lesniak was the prime sponsor and mover of the bill. His passion for justice, combined with his patient, consistent leadership on the issue, had achieved victory for a cause he felt so strongly about.

It was not always the case. Ray Lesniak admits in the Introduction of his book The Road to Abolition: How New Jersey Abolished the Death Penalty, that he was not always a death penalty opponent. Early in his legislative career, the Senator voted to reinstate the death penalty in New Jersey. He tells of how he feared the unpopularity of a vote to abolish and was swayed by the argument that he might be perceived as ``soft on crime''. He gave no thought to the morality of the issue or to the possibility of executing an innocent person. He now says that ``The 20 plus intervening years taught me that public service should not be about seeking approval, glory or fame. Trinkets. They're nothing more than trinkets.''

When Governor Corzine signed the bill abolishing the death penalty in New Jersey, the Sant'Egidio Community, which is at the forefront of the international anti-death penalty movement, arranged for the lighting of the Colosseum in Rome. The edifice that once was the scene of deadly gladiator combat and executions was bathed for 24 hours in golden light celebrating New Jersey's decision to halt executions. A fitting tribute to the work of Senator Raymond Lesniak.

Ray Lesniak is one of the longest serving and most skilled members of the New Jersey Legislature. First elected to the General Assembly in 1977, he has served in the New Jersey Senate since 1983. His legislative career is filled with initiatives that have become law and ideas that have moved our society ahead. His work has been recognized by numerous organizations. In 2002, Senator Lesniak was named ``Humanitarian of the Year'' by Community Access Unlimited for his legislative efforts on behalf of people with disabilities and for providing support to working families and the homeless. In 2003 he was awarded ``Legislator of the Year'' by the Medical Society of New Jersey for working to make health care more affordable and accessible, expanding the PAAD low-cost prescription program to cover more seniors, and expanding cancer and diabetes research and education. He was also honored by the American Cancer Society, the Polish American World and the Department of the Public Defender for his outstanding efforts in the legislature. Ray Lesniak also takes great pride in having been the Grand Marshal of the Pulaski Day Parade in New York City in 2004.

Ray Lesniak is a native of Elizabeth and a life-long New Jersey resident. He was raised in a political household where his mother, the late Stephanie Lesniak, served as a Democratic County Committeewoman for 30 years. She was his biggest fan and supporter and the inspiration for his career in government until her death in 2003 at the age of 85. She would be proud that her son has won international recognition for his achievements, but not surprised.

When Senator Lesniak accepted the award from the Memorial de Caen, he said he was proud as an American to receive this recognition for the defense of human rights. He is dedicating his first place winnings to The Road to Justice and Peace, the non-profit foundation he formed to advance the abolition of the death penalty around the globe. Ray Lesniak teaches us that a dedicated public servant, who works tirelessly for a goal, can make a difference that has a far effect. I salute Senator Lesniak for his life's work and congratulate him on winning the International Human Rights Competition. His prize winning entry follows:

I come here today not to plead a case for a victim whose

fundamental human rights have been violated. But, rather, to

plead the case that the death penalty violates the

fundamental human rights of mankind. In my country, the

United States of America, over 3,000 human beings are

awaiting execution, some for a crime they did not commit. I

plead the case that the death penalty in the United States,

Iraq, Pakistan, Japan, wherever, exposes the innocent to

execution, causes more suffering to the family members of

murder victims, serves no penal purpose and commits society

to the belief that revenge is preferable to redemption.

On December 17, 2007, New Jersey became the first state in

the Union to abolish the death penalty since the U.S. Supreme

Court reinstated it in 1976. When Governor Jon Corzine signed

the legislation I sponsored into law, he also commuted the

death sentences of eight human beings. The Community of

Sant'Egidio in Rome, Italy, a lay Catholic organization

committed to abolishing the death penalty throughout the

world, lit up the Roman Colosseum to celebrate this victory

for human rights.

How was this victory achieved? First, by demonstrating that

the death penalty creates the possibility of executing an

innocent human being. One of our founding founders, Benjamin

Franklin, quoting the British Jurist William Blackstone,

said: ``It's better to let 100 guilty men go free than to

imprison an innocent person.'' Yet Governor Corzine and my

legislation let no guilty person go free. It merely replaced

the death penalty with life without parole, eliminating the

possibility of putting to death an innocent human being.

Byron Halsey could have been one such human being. On July 9,

2007, Byron walked out of jail a free man after serving 19

years in prison for a most heinous crime: the murder of a

seven year old girl and an eight year old boy. Both had been

sexually assaulted, the girl was strangled to death, and

nails were driven into the boy's head. Halsey, who had a

sixth grade education and severe learning disabilities, was

interrogated for 30 hours shortly after the children's bodies

were discovered. He confessed to the murders and, even though

his statement was factually inaccurate as to the location of

the bodies and the manner of death, his confession was

admitted into evidence in a court of law. The prosecution

sought the death penalty.

Halsey was convicted of two counts of felony murder and one

count of aggravated sexual assault. He was sentenced to two

life terms: narrowly evading the death penalty by the vote of

one juror who held out against it during the sentencing

portion of his trial.

After spending nearly half his life behind bars, post-trial

DNA analysis determined, with scientific certainty, that

Byron did not commit the murders. A witness for the

prosecution at his trial is now accused of those crimes.

But for the good judgment of that one juror, Mr. Halsey

might have been executed, and the real killer would never

have been discovered and brought to justice. Stories like

Byron's are not uncommon. Since 1973, 130 human beings on

death rows throughout the United States have been released

from jail for being wrongfully convicted. During that time

over 1,100 prisoners were executed. How many of them were

innocent? 3,309 remain on death row throughout the U.S. How

many of them are innocent? How many of the innocent will be

executed?

