Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, failure to take prescription medications properly accounts for approximately 125,000 deaths, and an additional $100 billion per year in preventable hospitalizations, emergency department and repeat physician visits. Twenty-three percent of nursing home admissions and 10 percent of all hospital admissions result from patients failing to take medications properly.

Why do they skip their medications? Some forget, some want to save money,

some did not believe that drugs were effective. Some doubted they needed to take them, or experienced unwanted side effects. Much of this can be solved by improving communication between doctor and pharmacist and patient.

Under the new Medicare bill, pharmacists will manage and monitor medications for patients with chronic illness. These programs have the potential to save billions of dollars and thousands of lives each year. It is a welcome addition to the Medicare bill and one that will help many seniors.

To learn more about the careful adherence to medication therapies and how they can save lives and money, I would encourage my colleagues to visit my Web site at murphy.house.gov.

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves with so many things happening now. We have increased gasoline prices, increased winter heating costs, natural gas prices are up, manufacturing jobs are down, all because the cost of energy has remained high. Our demand for oil has grown, our production simply cannot meet demands, and this has caused increased prices. We have increased population, and we want more manufacturers to remain in the United States. That means that we have to do something.

Mr. Speaker, we do not need another hurricane to remind us that our energy infrastructure is wholly inadequate. Had we taken action to prevent our energy problems years ago, we would not have been vulnerable to natural disasters. For 30 years, we sat back. We did not want to study it. We did not want to take inventories. We did not want to explore. We resisted drilling for oil or gas. We did not build refineries. We did not move to develop clean coal technology. We did not build nuclear power plants over those 30 years, while demand grew. And eventually the system snapped. We did the same thing over and over again and expected different results.

Until our refining capacity and production capacity expands, our oil markets will remain vulnerable to disruptions. We have to have increased conservation measures. We have to have the car-pooling measures in this bill. We have to have energy-efficient cars, but we have to have more refineries.

During the last 30 years, our dependence or foreign energy has increased from 24 to 62 percent. How much further do we have to go? The American people understand this, and that is why they support this. That is why labor unions support this bill. That is why we have to move this forward.

The Gasoline for America's Security Act builds on the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and keeps us moving in the right direction. It addresses a great deal of what we need, the use of biomass debris, car pooling, van pooling, requirements to direct the FTC to conduct an investigation into nationwide gasoline prices, and it does include anti-price-gouging measures.

The other side says repeatedly it is not in there, but it does. It has anti-price-gouging measures and enforcement for gasoline, for diesel, for home heating oil, for crude oil. It is massive.

There will be a temptation to blame the high gas prices on the storms alone or to use politics to block this. But the American people understand, you cannot drive a car with politics in your tank or heat a home with politics.

I support the rule and this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time.

There are two points I would like to make here. First of all, with regard to the amendment, let us understand what is in there. If there is concern for giving large amounts of money to oil companies, what they propose we do is that the Federal Government gets in the business of, quote, designing and constructing refineries and then put that into use at times in their national emergencies or sell gas to States, which this bill actually allows States and governments to have some of this gasoline now, but for the government to own and operate refineries and invest all the money in there. In the alternative, if we can provide incentives for private industries to build, whether it is something small or large refineries, that makes a lot more sense.

And if we are concerned at all about the budget, let us do the more efficient thing, rather than have the government run these things, have them sit mothballed until times of emergency, and then suddenly act like there is a switch one can throw and start them up.

The second thing I want to point out is that I wish we could have included some important movement forward to make some changes on new source review. What happens now with a coal-fired power plant, for example, if they want to go in and do some routine maintenance, and while they are in there maybe improve the efficiency of the plant, the EPA comes by and says, no, you are going to do something different here. Even though you are going to improve efficiencies, we want you to do everything now. The energy company comes back and says we cannot afford those larger investments; we were going to make some smaller ones, so, therefore, we will do nothing.

