Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this important bill introduced by my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Peters.

This legislation builds on the success of the Department of Energy's vehicle technology programs in collaborating with industry to develop the cars and trucks of the future. Hybrids, plug-in hybrids, pure electric cars, fuel cell vehicles, alternative fuel vehicles: these technologies all require enormous and sustained investments in R&D. Through vehicle technology programs like FutureCar and the 21st Century Truck Partnership, DOE is partnering with industry to make this R&D more feasible and more fruitful.

The bill before us would rationalize the authorization for DOE's varied vehicle technology programs and substantially increase the authorized funding levels. In total this bill authorizes $2.9 billion over the next 5 years to invest in vehicle technology. It will be essential for Congress to follow through and fully fund this authorization in the annual appropriations process.

I am particularly pleased that this bill recognizes the enormous fuel savings potential in the medium and heavy duty market and specifies that up to $200 million per year be devoted to developing advanced technology medium and heavy duty trucks. This complements legislation I've introduced to extend the tax credits for the purchase of medium and heavy duty trucks for 5 years and double the amount of the credits.

These vehicles move 80 percent of the goods transported in the U.S., serve as utility maintenance vehicles, and perform refuse collection services in our communities. It is estimated that the fuel consumption of the 90,000 refuse collection trucks in the U.S. is equivalent to 2.5 million passenger vehicles. Putting as few as 10,000 hybrid electric trucks on the road would reduce diesel fuel use by 7.2 million gallons per year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 83,000 tons.

In a word Mr. Chair, this bill is vital. It is a vital step toward a full partnership between the Federal Government and the domestic auto industry in developing the cars and trucks of the future and building them here in the United States. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

The public has spoken. Consumers have been going to dealerships. The White House is now active, and the issue is whether this House will respond. As I see it, and I think the public will see it, this is a test of whether Congress can shed its disagreements on other issues and respond to what the public, indeed, wants. The rush to use this program shows its need.

I say to the gentleman from California and anybody else, what else do we need to see? This program is working. The White House has made clear that the dealers can go forward. This program is open until further notice, and dealers are urged not to rush too much but to do it right in the first place and get in line. So it's open until further notice. The question is whether this institution will shut it down or whether it will continue to open up the valves. It will be good for everybody. It will be good for the national economy. This isn't just an issue for Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois but for the whole Nation. This is an issue of our national economic recovery, and anyone who votes ``no'' on this is saying ``no'' to an important boost to our economy at a critical time.

Mr. Speaker, the voluntary public health insurance option is an important part of health care reform for a number of reasons.

First, the public plan will provide a competitor for private plans that will help make the entire system more efficient and help drive down prices for everyone. Second, it provides assurance to all Americans that there will be an affordable, comprehensive health insurance plan available to them no matter where they live or work. In many places there are currently only one or two insurers people can choose from.

Third and of vital importance, the public plan will have the ability to test and implement innovative methods of payment that have the potential to make the entire health care system more efficient and patient centered.

The current fee-for-service structure is a fragmented system. No provider will be required to participate in the public plan, but for those who do, it's important for the public plan to be able to implement effective payment reforms for all participating providers. Allowing individual providers to negotiate their own rates and their own methods of payment with the plan will slow the vital process of moving us towards a more efficient, integrated health care system that serves both the patients and the taxpayers.

Now is the time to act on health care reform, including a robust public health insurance option.

Mr. Chairman, section 412 of the bill provides that no funds appropriated pursuant to this act may be expended by an ``entity'' unless that entity agrees to comply with the Buy American Act.

The Buy American Act is part of a longstanding U.S. trade policy. That policy requires reciprocity in Federal Government procurement. Since 1979, the U.S. has agreed to open its procurement market to countries that agree to open their procurement markets to U.S. suppliers. That same policy requires the United States to not grant access to countries that are unwilling to agree to open their procurement markets to U.S. suppliers.

I believe that the intent of section 412 is to be consistent with that policy. Its intent is not to expand the scope of the Buy American Act, such as to cover businesses or other ``entities'' that may receive funding under this appropriations bill and that are not currently subject to the act. I also understand that section 412 is not intended to create an inconsistency with our international obligations, including our obligations under the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement.

If I might, I will now yield to the chairman for clarification.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the pay-as-you-go legislation before the House.