It could be Troy Davis. He's been imprisoned since 1989 in

the State of Georgia for a murder he maintains he did not

commit. In one of Davis's numerous appeals, the Chief Justice

of the Georgia Supreme Court said, ``In this case, nearly

every witness who identified Davis as the shooter at trial

has now disclaimed his or her ability to do so reliably.

Three persons have stated that Sylvester Coles confessed to

being the shooter.'' Coles had testified against Davis at the

trial.

On September 23, 2008, less than two hours before Davis was

due to be put to death by lethal injection, he received a

stay of execution by the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 14

the stay was lifted and the State of Georgia issued an

Execution Warrant for October

27. Three days before this execution date, the 11th Circuit

Court stayed the execution to consider a new appeal.

Will Troy Davis be the next innocent person saved from

execution, or will he be the next innocent person executed?

Does the death penalty serve any purpose, other than to do

harm to everyone involved, and society in general? Does the

death penalty even console the families of murder victims?

Not according to 63 family members of murder victims who

stated, in a letter to the New Jersey Legislature: ``We are

family members and loved ones of murder victims. We

desperately miss the parents, children, siblings, and spouses

we have lost. We live with the pain and heartbreak of their

absence every day and would do anything to have them back. We

have been touched by the criminal justice system in ways we

never imagined and would never wish on anyone. Our experience

compels us to speak out for change. Though we share different

perspectives on the death penalty, every one of us agrees

that New Jersey's capital punishment system doesn't work, and

that our state is better off without it.''

Or more specifically stated by Vicki Schieber whose

daughter, Shannon, was raped and murdered, ``The death

penalty is a harmful policy that exacerbates the pain for

murdered victims' families.''

Some argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder,

yet more than a dozen studies published in the past 10 years

have been inconclusive on its deterrent effect. In testimony

before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and

Property Rights of the United States Senate Judiciary

Committee in February 2006, Richard Dieter, Executive

Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, testified

that states without a death penalty statute have

significantly lower murder rates than their counterparts with

the death penalty. Mr. Dieter also testified that of the four

geographic regions in the U.S., the South, which carries out

80% percent of all executions in the country, has the highest

murder rate. Conversely, the Northeast, which implements less

than 1 percent of all executions, has the lowest murder rate

in the nation.

Even those who believe the death penalty can act as a

deterrent admit that existing research has inconclusive

results. Professor Erik Lillquist of Seton Hall University

School of Law testified that recent econometric studies

conclude that the death penalty can act as a deterrent, but

only if the death penalty is implemented in a ``sufficient''

number of cases. Conversely, he also maintained that other

studies suggest that executions can cause a ``brutalization

effect,'' in which the murder rate actually increases.

Professor Lillquist stated: ``It just may be impossible to

know what the deterrent or brutalization effect is here . . .

at least as an empirical matter--simply because we're never

going to have a large enough database that can be removed

from the confounding variables, such that we can come to a

conclusion. When scientists run studies in general, we try to

do it in a controlled environment. You can't do that with

murders and the death penalty.''

Jeffrey Fagan, Professor of Law and Public Health, Columbia

University and Steven Durlauf, Kenneth J. Arrow Professor of

Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison wrote in a letter

to the editor in the Philadelphia Enquirer on November 17,

2007: ``Serious researchers studying the death penalty

continue to find that the relationship between executions and

homicides is fragile and complex, inconsistent across the

states, and highly sensitive to different research

strategies. The only scientifically and ethically acceptable

conclusion from the complete body of existing social science

literature on deterrence and the death penalty is that it's

impossible to tell whether deterrent effects are strong or

weak, or whether they exist at all.''

The professors concluded: ``Until research survives the

rigors of replication and thorough testing of alternative

hypotheses and sound impartial peer review, it provides no

basis for decisions to take lives.''

While the death penalty inevitably executes the innocent,

exacerbates the pain and suffering of families of murder

victims and serves no penal purpose, the worse damage it does

is to a society that believes it needs to seek revenge over

redemption. The need for revenge leads to hate and violence.

Redemption opens the door to healing and peace. Revenge slams

it shut.

A society that turns its back on redemption commits itself

to holding on to anger and a need for vengeance in a quest

for fulfillment that can not be met by those destructive

emotions. Redemption instead opens the door to the space that

asks healing questions in the wake of violence: questions of

crime prevention, questions of why some human beings put such

a low value on life that they readily take it from others,

questions that help us understand how to help those impacted

by violence; questions that take a back seat, and are often

ignored, when our minds and emotions are filled with a need

for revenge.

Thirty-six states and the federal government of the United

States still impose the death penalty. The United States has

more human beings in prison and more violence than just about

every other civilized country in the world. As long as we

continue to choose revenge over redemption, it's likely we

will continue to be a leader in the amount of violence and

size of our prison population.

It doesn't have to stay that way.

When New Jersey abolished its death penalty, it chose

redemption over revenge, healing over hate, peace over war.

We need more states and our federal government to make those

same choices.

Consider the following headlines which appeared side by

side in the New York Times: ``Iraqi Leaders Say the Way Is

Clear for the Execution of `Chemical Ali'.'' The other

headline read: ``Bomber at Funeral Kills Dozens in

Pakistan.''

Both Iraq and Pakistan have the death penalty. After the

announcement setting the execution date for ``Chemical Ali,''

San Jawarno, whose father and other family members were

killed in attacks directed by ``Chemical Ali'' said, ``Now my

father is resting in peace in his grave because Chemical Ali

will be executed.''

The two events, the bombing in Pakistan and the words of

the bereaved son whose father was killed, are not unrelated.