What they have done, instead of using the abundant supply of coal, we have 300 years' worth of coal in this Nation, they will move to natural gas instead in order to meet some of those standards. Natural gas means we have more demand, the costs go up, it affects homeowners in the price of heating their homes, and it affects our chemical industry.

The Unions for Jobs and the Environment have sent a letter, and I will submit this letter as well for the Record, which states the efficiency and competitiveness of our facilities and the safety of our workers hang in the balance. This is a jobs and safety issue for millions of American workers. And they go on to say that delaying the new source review issue is costly to jobs. So I want to make sure that we address this the next time when we get on to more of these energy issues.

The letter referred to is as follows:

Unions for Jobs and the Environment,

Washington, DC, October 5, 2005.

Re: Support for Section 106 of H.R. 3893

Hon. Joe Barton,

Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington,

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Gingrey) as well.

We are talking about medical liability reform tonight, and my background as a psychologist is one that I think it is incredibly important to support these issues, because in my career, I have so often dealt with the problems that have stemmed from difficulty with accessing medical care. Let me tell my colleagues two stories.

One is a story of a place in rural Pennsylvania where a woman went into premature labor. Now, because of the dearth of OBGYNs in her town, they drove in their car about an hour and a half to a nearby hospital, taking considerable risk to get up there. The baby was born premature. It would have been best if she would have had the care in a local hospital, but she did not have that. And children who are born premature oftentimes are at higher risk for several developmental disabilities. It is a sad thing to think that children sometimes cannot get that immediate access to care, because those first few minutes of care for a newborn baby are so critically important when they are premature, high-risk, low birth weight, maybe the mother was eclamptic, pre-eclamptic, and those first few minutes can mean the difference between a child who has some severe problems, a child who has mild problems or a child who has no problems at all. As I would do developmental follow-up with so many of these infants, it is of increasing concern to me that when there is not sufficient medical care there nearby with OBGYNs, or anyone else for that matter, you cannot get the patient the care they need then, and that baby cannot be treated by a lawsuit. That does not make up for what occurred because a physician was not around and the physician is not around because in Pennsylvania, like so many other States, about 20 other States listed at risk for this, has seen such a decrease in physicians.

Another story: A hospital where several cases have occurred where people have gone into that hospital suffering from a stroke, but there were no neurosurgeons on call at that hospital because of the high medical liability costs for these neurosurgeons in that State. So patients had a certain kind of clotting that needed to be broken with a line through the femoral artery or a catheter, as it were, into the carotid, and these patients then had to be life lifted to another hospital. Again, those minutes when someone is having a stroke are critical and can mean the difference between life and death.

In a number of those cases, sadly, those patients died. It was not from lack of good health care that was available; it just was not available at that hospital because the doctors were no longer able to practice in that State or in that region.

Bills like H.R. 5 are extremely important, and we have passed it a couple of times in the House, and we have to continue that. But what happens is that, in so many States, we are far from being able to do that on our own. Pennsylvania, for example, has a constitutional provision there that would query that State even if it started moving forward a number of years to take care of that.

But ultimately our concern has to be for better patient care. And some look upon this and say are we looking at caps on punitive damages or changes of venue and other sorts of legal issues here that somehow are going to protect the physician who is not practicing well. As one trial attorney I heard say, the trouble with medical malpractice is medical malpractice.

Certainly, none of us want to see situations taking place where we are protecting problems that occur. All of us, whatever branch of health care we are in, are dedicated to making sure patients have the best care. But when you cannot get a doctor, you cannot get the care, good, bad or otherwise. And so the issue is how we make sure we have the availability of that health care.

Listen to a couple of these points: one in three medical residents in my home State of Pennsylvania stated in a

survey they would leave the State after completing their medical residency because of the lack of affordable malpractice or medical liability insurance. In addition, 71 percent of residency program directors reported a decrease in retention of medical residents in Pennsylvania. As a result, more and more doctors are practicing defensive medicine. And only about 4 percent of our physicians in key areas, such as obstetrics, gynecology, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, only about 4 percent of physicians in Pennsylvania are under age 35. As others doctors retire, we are going to continue to have this; and that is why we have a crisis, no longer just brewing, but really some significant shortages.