Across the length and breadth of this country, Americans are making some tough choices when it comes to their families' spending. They are tightening their belts and deferring major purchases. When they do buy something, consumers are increasingly choosing to pay for it with cash.

A similar choice is before the House today. Over the last eight years, Congress has dug itself a deep budget hole. The choice before us is whether to take a necessary step to stem the tide of red ink, or continue to pay lip service to the problem and dig the hole deeper.

It is disingenuous to suggest that the deficit problem began recently with the financial crisis and the recession. At the end of the 1990s, the federal government was balanced. We were actually running large budget surpluses and paying down the national debt. The pay-as-you-go rules that were in effect throughout the 1990s deserve a lot of credit. These rules simply said that Congress could only spend money for tax cuts and entitlement spending programs if they were fully paid for with savings elsewhere in the budget.

In 2002, the pay-as-you-go rules expired and the Republican-led Congress and the Bush Administration refused to extend them. Instead, the Administration and Congress went on a massive spending and tax cut spree. We all know the result. The public debt nearly doubled under the previous Administration, rising from $3.4 trillion in 2001 to $6.3 trillion on January 20, 2009.

We need to get back to commonsense budgeting. We know these rules work. Others will try and change the subject and say that runaway tax cuts are not the problem. The House needs to reject this argument and restore budget discipline where it is needed most.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 56) approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support this joint resolution which extends and renews the import ban on products of Burma under the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. The joint resolution is necessary because the troubling human rights conditions in Burma persist, and thus renewal of the import ban is warranted.

Burma's military junta continues to be one of the world's most repression and abusive regimes. And while some have voiced concerns about the effectiveness of unilateral sanctions, Burma remains a major violator of basic human rights, which is why it is so important to renew the import ban for another year.

For over 45 years, Burma has been under the rule of authoritarian military regimes, all dominated by the majority Burman ethnic group. Not only have these military rulers suppressed democracy, but they have continually denied basic human rights to their own citizens. The Burma regime continues to hold Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest. She has been detained for 14 of the last 20 years and is currently on trial because an uninvited American swam to her lakeside home in May of this year. Most expect that she will be found guilty of violating the terms of her house arrest, extending her detention, and giving the junta an excuse to hold her through next year's elections.

Burma's legal system is a mockery to justice and to democratic principles. In addition to the wrongful detention and the current sham trial of Suu Kyi, nearly 2,000 additional political prisoners are being held, most without ever being formally charged. The military regime continues the practice of arbitrarily arresting and detaining regular citizens and pro-democracy activists. This past weekend, at least 50 members of the opposition National League for Democracy party were participating in the official ceremony marking the death of General Aung San, the country's independence hero.

These political activists were released later in the day. Other activists are not so fortunate. They often disappear for days, weeks and months, and some may never return. In prison they are subjected to physical abuse, receive little food, lack clean water and are refused sufficient medical care. They suffer, and so do their families, who may never discover the fate of their loved ones. But Burma's disregard for basic human rights extends far beyond its prison's walls. Violence and ethnic discrimination against children, women and ethnic minorities continue unabated.

For instance, there have been a number of reports of Burmese soldiers raping and killing teenage girls of the

Karen minority. Those who commit these despicable acts are rarely, if ever, brought to justice by this repressive regime.

Additionally, workers' rights remain restricted; women and girls continue to be subjected to trafficking for purposes of prostitution; and children are often forced into military service.

Forced labor is frequently used to support military operations and infrastructure. Villagers are forced to build and repair military camps, often with materials they must buy or provide themselves.

It is Burma's suppression of democratic principles such as freedom of speech and assembly, and the regime's refusal to provide basic human rights, that leads me to urge my colleagues to extend the ban on the import of Burmese products for another year.

I commend Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Secretary General Ban Ki- Moon for their recent statements calling on the junta to end its oppression, and I hope that nations around the world, and in particular China and India and the ASEAN member countries, will work with the United States to pressure the Burmese military regime to embrace reform and address its troubling human rights record. Secretary Clinton's attendance at this week's ASEAN summit presents an important opportunity to renew this work.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent earlier today attending a meeting at the White House and was therefore not present during rollcall votes 538 to 542. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 538 to order the previous question on H. Res. 645, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 539 on agreeing to H. Res. 645, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 540 to approve H.R. 1044, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 541 to approve H.R. 934, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 542 to pass

Madam Speaker, last Thursday I attended an event back home in Michigan where a coalition of community organizations came together and committed to delivering 575,000 meals to those in need this summer in southeast Michigan. The Ford Foundation and two Ford dealerships provided new mobile pantries. Gleaners Community Food Bank, Forgotten Harvest, and the United Way are partnering to ensure that the pantries will be fully stocked and sent to the areas which need it the most.