We must speak up, at every forum, in our homes, our churches,

synagogues, mosques and temples, in our legislative bodies,

wherever an opportunity exists, to convince political

leaders, community leaders, religious leaders, anyone who

will listen, that the death penalty has no reason to exist,

promotes violence, and brings peace to no one: in the grave

or not.

That was to be the end of my plea to abolish the death

penalty. Then I read a report from Amnesty International

about the 13-year-old girl who was stoned to death in a

stadium packed with 1000 spectators in Kismayo, Somalia. Her

offense? Islamic militants accused her of adultery after she

reported she had been raped by three men. Will this

senseless, inhumane killing ever end?

Perhaps. The brutality of the death penalty and of Islamic

militants can end, if we speak out against it, wherever it

exists, in any shape, in any form.

The death penalty is a random act of brutality. Its

application throughout the United States is random, depending

on where the murder occurred, the race and economic status of

who committed the murder, the race and economic status of the

person murdered and, of course, the quality of the legal

defense.

I'm proud of the people of the State of New Jersey for

electing political leaders who ended this random act of

brutality. And I applaud Amnesty International for alerting

the good people of the world to the brutality of the Islamic

militants in Somalia who stoned to death that poor girl.

No good comes from the death penalty, whether it's imposed

by duly elected governments, or by radical, religious

fanatics. No good.

The burden of proof in the Court of Public Opinion should

be on those advocating for the death penalty. That burden has

not been met.

Just ask Byron Halsey. Or Troy Davis. Or, if you could,

that 13-year-old girl.

Madam Speaker, I rise to highlight the importance of science in our American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Research and innovation lie behind the long-term economic success of this country, and it's worth noting that science research creates jobs now. A report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation determined that for each additional $1 billion invested in science in the economic recovery, 20,000 American jobs

are created. These jobs go not just to scientists but to research assistants, electricians, technicians and construction workers.

We need to provide a comprehensive set of jobs in this package so that our new roads and bridges built with the funds lead to research facilities and high tech start-up companies that will provide the foundation for the economy of the 21st century.

The ideal project is one that keeps on giving, and that is exactly what scientific research projects do. In his inaugural address, President Obama said, ``We will restore science to its rightful place.'' The legislation we have been considering places science in an important place in short-term job creation and long-term economic growth.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to reiterate my support for H.R. 384, The TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009. President Obama supported the release the second $350 billion in funds authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (Public Law 110-343), and it is incumbent upon us both to provide him with the same level of resources the outgoing Administration had to tackle this economic crisis, and to improve and strengthen the terms under which those resources will be deployed as compared to the terms under which the previous Administration was operating.

The legislation we approved would make many important improvements to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, EESA, and the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP. For example, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act focuses on the mortgage foreclosure crisis, which is central to the broader economic crisis, by requiring the Treasury immediately to commit no less than $40 billion and as much as $100 billion on foreclosure mitigation efforts. The bill would mandate that at least $20 billion be applied directly to a systematic program to guarantee loan modifications for families in danger of losing their homes, and requires that a foreclosure mitigation plan be developed and implemented quickly.

In addition, it would increase the availability of credit to consumers, municipalities and businesses. It would clarify that TARP authority includes authority to support the availability of consumer loans, including auto loans and student loans, and authority to support state and local governments through the purchase of or provision of credit enhancement for municipal securities. It would also provide additional assistance to auto manufacturers under the TARP as an extension of the emergency assistance provided by the outgoing Administration. Finally, it would add restrictions on executive compensation for institutions receiving TARP funding, and strengthen and expand accountability and oversight by requiring assisted organizations to report to Congress on a quarterly basis on their use of TARP funding, and requiring FDIC-insured depository institutions to report on changes in lending activity related to TARP funding.

For these reasons, I supported H.R. 384, which passed overwhelmingly in the House on January 21. I proposed a number of amendments to the bill, simply to strengthen it even further, and I was very pleased that one of those amendments was included in the Manager's Amendment before the bill went to the floor. My amendment went to the heart of the TARP program--the troubled assets--defined by the TARP as ``residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages'' issued on or before March 14, 2008. These troubled assets are hard to value. An auction is one way to value them. My amendment would help us finally establish values for the troubled assets, liquidate them, and free up the credit markets, without using taxpayer dollars.

Indeed, even two weeks ago, the Treasury Department had little positive to say about lending activity. In his statement of January 13, 2009, Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Neel Kashkari noted that ``we are still at a point of low confidence--both due to the financial crisis and the economic downturn. As long as confidence remains low, banks will remain cautious about extending credit . . . we should not be surprised that lending and borrowing will be lower during this current economic downturn [but we] absolutely need our banks to continue to make credit available.''

My amendment would require the Treasury Secretary to facilitate an auction of troubled assets, not using TARP funds for the purchase, but by soliciting bids from institutions that volunteer to participate. If the auction does not take place within three months of the enactment of the TARP Reform and Accountability Act, the Treasury Secretary is required to report to Congress with an explanation as to why, and a description of the mechanism by which the Secretary feels the troubled assets could most expeditiously be valued and liquidated. My amendment protects taxpayer dollars because while the auction of troubled assets is required, no TARP funds would be used for the purchase. Further my amendment will give Treasury and Congress much needed information to help develop better-informed plans for addressing the issue going forward.