Let me mention one or two things that we are working on as part of this, because all of us in the health care field and all of us in the House have to be focused also on patient safety. Some of the issues before us are also what Secretary Leavitt and the President are pushing and that is for reform for how we keep track of medical records.

Electronic medical records is a system whereby patients' charts are kept in secure and confidential electronic records and computer systems so physicians can access them. And at the moment they are reviewing these charts, it is no longer a matter of trying to find the pages in the charts which may be scattered in different places, no longer a situation where lab results never quite made it, no longer a situation where the doctor has to call for repeat tests because he cannot find the x-ray or the CT scan or the MRI.

It is accessible to him or her, and thereby not only does it save money because tests do not have to be repeated, but it can call to the attention of the physician significant findings. One study that was published last year found about 14 percent of medical records are missing some data. For example, a physician may have called for lab tests, never got in the chart, perhaps the patient did not follow up and have it done. And a physician said in many of those cases it would change their diagnosis and what they would call for for treatment of those patients.

Does it save money? You bet. A Rand study report published a couple of weeks ago said if we move toward electronic medical records and electronic prescribing, we could save health care in America about $160 billion a year. And with the improved efficiency and with the reduction in absenteeism in the workplace, those numbers could go up to over $300 billion a year.

Now, while we are facing an era of looking at ever-increasing health care costs, where small businesses cannot afford them, or individuals and families are wondering if they are going to be able to cover those health care costs, by doing such things as electric medical records and prescribing, we can actually provide the venue whereby physicians, everybody in the health care field, could keep better track of what is happening.

One of the troubles is with the fear of liability, strange as it is, many times hospitals are concerned if they start gathering more of this data to show them where the problems are, what they should begin to review, how they should change, for example, infection rates, et cetera, they are concerned that someone is going to come in and grab those records and start suing everybody before the hospital can start to make some changes.

We have got to present a situation here where physicians and nurses and hospitals and administrators and patients are all working together towards patient safety. But to that end we not only need the patient safety issues; we also need the physicians practicing.

And I am joined tonight by another one of our colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), who is also going to be able to speak from his own experience on these issues and how it is critically important. So I would now like to yield as much time as he may consume, if I may, to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding back. And before I yield back to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), I just want to mention one other thing too because while we are talking about these protections and hearing the tragic story that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) mentioned, another bill that I put in, H.R. 1313, is one that would also help us with the uninsured and underinsured. One of the issues the President has committed to putting more funding in is community health centers, community health centers where people pay a sliding fee scale supported by the local community which provides more close access for people who are uninsured and underinsured.

We have situations there where physicians who were paid or hired by these clinics are covered by the Federal Liability Act where they may not go in front of a jury trial, but the judge will decide what happened if there was a problem there.

The sad thing about it is if a physician, if a nurse or psychologist or podiatrist or dentist wants to volunteer in those settings, they are not covered. So it happens we have a huge shortage of health care providers when at a time we could be expanding because many providers would like to volunteer their time at community health centers.

A big example is the problems that just occurred down in the gulf coast with the hurricanes. Many people wanted to volunteer at community health centers, but if we do not provide some of these protections to make sure they can provide excellent health care and be there, we will not have enough.

So that is another area I certainly urge my colleagues to help us pass. With that, there are many other issues to cover tonight.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would like to say to our colleagues, ask him to point out a couple of the issues here. In particular, let me raise one that some people say. Does this bill protect physicians who may perhaps be practicing out of their realm of expertise or really doing wrong? Does this allow these physicians to continue practicing?