The need for assistance in our country is staggering. In southeast Michigan 600,000 people are at risk of hunger. Food banks and pantries nationwide are seeing a 30 percent increase in demand for emergency food assistance, with some food banks reporting as high as a 65 percent increase in need, according to Feeding America. An astonishing 72 percent of food banks report that they are not able to adequately meet the needs of their communities without adjusting the amount of food distributed due to rising unemployment and food prices.

The federal government has a vital role to play in providing emergency food assistance. We provided some relief in the Recovery Act earlier this year. The Agriculture Appropriation bill before the House continues this investment by providing a 10 percent increase to the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) food aid program as well as a $19.6 million increase for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program.

I want to highlight the Commodity Supplemental Food Program because it reaches out to low-income seniors--a group of people who too often fall through the cracks of our food safety net. The program, which has 41,000 monthly participants in southeast Michigan, comes from a partnership between the government and local community organizations. Ninety-three percent of CSFP participants are seniors and many who receive delivery of their food packages are unable to leave their homes. The food packages, as well as the visit from the volunteer, are important in assisting them to maintain their independence and a healthier lifestyle.

Under this bill, the CSFP will be able to increase the number of eligible individuals who participate for the first time since 2003. The program, which currently operates in only 32 states, will expand to six new states, some of which have programs and seniors that have been waiting for six years. The program will grow in Michigan and overall expand from 475,000 participants to 622,000.

Much more must be done. I will introduce legislation soon that will provide an additional incentive for farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and restaurateurs to donate wholesome food to food banks and pantries to replenish the shelves for hungry Americans.

According to a report released by USDA last November, 36.2 million Americans, including 12.4 million children, are food insecure. The report paints a stark picture of the pervasiveness of hunger in our nation, a picture that has only grown worse as the recession has deepened since the report data was collected in 2007. Hunger puts our children's health, learning, and development at risk; hunger causes unnecessary pain and suffering on already stressed working poor families, and hunger causes our elderly to make difficult choices between buying food or medicine. I applaud the work of the community organizations who work tirelessly to alleviate hunger, and the Appropriations Committee for providing them with more resources. Hunger poses a real threat to our children, seniors, and everyone in our communities. Our progress is important, but we cannot stop here.

Action on climate change is a policy, indeed, a moral imperative. Prompt action is a vital part of our legacy to the Nation, and to our children and grandchildren.

As we act, we can and must ensure that the U.S. energy-intensive industries are not placed at a competitive disadvantage by nations that have not made a similar commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.

After discussions between the Energy and Commerce and the Ways and Means Committees and the administration, we have developed reasonable and effective provisions which involve the President and the Congress in taking action--no more than necessary--to ensure that this important legislation is trade-neutral for our energy-intensive industries.

We want to see a meaningful international agreement. If we are unable to do so through an international agreement, this legislation ensures that the U.S. will avoid carbon leakage in its energy-intensive and trade-sensitive industries.

There are some critics--and we may hear from them today--who claim that these changes make the bill subject to trade challenges. They are wrong. Just today, the World Trade Organization and the U.N. Environment Program issued a report which confirms that ``WTO rules do not trump environmental requirements.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of an important community leader and a good friend, Charles M. Chambers, who passed away on Wednesday, May 20, 2009.

Mr. Chambers served from 1993 to 2006 as Lawrence Technological University's fifth president and as the University's first chancellor from February 1, 2006 to July 1, 2006, when he was named president emeritus. His dedication to higher education and technology reshaped the business acumen at Lawrence Tech and allowed the University to enjoy unprecedented fund acquisition to enhance curriculum and facilities throughout the campus.

During his tenure, Chambers lead the institution in investing millions of dollars in upgrading older facilities on the University's 102-acre campus. In addition, the University constructed several new facilities, including the University Technology and Learning Center, the Student Housing Center-North, the A. Alfred Taubman Student Services Center, and the Center for Innovative Materials Research. Growth and expansion of applied research and academic offerings accelerated during his presidency, including the launch of Lawrence Tech's first doctoral programs and the establishment of learning centers and higher education partnerships elsewhere in Michigan, Canada, Germany, Mexico, and Asia.