I would like to thank Chairman Frank, again, for including this simple but important measure in the TARP Reform and Accountability Act. I would also like to thank Chairman Frank for promising to work with me to implement another reform, which we both agree is needed to ensure fairness in the allocation of TARP funds. That measure would provide that an institution that has applied for but been denied TARP funding could appeal the denial to the Financial Stability Oversight Board. Such a measure would be valuable to banks such as the National City Bank of Cleveland, which had applied for TARP funds, had not received them, and was then taken over by another bank which had received TARP funds. The public is outraged that takeovers of that nature can occur on the government's dime. I thank Chairman Frank for agreeing to work with me to provide additional protections for viable banks which applied for but have been denied TARP funds.

I supported the TARP Reform and Accountability Act, and if the Senate does not promptly take up and complete the measure, I will be eager to work with President Obama to address our economic crisis under terms and conditions that provide much better taxpayer protections than those that had been in operation under the outgoing Administration.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Nadler, DeFazio, Lipinski, McMahon, Ellison Amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This amendment would increase the overall capital transit funding in H.R. 1 to $12 billion by adding an additional $1.5 billion to the Rail Modernization formula program and an additional $1.5 billion to the transit New Starts program.

According to the American Public Transportation Association, the $12 billion provided by

this bill could help to fund 736 worthy, needed, and fully-screened transit projects that could be started in less than 90 days. Increasing funding for capital transit systems will help states to create new jobs quickly, the precise goal that H.R. 1 seeks to accomplish.

Additionally, this funding will help local transit agencies meet increased demand for public transit nationwide. In the first half of 2008, demand for public transit rose 4.4 percent over the record highs of 2007. In New Jersey, NJ Transit is providing more than 900,000 weekday trips on its trains, buses and light-rail vehicles. Public transit agencies are struggling to keep up with demand, and many of them are considering raising their fares in order to afford necessary improvements to their facilities. This amendment would provide this much needed funding to keep public transportation moving and affordable.

Supporting public transportation, especially passenger rail, should be a central element of our national strategy to slow the rate of global climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign fuels. Passenger rail consumes 21 percent less energy per passenger mile than automobiles and 17 percent less than airplanes. It releases half the amount of greenhouse gases per passenger mile as either air or car travel. Public transportation is an essential component of easing traffic congestion, reducing wear and tear on roads, protecting our environment, and preserving open space in New Jersey and across the country.

This amendment will create jobs, protect our environment, and aid struggling public transit agencies, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chair, I rise this evening in support of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1). America is in the midst of the worst economic storm since the Great Depression. Millions of people are hurting across the United States and in my home state of New Jersey. New Jersey's unemployment rate has risen to 7.1 percent from 4.2 percent just a year ago. Our nation's economy is in recession, and we must respond with every tool in our tool box to help put Americans back to work and rebuild our struggling economy.

We could let the free market continue to spiral downward or we could pass a bill with a smaller price tag, ignoring the lessons learned from Congress's previous attempt at stimulating the economy through rebate sent out in spring of 2008. We can no longer wait to act. The time has come for a bold, national, response. Economists have predicted that the unemployment rate will skyrocket to over 12 percent this year. The package we are considering today has the potential to create 3 to 4 million much needed new jobs in the short term.

The House approved the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, comprehensive legislation that through targeted, job-creating spending, responsible investments in the nation's social safety net to help Americans weather the difficult months ahead, and tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans will help the United States climb out of the current recession. Importantly, this bill includes critical investments in research and development, which lay the ground work for innovation and sustainable, long-term economic growth. It is unfortunate that not one member of the minority saw fit to approve this important bill.

In the short term, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would help create up to 1.5 million new construction jobs by providing $30 billion to states for transportation, infrastructure, and energy efficiency improvements. This would translate to approximately $777 million for ready-to-go road and bridge modernization projects in my home state of New Jersey. Infrastructure improvements would serve a dual purpose; creating 835,000 jobs and helping to address the backlog of needed improvements to our nation's transportation network that total $61 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. This bill would also invest $10 billion in public transportation, $333 million to relieve congestion on our roadways in New Jersey. This bill would also create an additional 375,000 jobs by investing $19 billion for clean water, environmental restoration, and flood control projects.

H.R. 1 will fund a number of additional projects that my Central New Jersey constituents refer to as ``green stimulus.'' Investment in ``green stimulus'' can create good American jobs that cannot be outsourced, while reducing our reliance on foreign fuels, protecting our environment and slowing the rate of global warming. Specifically, this legislation would provide $32 billion to transform the nation's energy transmission, distribution, and production system so they can handle renewable energy sources. This legislation includes more than $26 billion in incentives to promote renewable energy and help low and middle income Americans weatherize their homes. These incentives include the renewable energy production tax credit, the energy research and development tax credit, and the consumer energy- efficiency tax credits.

Responding to the nation's rising unemployment rate, this bill would devote $4 billion to job training programs and would extend unemployment benefits through December 31, 2009, increasing benefits by $25 per week for individuals looking for work.

The current economic downturn has hit hard public school districts, which are being forced to make painful cuts in services. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan makes sound investments in public education. The legislation would provide $20 billion to states to rebuild the nation's crumbling schools. In particular, the bill includes a provision from a bill that I authored, the School Building Enhancement Act, which would give schools grants to increase their energy efficiency helping them to save thousands of dollars annually on their energy costs.

Additionally, to ensure that families can send their children to college, this bill would increase the maximum Pell Grant by $500, to $5,350 and would help 4 million more students attend college with a new $2,500 college tuition tax credit for families.

I am deeply gratified that the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act reflects a profound commitment to renewing our nation's innovation infrastructure. In crafting this package, Congress has recognized that research and innovation are not merely luxuries to be undertaken only in time of economic prosperity. The truth is that scientific research is perhaps the most powerful economic engine, creating jobs in the short-term and building our economy for the long-term.