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, a question on that. Another question is what if the patient perhaps needs rehabilitation costs, other medical care, would the gentleman point out what this bill does if a person has ongoing medical needs as a consequence? My understanding is it does not limit it and the patient could get that ongoing care.

If the gentleman will yield, there are a couple of points that I want to draw upon the judge's knowledge and experience, as well as that of the prime sponsor, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

There are two elements that are important to note. One, this bill does not preempt, if States have their own caps on punitive damages, or noneconomic damages. If States have higher or lower limits, out of respect for the Tenth Amendment, States' rights, the Federal law would not preempt that in any way, shape, or form, which is very important.

It also deals with the issue of joint and several liability, as I understand. That is to say that sometimes what happens is someone will go after what is known as the deep pockets. If a person is only a couple percent responsible for something, perhaps the hospital would be sued, even though the hospital had a very, very limited role in something, or a doctor with a very limited role, maybe just another surgeon who was asked to come in and check up on the patient but that may be the person who has the most coverage, so they would sue that individual. This really protects them and makes sure it is based upon their actual responsibility in the case.

Am I right on that?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Wood Stove Replacement Act of 2005. I am joined in the introduction by Representative Melissa Hart.

Quite simply, our bill would provide a tax credit of $500 for individuals and families who replace their old, dirty, uncertified wood stoves with new, EPA-compliant, clean-burning wood stoves or fireplace inserts.

As America's cities and counties struggle to come into compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, smaller and more diverse sources of pollution are regulated. The primary air pollution problem in many areas of the country, including Pittsburgh, is particulate matter. Particulate matter, or soot, is caused by burning fuels such as coal, as well as wood.

On December 17, 2004, the EPA designated nearly two hundred and fifty counties in the U.S. as out of compliance with federal air quality standards for ``fine particulates'' (particles under 2.5 microns in diameter). EPA has concluded that wood smoke from residential wood combustion appliances, fireplaces and wood stoves, is a significant contributor to fine particulate pollution in many of the designated counties.

In 1986, EPA established a New Source Performance Standard, or NSPS, that imposed strict limits on the wood smoke that can be emitted from wood burning stoves, and it implemented a program for certifying the performance of wood stoves that comply with the standard. EPA-certified wood stoves reduce wood smoke emissions by as much as 90 percent. According to the EPA, ``certified wood stoves burn more cleanly and efficiently, save [. . . .] money, reduce the risk of fire, and improve air quality inside and outside [the] home.''

It is estimated that there are as many as 10 million old, uncertified, pre-NSPS wood stoves still in use in American homes. Fourteen thousand of them are in my area in Pittsburgh. Many of the uncertified wood stoves still in use today were purchased at the height of the fossil-fuel crisis in the 1970s. Many were installed in lower income, rural residences with ample access to free or low-cost wood fuel. The installed cost of new, certified stoves can be as high as $2,000 to $3,000, which is out of reach for many users of the old, uncertified units. To encourage users of old, dirty-burning units to trade up to new certified stoves, strong incentives must be provided. Local regulations prohibiting the use of uncertified woodstoves are politically unpalatable unless financial assistance is provided to enable homeowners to abide by such prohibitions and keep their families warm in the winter with low-cost, renewable wood fuel.

According to the EPA, ``Helping areas of the country reduce pollution and meet national air quality standards for fine particles is our top priority . . . By combining local programs like clean wood stove installation with tough new federal regulations on power plants, cars, trucks and diesel equipment, we can dramatically reduce fine particle pollution and improve public health across the country.''

Our legislation to provide a federal tax credit for the replacement of uncertified wood stoves is an important way to reach consumers who otherwise may never replace their old stoves. This credit would only be available to consumers who live in areas designated as out of compliance with the fine particle and total particulate standards. A $500 tax credit would give consumers living in poor air quality areas an immediate incentive and necessary financial assistance to remove their old stove now. By using the cleaner stoves, consumers will save on fuel costs by burning one-third less wood and reduce fine particle pollution in their area thereby improving their health and the health of their families and neighbors.