Dr. Chambers' career accomplishments are testaments of his passion for revitalizing the scientific community and enhancing higher education. In the 1960s, he was an aerospace engineer with NASA, where he participated in the Apollo space program. He was president of the American Foundation for Biological Sciences, a consortium of over fifty scientific laboratories, museums, and societies. In addition, he served on the faculties of Harvard University, the University of Alabama, and George Washington University, where he was a dean for graduate evening programs.

Dr. Chambers was also involved in economic development initiatives for southeast Michigan. A founding director of Oakland County's Automation Alley, he also served on the advisory board of the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Detroit Renaissance Steering Committee, the Oakland County Workforce Development Board, the WIRED (Workforce Investment for Regional Economic Development) and the Education Foundation of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. He was also a member of the Oakland County Business Roundtable.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Chambers, a genuine leader in the field of education, science and technology. I join with the Chambers family, and the extended family of Lawrence Technological University, in mourning his loss, celebrating his life, and paying tribute to him for all the good work he did for others.

I want to talk about a clearly necessary provision in this bill, the fleet modernization provision; but I do want to say just two things briefly to comment on what has been said here by the minority.

I really think they are looking for reasons to vote ``no'' no matter how illegitimate they are.

Regarding this issue of the release of photos, the President has said, ``I will continue to take every legal and administrative remedy available to me to ensure the DOD detainee photographs are not released.''

Secondly, on the IMF, a commitment was made at the G-20, and this carries out the U.S. commitment. It is not a believable position to vote ``no'' on this bill for that reason.

But I want to say a few words about the fleet modernization proposal that Representative Sutton, who is here, has worked so hard on with a large number of people.

There is clearly a crisis in the automotive industry. The administration has stepped up to the plate with a plan. That plan is being implemented. It's very difficult. There is a lot of pain involved. It's being carried out.

What hasn't happened effectively is work on the demand side. That's what's lagging here. Sales were down very substantially these last several years. There was an uptick in May, but still the annualized level is far below even a few years ago. And the sales are down not only for the domestic industry but also for the transplants: for Toyota, down 41 percent from last May; Honda, 42 percent; Nissan, 33 percent. So there is an effort to make sure there is effective restructuring for the domestic industry.

We have to work on the demand side, and this today answers that need: a voucher for consumers worth $3,500 to $4,500 to help them pay for more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. It will incentivize approximately 1 million new car and truck purchases. So anybody who votes ``no'' on this supplemental is voting ``no'' on this provision, and that would be a serious mistake.

It is critical that this Nation retain a strong domestic auto industry, and this effort on the demand side is a critical piece of that effort.

This has not been an easy effort. There have been disagreements in different ways to go about it. And I simply want to say to those who have been in the lead, and especially to Representative Sutton, this would not have happened without the dedication of herself and others who have been determined that there be continued, in this country, a strong domestic auto industry. It's that clear. Other countries have stepped up to the plate. They have provided support. This is now a necessary implementation of this effort.

So I plead with people on the minority side to listen, to step up to the plate, to not look for arguments or excuses to duck. There is no ducking the need for a strong domestic automotive industry, not only for Ohio, not only for Michigan, not only for Illinois, not only for Indiana, but for the entire United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I stand with so many of my colleagues today in condemnation of yesterday's appalling attack at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the tragic death of Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns, who was killed in the line of duty.

Bigotry, racism and intolerance must be condemned wherever they occur, but especially at a memorial to the Holocaust that challenges visitors to confront hatred and promote human dignity. The Holocaust Museum is a hollowed symbol of the cost of this type of hatred to all of humanity. The Museum teaches millions of people about the dangers of unchecked hatred. We do not need further examples of hate and prejudice within its walls--or anywhere else.

The events of yesterday serve as a reminder that the Museum, and all of us, have more work to do to confront hatred and intolerance in our society.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for the resolution and also in expressing condolences to the family of Officer Johns.

Let me thank Mr. Upton. I assume I'm using 2 of his minutes.

No, that's fine. I may yield back, but this is true bipartisanship.