All together, the recovery package includes nearly $16 billion to support scientific research and facilities, including $3 billion for the National Science Foundation, $2 billion for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and $3.5 billion for the National Institutes of Health. There is no doubt that these funds will create jobs. Lab technicians will be hired to carry out projects that previously went unfunded. Electricians will be put to work wiring new laboratory equipment. And construction workers will begin refurbishing our neglected laboratories and building the facilities that will transform science for the twenty-first century.

Of course, the ideal project is one that keeps on giving, and that is exactly what scientific research does. The innovation and discoveries that come from research form the

roots from which our economy grows and prospers. For too long, we have underinvested in science, and we will never know the resulting costs to our prosperity. But we know that science will be the foundation of our nation's future economic vitality. In his inaugural address, President Obama said, ``We will restore science to its rightful place.'' That place is at the very heart of our nation's progress. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act acknowledges this fact and provides an important first step toward the sustained investment that will prevent the need for future recovery packages.

As American workers lose their jobs, more and more face losing their health insurance coverage as well. Job losses have boosted Medicaid and SCHIP rolls, straining state budgets already stretched thin due to lower tax revenues. To address these problems, this bill would allow states to temporarily cover their unemployed workers under Medicaid and would increase temporarily the federal government's contribution to Medicaid. For workers able to continue their health coverage through COBRA, the bill would subsidize COBRA premiums by 65 percent. The Joint Committee on Taxation and Congressional Budget Office estimate that these two provisions will provide health insurance to more than eight million people.

In addition to helping families maintain their health insurance coverage, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act seeks to improve health care quality and its value. This bill would promote Health Information Technology systems, which could help reduce medical errors while lowering administrative costs, and accelerate their adoption and usage among doctors and hospitals.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 would also address the struggling economy by putting money back in the pockets of American families, workers, students and businesses through $285 billion worth of tax cuts. Ninety-five percent of working Americans would receive a tax cut through a refundable tax credit of up to $500 per worker that will be quickly distributed by reducing tax withholding from workers' paychecks. It will lower the taxes of more than 16 million families by increasing the child tax credit and expanding the earned income tax credit.

This bill includes a number of provisions that will help businesses to create new jobs in this difficult economy. It will allow businesses to improve cash flow by allowing businesses to write off 90 percent of losses incurred in 2008 and 2009 against taxes assessed over the previous five years. In addition, it will help businesses expand by extending the increased bonus depreciation for businesses making investments in new plants and equipment in 2009. This legislation will help small businesses by doubling the amount they can deduct on their taxes for capital investments and new equipment.

Through this comprehensive approach, we can begin to put the American economy back on the right track. We must approve the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We need to get America back to work and rebuild our economy.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

On January 22, 1973, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun penned the historic majority opinion in the Roe v. Wade case. He wrote that ``right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.'' Justice Blackmun's words confirmed the 7-2 landmark decision that all women have the constitutional right to choose.

Roe v. Wade established that reproductive healthcare is a personal matter that should be left to individuals. The question of whether or not to have an abortion is not an easy one, it is one of the most difficult decisions that a woman can face. While a woman's doctor, clergy, friends, and family may have opinions, the ultimate decision rests solely with her. This is not a decision that should be forced upon a woman by any government.

Having the right to choose is an essential right that should be protected, however there is much that can and should to be done to decrease the need for abortion. That is why I have consistently supported comprehensive sexual education in our schools. Our investment in abstinence-only education over the last 8 years has failed in giving our teenagers the medically accurate, life-saving information about birth control and sexually transmitted infections they need to make informed decisions. I also support overturning the ``global gag rule.'' President Bush enacted the ``global gag rule'' 8 years ago today to prohibit international family planning organizations that receive funding from the United States from being able to advocate for choice. The global gag rule also bans foreign non-governmental organizations, NGOs, from being able, using their own funds, to engage in free speech and assembly activities on a woman's right to choose, and also prevented health care providers from counseling the world's poorest women about all their legal health care options. Reversing this policy will improve maternal and child health in developing countries, reduce infant mortality, lead to better diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and abortion.

Roe v. Wade marked a drastic change in our national policy on reproductive rights and I urge my colleagues to commemorate the 36th anniversary of this ruling.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the School Building Enhancement Act, legislation that would help schools implement energy saving measures to reduce their energy costs.

According to the Department of Energy, DOE schools spent over $8 billion on energy in 2007--$2 billion more than they spent just two years earlier. Sky-rocketing energy costs have forced schools to spend more annually on heating and electricity than they spend on textbooks and computers combined. Energy is the second-highest operating expenditure for schools after personnel costs. Schools across the country are already facing tight budgets; rising energy costs will only worsen their budget situation and could lead to the loss of important school programs.

Fortunately, there are ways for schools to offset the soaring price of energy. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, 30 percent of energy consumed in buildings is used unnecessarily or inefficiently. By understanding where energy is used unwisely and implementing simple changes in the operations and maintenance of school buildings, a school's operating costs can be reduced by 5 to 25 percent. Schools that are seeking even greater long-term savings can retrofit their buildings with more efficient systems and replace old appliances. The $2 billion saved could be used for purchases that directly benefit our nation's students--such as hiring 30,000 new teachers or purchasing 40 million additional textbooks.

However, cash-strapped school systems often are unable to find the necessary financial resources to invest in these energy efficient upgrades. The School Building Enhancement Act would assist schools in making these improvements by providing grants to states and local educational agencies through the Department of Education for energy efficiency upgrades. These improvements would need to follow the guidelines of the EnergySmart Schools Program of the Department of Energy or the Energy Star for K-12 School Districts program at the Environmental Protection Agency.