The need to encourage consumers to burn cleaner, more efficient woodstoves is an urgent matter. The record-high costs predicted for home heating this winter will likely push many consumers to choose more affordable wood heating. With nearly 10 million old, conventional, dirty wood stoves still in use today, it is imperative that consumers have an incentive to change out their old appliances for clean, more efficient, and EPA-certified wood stoves.

Representative Hart and I are introducing this bill to coincide with an EPA event in Pittsburgh on September 29. That will be National Wood Stove Change-Out Day, where EPA encourages owners of old stoves to trade them in for new, certified units. The incentives in this bill should help accomplish this goal.

Mr. Speaker, smoking during pregnancy is associated with low birth weight in babies, preterm births, and perinatal deaths.

Low birth weight babies often suffer complications such as underdeveloped lungs and require special care and longer hospital stays that can cost up to $2 billion annually in increased health care costs. As the children grow up, they are at increased risk for other health problems throughout their young lives.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that if pregnant women on Medicaid receive counseling that reduces smoking, millions and perhaps billions in excess Medicaid health care costs could be avoided. This extends widely as we cover other areas to help reduce smoking.

Congress needs to continue to provide health care organizations with data on the cost effectiveness of cessation services to encourage private plans and government-funded plans to cover smoking cessation. By reducing maternal smoking during pregnancy, we can save not just one but two lives at a time.

I urge my colleagues to visit my Web site at murphy.house.gov to learn about more ways to save lives and to save money by reducing health care costs.

Madam Speaker, 4 years after the passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93 gave their lives to save others, Congress recognized their heroic actions by passing legislation calling for a permanent memorial in the U.S. Capitol. The presence of mind and strength they exhibited on September 11, 2001 averted an even greater tragedy in the Pittsburgh region.

As passengers and crew of Flight 93 called their loved ones and quickly learned of their fate, they knew what had to be done. Looking out the plane's windows that clear day, they saw our homes, our schools, and our communities in southwestern Pennsylvania. Valuing human life, something their hijackers did not, they waited to act until they were over an empty field, sparing our lives. Their goal of averting tragedy in our Nation's capital was realized, but in their final moments, they were also thinking of us.

For their actions that day, families throughout southwestern Pennsylvania hold a special place in their hearts for the passengers and crew of Flight 93. Prayers of thanks go to them for giving their lives to save so many. I encourage every resident of the 18th Congressional District visiting Washington, DC to take time to stop by the memorial after its completion and honor Flight 93. We have our lives, our families, and an enduring example of the human spirit for which to thank them.

Mr. Speaker, each week I come before Congress to remind my colleagues of areas of health care where we can save lives and money. This week I want to mention that timely prenatal care, or medical care for women before pregnancy, can also save lives and money. One million American women deliver babies annually without receiving prenatal care, and in the United States more than 250,000 low birth weight infants are born each year who may subsequently have higher risk for various handicaps, heart defects, respiratory illnesses, et cetera. Women who are diabetic or are depressed have higher risk for this. The average costs in investing to help save these risks can save us between $1 and $4 when providing prenatal care and reducing neonatal intensive care costs later. It is a good investment for America to continue, and public-private partnerships are a way of continuing to do this.

I recommend Congress continue to look favorably on funding those programs that help provide prenatal care to continue to save lives and money.

For further information, I suggest my colleagues go to my Web site, murphy.house.gov, to learn about this and other ways that we can save lives and dollars in health care costs.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the Environmental Restoration Act of 2005. I am joined in the introduction by Representatives Murtha, English, Hart and Peterson of Pennsylvania.

It is fitting that this bill be introduced on the same day that the House will pass comprehensive energy policy legislation. This bill has the dual benefit of cleaning up a terrible environmental and health situation at the same time that it increases our energy independence.