We all know there's a major restructuring of the auto industry going on as we are here today, and there is a very simple truth: If there is not increased demand, that restructuring cannot succeed. And I think only rigid ideologues would say it's impossible to stimulate demand. There has been a historic drop in demand for vehicles in this country. It's about one-half of what it was not so long ago. And it remains true globally. This is not only a national phenomenon; it's a global phenomenon.

Other countries have acted. And I salute Representative Sutton and all who have worked on this to step up to the plate for the basic manufacturing base of the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 489) recognizing the twentieth anniversary of the suppression of protesters and citizens in and around Tiananmen Square in Beijing, People's Republic of China, on June 3 and 4, 1989 and expressing sympathy to the families of those killed, tortured, and imprisoned in connection with the democracy protests in Tiananmen Square and other parts of China on June 3 and 4, 1989 and thereafter.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I now yield myself as much time as I may consume.

This resolution recognizes the 20th anniversary of the suppression of Chinese protesters and citizens in Tiananmen Square. Freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are fundamental human rights that belong to all people and are recognized as such under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the last 20 years since Tiananmen Square, the significance of the U.S.-China relationship has grown dramatically on a variety of foreign policy issues and on our economic relationships. In pursuing these relations successfully, a key challenge has been to find the right combination of pursuit of basic American values. That was a challenge in consideration of trade relations with China in its accession to the WTO. There was incorporated in the legislation before Congress in 2000 the creation of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China to pursue issues relating to human rights, including labor rights and the rule of law. The commission has actively engaged on these issues and has issued a comprehensive report every year since its inception.

When peaceful protesters gathered in Beijing's Tiananmen Square and in over 100 other Chinese cities, it represented a burst of freedom. They called for the elimination of corruption and the acceleration of economic and political reforms, especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. These protesters included not only students but also government employees, journalists, workers, police and members of China's armed forces. People peacefully filled the square until thousands of armed forces moved in, surrounding the demonstrators. On June 4, 1989, soldiers fired directly into the crowds outside of Tiananmen Square, killing and injuring unarmed civilians. The exact number of the dead and wounded remains unknown. The wounded are estimated to have numbered at least in the hundreds. Detentions at the time were in the thousands. Some political prisoners still languish in Chinese prisons.

We today express our sympathy to the relatives and friends of those killed and injured on that day, and we stand with them as we honor the memory of those whose lives were lost and those who continue to suffer today. Let us be absolutely clear: this resolution asks nothing of China that is inconsistent with commitments to international standards to which China, in principle, has already agreed. We ask of China's leaders full and independent investigations into the Tiananmen Square crackdown with a full commitment to openness, and we call on Chinese authorities to release those individuals imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their internationally recognized rights. We call on Chinese authorities to end the harassment and detention of those who were involved in the 1989 protests and to end the harassment and detention of those who continue to advocate peacefully for political reform.

I encourage my colleagues to support those in China who demand an accounting of the events of June 4, 1989, and to express support for those advocating for accountable and democratic governance in China.

In closing, let me note that two decades ago, the Chinese people stood up at Tiananmen, but China's leaders ordered them to stand down. Many defied that order, choosing instead to remain faithful to their aspirations. The world took note, and we today preserve that memory for history.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The Chairman of the committee will take over the remainder of the time. I salute him, if I might, for his work and that of the ranking member on the committee and all of those who joined in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I support the supplemental funding bill that is before the House today, and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it.

A lot has changed since the last time Congress debated funding for the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan eleven months ago. Earlier this year, President Obama stated that we will begin to draw down our forces in Iraq and complete the removal of combat troops by August 2010. Further, the President has also announced a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The plan acknowledges our national interest in combating terrorism and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan and the need for stability in the region, especially with regard to safeguarding Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. At the same time, the President's plan correctly recognizes that we need a comprehensive strategy that does not rely on U.S. military force alone.

The President's plan therefore calls for increased resources to build schools, roads and hospitals, and strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The strategy also calls for greater dialogue, intelligence sharing, and border cooperation between the U.S., Afghanistan and Pakistan. The challenges before us are formidable, but I think we need to give President Obama's strategy a chance to work. This bill begins the effort by providing funding for the training of Afghan and Pakistani security forces as well as funds for economic development, strengthening governance, expanding the rule of law, and boosting our diplomatic efforts in the region.

One thing that hasn't changed is the imperative to provide our troops in the field with the equipment and support they need to protect themselves and accomplish their mission.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important bill.