If enacted, the School Building Enhancement Act would provide the needed funding for schools in my home state of New Jersey, and throughout the country, to implement energy efficiency measures that would help schools save thousands of dollars annually.

Schools that already have implemented energy efficiency measures have succeeded in achieving significant savings. For example, the Summerfield Elementary School in my home state of New Jersey has implemented energy efficiency measures that have reduced their consumption by 32 percent, allowing Summerfield to save $41,000 annually on energy costs. Summerfield is just one of many schools that are being built to use energy smarter and more efficiently. According to the EPA more than 800 schools have been Energy Star certified, saving an average of 40 cents per square foot in operating costs annually.

Twenty-five of my colleagues have joined me in introducing this important legislation to help cash-strapped schools achieve significant savings on their energy costs and protect the environment. I urge my colleagues to support the School Building Enhancement Act.

Madam Speaker, I voted yesterday in support of our Nation's children and for passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, H.R. 2.

More than 7.1 million children have health insurance because of the creation, a decade ago, of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. However, these children will lose access to good, affordable health insurance if Congress does not act to reauthorize the SCHIP program by March 31, 2009.

Yesterday, the House approved the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, which would expand the SCHIP program to ensure even more children have access to the health care their parents cannot afford or who work in jobs that do not provide health care benefits. The House of Representatives has passed similar legislation twice before to extend and expand SCHIP,

only to have those bills vetoed by President Bush. I hope that on the third consideration of this legislation to improve children's health that this bill will be signed into law.

The expansion of this program is even more important today as many workers are losing their health insurance and face great economic hardships during the recent recession. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the current unemployment level of 7 percent would increase Medicaid and SCHIP enrollment by 2.4 million people and an additional 2.6 million people would become uninsured. The number of uninsured will rise higher should the unemployment rates climb even further. This legislation would reduce the size of this uninsured population by expanding SCHIP to include an additional 4 million children who currently have no health insurance. Sending a child to the emergency room is not an alternative to having comprehensive health insurance. Especially at a time when millions of families are facing economic hardships, we must ensure that children have the care they need.

This bill would provide parity for mental health for children. I long have fought for mental health parity, and was pleased that last year we could improve mental health coverage for private insurance plans and Medicare. I am encouraged that we have now extended this to the SCHIP program.

According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 45 million Americans lack health care coverage, including more than 16 percent of New Jersey's residents. Many of these Americans are children, the vast majority of whom come from working families. It is simply unconscionable that here in the United States of America millions of children are uninsured. The reauthorization and expansion of the SCHIP program presents an historic opportunity to put an end to the morally unacceptable fact that 8.6 million American children live every day without insurance. It is time for Congress to preserve and expand this program that has proven successful at insuring our nation's most vulnerable children.

The SCHIP program is strongly supported by our nation's governors who have managed the State-run programs over the past decade and understand that SCHIP allows States to cover low-income children who lack health insurance in families of the working poor. This bill also would provide the tools needed and create incentives for States to reach the millions of children who are eligible but not currently enrolled in the SCHIP program.

New Jersey uses its SCHIP funds to run a program called FamilyCare. Our State is a leader in extending FamilyCare eligibility. Currently, 150,000 children and approximately 100,000 low income-parents are enrolled in New Jersey's program. Without SCHIP, all of these residents of New Jersey would again be uninsured.

This legislation would allow States like New Jersey to continue to set income eligibility for SCHIP. Because the cost of living is so high in New Jersey, it is important that our State has the flexibility needed to establish realistic eligibility guidelines.

Additionally, this bill would allow New Jersey to continue to enroll parents along with their children. According to research by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences, one highly effective way of boosting coverage among low-income children is to broaden health insurance to their parents. Currently, New Jersey is one of 11 States to cover low-income parents.

Because we are committed to balanced budgets and opposed to deficit spending, this bill pays for this historic commitment to our children with an appropriate increase in the Federal tobacco tax and by imposing restrictions on self-referral to physician-owned hospitals. According to the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids, the 61 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax that is included in this bill would result in substantially fewer youth smokers, as every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes would reduce youth smoking by approximately 7 percent. This would improve their health and result in longterm healthcare savings.

There are 11 million reasons to vote for this bill, each one a child who will move out of the ranks of the uninsured with the health care provided in the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. A measure of a nation's greatness is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. By making health insurance available for 11 million children, we live up to our moral obligation to keep children healthy and we make our society stronger.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward.

One of the difficulties with the troubled assets is assigning values to them. One way of doing that is through auctions. This amendment encourages--in fact, directs--the Secretary, without using taxpayer funds, to facilitate an auction. It will allow the TARP assets to be valued and should help to liquidate and dispose of those assets in the way that was intended.

Now, I should say that this amendment, although approved by the Rules Committee, is also included in its entirety in the manager's amendment as accepted.

Modification to Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Holt

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment before us in a manner that is before you at the desk.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes, I can explain. I submitted both of these amendments for committee consideration and for Rules Committee consideration. It was my understanding that they were both included in the manager's amendment, and, in fact, the chairman tells me that it was his intention to include both of them in the manager's amendment. Only one of them was actually included in the manager's amendment. So I'm asking unanimous consent to modify the one amendment that is already in the manager's amendment but also approved for floor consideration to represent the one that was not included in the manager's amendment but should have been.

If the Member who controls the floor would yield to Chairman Frank, I think we can get a better explanation.

That is because I learned only this morning that it was not included in the manager's amendment, as I had understood and been led to believe, and, therefore, I typed it up so that it could be considered on the floor.

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time to talk about the substance, let me ask the Chair the time remaining, please.

Mr. Chairman, one of the problems that needs to be addressed is something that has outraged the country, my constituents, Mr. Garrett's constituents, I'm sure many. It occurred when TARP funds were denied to a bank, awarded to another bank. The first bank then was overtaken by the second bank using, presumably, TARP funds. This was not something that taxpayers appreciated.

In Mr. Frank's legislation before us today, there are some protections against that happening. I would like to see still further protections against that happening, and I believe the taxpayers would, and, in fact, I believe Mr. Garrett would because the gentleman has expressed concern about choosing winners and losers, using TARP funds where the Treasury will say, well, this institution is not worthy of TARP funds, that institution is worthy of TARP funds, and the one that gets the funds can take over the loser. That is what so many taxpayers have found outrageous. I think that's what Mr. Garrett has spoken against.

The amendment that I am asking to have considered would simply allow that entity denied the TARP funds to appeal. It would provide some insurance, meager perhaps, against the kind of National City Bank occurrence from happening again. It would provide a certain measure of protection against a winner overtaking a loser only because of the decisions of the Treasury. It's a small protection but I think a valuable protection, and I wish that the gentleman, my colleague from New Jersey, were more amenable to it.

I would be happy to yield any remaining seconds to the chairman of the committee if he has further comment.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Putting aside the gentleman's sense of the ultimate disposition of this legislation, I would ask wouldn't he like to make it as good as possible as we are considering it now and wouldn't he care to reconsider his objection?

Mr. Chairman, I ask, with disappointment at the gentleman's obstreperousness and intransigence, to withdraw amendment No. 4 because it is unnecessary. It's already included in the manager's amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

For nearly 20 years, Lilly Ledbetter worked at a Goodyear Tire facility in Alabama. After learning that she was the lowest paid supervisor--earning 20 percent less than the lowest paid, least experienced man in the same position at Goodyear--she sued the company for pay discrimination. On May 29, 2007, after a series of cases and appeals, the Supreme Court handed down a disturbing 5-4 ruling that fundamentally rewrote protections that American workers have enjoyed for more than 40 years when they were codified in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

According to Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the flawed decision, when Ms. Ledbetter failed to file a discrimination case within the statutorily provided 180 days from the initial decision to pay her less than her male colleagues, she was barred from filing a complaint and no relief was available. Despite documenting the sex based evaluation system Goodyear managers used, Lilly Ledbetter was denied justice and the rights afforded to her under the Civil Rights Act.

Justice Alito's opinion runs contrary to decades of civil rights law, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Act would restore the law as it was prior to the Court's ill considered decision. This bill would make it clear that when it comes to discriminatory pay, the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act extend not only to these discriminatory pay decisions and practices but to every paycheck that results from those pay decisions and practices.

As an original cosponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, I urge my colleagues to support its passage, and I encourage the Senate to work quickly to send it to the President.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act. Equal pay for equal work must not be just a saying, it must be the law.

Last year I had the honor of joining the Chair of our committee and others in unveiling the portrait of the former New Jersey Representative Mary Norton, who was Chair of the Labor Committee seven decades ago and a tireless advocate then for equal pay.

Under her leadership, Congress passed the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act that established the 40-hour work week, it outlawed child labor and established a minimum wage of 25 cents an hour. The criticisms we hear today

were the same then. The Federal Government shouldn't be involved, the critics said.

I think of Mary Norton today when I say that while we have made significant progress since the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the fight for equality in the workplace is far from over. According to the Census Bureau, women still earn 78 percent of men.

Mary Norton understood that the wage gap was not just a women's issue, it is a family issue. Nowadays, men understand that too. When women earn less for equal work, families are forced to make do with less.

I urge my colleagues to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 12 the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2009.

Since the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the wage gap in the United States between men and women has narrowed significantly, however, on average, women still earn 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. When women earn less for equal work, families are forced to do more with less. Affording all of life's expenses is challenging enough--it shouldn't be made harder as a result of women being shortchanged on payday.

Under current law, victims of gender-based wage discrimination recover less in damages than victims of discrimination based on their race or ethnicity. All forms of discrimination, whether they are based on gender, race, or ethnicity are equally repugnant, and the Paycheck Fairness Act ensures that the law views all forms of discrimination in the workplace on the same level.

In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act would protect employees who discuss salary information punished in the workplace. Often times, wage discrimination is difficult to determine because salary levels are confidential. This bill would prevent employers from retaliating against employees who discuss openly, the most common way pay discrimination is uncovered.

Finally, this bill would hold employers accountable by mandating that employers demonstrate to the court that pay disparity between employees is not gender-based, is job-related and is consistent with the needs of the business.

As the country faces a challenging economic forecast, Congress must look after the best interests of working families. The Paycheck Fairness Act will make a difference for working families across the country, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Madam Speaker, I am voting for H. Res. 34, which expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare and security of the State of Israel. The indiscriminate rocket attacks by Hamas are an unacceptable assault on Israel's citizens and her sovereignty. Like all nations in the world, Israel has the right and responsibility to respond in self-defense. The United States has a responsibility to stand with Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, during this crisis.

At the same time, the United States has a responsibility to ensure that the humanitarian needs in Gaza are being addressed promptly and responsibly. The present resolution, H. Res. 34, is not so clear on that. The United States should have done more to ensure that they were being met even before the recent fighting, just as the United States should have done more to stop the mortars and rockets fired from Gaza over recent years. I am troubled deeply by reports that the humanitarian situation, bad as it has been, continues to deteriorate. Israel must make every effort to protect the innocent and prevent the destruction of civilian communities. All parties must work as quickly as possible to enact a durable and sustainable cease-fire that will allow for a lasting improvement of the humanitarian situation in Gaza and for the long-term security of Israel.

It is critical to recognize that even a durable and sustainable cease-fire is only a temporary solution to the ongoing Israeli- Palestinian conflict. We should remember that extremism incubates in societies afflicted with poverty, hopelessness, and humiliation. We must work tirelessly to diminish the appeal and influence of terrorists by lifting up all of those trapped in these conditions. It is equally necessary that we continue to assist moderate Palestinians and strengthen governments that are committed to securing a lasting peace with the State of Israel.

I continue to believe that the United States has a vital role to play in brokering an enduring peace agreement. My thoughts and prayers are with all the innocent civilians suffering in Israel and Gaza. For their sake, the United States must recommit itself to bringing Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. This includes the need to create a viable representative of the Palestinians that can negotiate in good faith. And it includes the need to get the Israelis to make the daily welfare of ordinary Palestinians one of the principal criteria for any negotiations. The future security of the Middle East depends on negotiating a just, permanent, and peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians that both guarantees Israel's security and establishes a Palestinian state.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act (H.R. 7321), emergency legislation to authorize and appropriate funding to temporarily stabilize the American automobile industry.

The automobile industry provides one of the few manufacturing bases left in the United States, and approximately 3.3 million jobs in the Nation are either directly or indirectly dependent upon it. According to the Economic Policy Institute, New Jersey stands to lose 17,900 jobs if General Motors fails, and 65,000 jobs if the auto industry collapses--and an industry-wide collapse is the likely result if even one of the big-three auto makers fails. As we stand on the precipice, already facing an unemployment rate more than 6 percent, we cannot afford to stand by and watch as millions more in America join the ranks of the unemployed. It is well within the realm of possibility--some experts argue it is virtually a certainty--that allowing even one of our major auto makers to fail would send the country into a depression.

The United States is facing a virtual ``perfect storm'' with respect to the many sectors of its economy that are simultaneously in distress. One of the most damaging outcomes of this economic crisis has been that credit markets are frozen. In fact, despite the infusion of billions in funding intended to stabilize the financial services markets under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, EESA, enacted in October, credit markets still have not improved as of the closing days of 2008. Instead, stable banks that have received those Capital Purchase Program, CPP, funds under the EESA have tended either to retain the funds to improve their own stability or use the funds to purchase other struggling financial services entities. Had Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, funds under the EESA been used for the purpose the Treasury Secretary originally demanded them for--to purchase troubled assets or implement other mechanisms through which those assets could be liquidated and thus free up the credit markets--perhaps things would be different.

Under the EESA, the U.S. Comptroller General is required to report every 60 days on TARP implementation, and in its first report released last week, the GAO stated that ``Treasury has yet to address a number of critical issues, including determining how it will ensure that CPP is achieving its intended goals.'' I am not convinced that the CPP is achieving its goals, or even that the CPP program will be more effective than using TARP funds or other creative mechanisms to liquidate TARP assets would have been. In addition, the Treasury Secretary and the Bush administration have refused to use even a tiny fraction--less than 5 percent--of the TARP funds to stabilize the auto industry until the CPP has the impact of freeing up credit markets, which could then meet the auto industry's need for financing. Therefore, our major auto makers have come to Washington to ask the taxpayers for a loan.

Some commentators, and indeed some of my constituents, have argued that Congress should simply let the automakers go bankrupt. But the likelihood that that could deepen our current recession is too great, and the persons who would be punished by congressional inaction are not the ones who created the crisis,

but rather the millions of people whose jobs depend on the auto industry.

Therefore, we must support the auto industry. I am pleased to see that the measure before us will provide taxpayers with an equity stake in the underlying companies, prohibit the payment of dividends to shareholders during the life of the loans, and prohibit golden parachutes and payment of bonuses to the top 25 most highly paid employees at each company. In addition, it establishes both a ``Car Czar'' to hold the companies accountable for developing and implementing sustainable restructuring plans, and oversight authority by the Government Accountability Office and the Special Inspector General overseeing the TARP rescue funds.

But my own personal request to the automakers is that they look deep inside and unearth the roots of the problems that--independently of both the current financial crisis and the legacy costs that they have faced that other manufacturers have not--have caused them to lag behind their competitors overseas. It is important for us all to remember that it was General Motors that established the Saturn Corporation more than two decades ago, with the goal of creating a manufacturing plant from scratch to build small cars of superior quality and value, combining what was then the most advanced technology with the newest and most efficient and environmentally responsible approaches to management. Indeed, within a decade, Saturn achieved those goals by producing a car that J.D. Power & Associates ranked behind only the Lexus and the Infiniti, luxury cars produced by Toyota and Nissan overseas, for customer satisfaction in 1992.

And it was General Motors, again, that developed the EV1 electronic car more than one decade ago, in response to California's then-zero- emissions requirement. The EV1 was a sleek, fast, powerful vehicle than ran on an overnight charge in the garage, and it was the much-beloved means of transportation for numerous well-known Hollywood celebrities. And yet, within a decade, the EV1 had all but disappeared from the roads and most of them--as graphically depicted in the documentary ``Who Killed the Electric Car''--were actually destroyed. If we don't understand all of the reasons why the success of GM's Saturn venture waned, or why the GM EV1 was all but wiped from the earth, we will never relaunch a sustainable auto mobile industry in this country.

But we are here today because the United States remains in the throws of a financial crisis, and it is incumbent upon the government to act. Although I regret that already-authorized TARP funds are not being used for this purpose, and that the plan before us will in part cannibalizing the very funds authorized to facilitate the efforts of the automakers to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles, I will stand firmly behind our auto industry under the conditions the leadership have negotiated, rather than let it fail and disappear. I look forward to working with the new administration to craft a more sustainable, fiscally responsible solution to this problem in the coming months.