The Environmental Restoration Act of 2005 creates incentives for the cleanup of dangerous and unsightly waste coal, or gob, piles by utilizing the waste coal as a domestic energy source. The bill provides transferable tax credits for the clean and safe burning of waste coal as fuel for power generation. The bill will result in the creation of jobs, enhanced energy security, recycled energy recovery from waste coal, and restoration of blighted areas back to productive use.

I want to highlight the environmental benefits of the legislation. This bill will produce electricity with a recycled waste energy resource. It will help clean up abandoned gob piles. There is over one billion tons of waste coal available on the ground today. Land will be restored to green space or productive use. Stream quality will be improved by eliminating sedimentation and acid mine drainage. Electricity will be produced with emissions lower than regulatory requirements. Finally, the need and number of refuse disposal facilities will be reduced.

The bill applies to existing as well as planned and future waste coal processing facilities. Today such facilities exist not only in my State of Pennsylvania, but in Utah, West Virginia and Montana. I hope to see more of these efficient plants developed.

I want to give an example of one of the Pennsylvania facilities that would qualify for credits under my bill--the Beech Hollow Power Project in Washington, Pennsylvania. Beech Hollow is a waste coal-fired power generation facility located in Robinson Township. The project is constructed on a 38-acre site immediately adjacent to a gob pile. The power generated will be transmitted via an interconnection with a transmission line owned by West Penn Power. The project has strong state and local support. There is a 17-year supply of waste fuel for this plant.

Beech Hollow has received all of its state and federal clean air act permits, with the strong support of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. By using clean coal technology the plant and will exceed federal emission standards.

Beech Hollow will produce 252,000 kilowatts of net electrical power, derived from clean energy. This will be enough power to supply about 240,000 homes. In addition to the significant environmental benefits associated with the removal of this large source of groundwater contamination, the Beech Hollow Project will also have significant and diverse positive economic impacts throughout the local community. For instance, between construction and operation, it is estimated that the project will generate a total of 7,906 full-time equivalent job years of employment in Pennsylvania.

In the spirit of comprehensive energy policy and energy independence, I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this legislation. It is a prime example of how environmental protection and domestic energy use can go hand in hand.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and thank Chairman Joe Barton and my colleagues for their hard work on this much needed legislation. The war on terror has renewed our interest as a nation in reducing our dependence on energy imports and in diversifying our domestic energy sector. Through the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we can do just that through increased utilization of our coal supply; of nuclear energy; of renewable fuels such as hydrogen and of increased energy efficiency and conservation.

In southwest Pennsylvania, no matter what we do or where we go, we depend on coal. Our computers, the companies we work for, our homes and schools, are powered by coal. The stigma on the burning of coal has always been its air emissions, but now major developments in clean coal technology will expand the benefits of coal in environmentally friendly ways. Establishing a comprehensive national energy policy which includes clean coal technology is the first step in accomplishing this task.

There is more than 250 years worth of coal energy in the ground of southwestern Pennsylvania. It generates more than 55 percent of Pennsylvania's electricity and more than half of the nation's. Coal is America's most abundant energy resource, but to take full advantage of it we need to reduce emissions. Many plants have turned towards the use of natural gas, which in turn has led to less supply, tripling the price in the past decade. The increases in natural gas prices has cost 90,000 jobs in the chemical industry alone and contributed to three million manufacturing job losses.

The Energy Policy Act allows for more than $250 million per year for the Department of Energy's fossil program for existing and new coal- based research and development. It calls for a national center for clean power and energy research as well as coal mining research efforts to reduce contaminants in mined coal. Research is to be focused on innovations at existing plants, new advanced gasification and combined cycle plants, advanced combustion systems and turbines as well as fuel- related research.

There is $1.8 billion included for the development of new clean coal technologies to increase the demand for coal and create 62,000 jobs across the country, from building new plants to mining coal. This includes 10,000

high-paying research jobs in the fields of math, engineering, physics, and science. Each job in the coal industry created in Pennsylvania will generate seven supporting jobs such as barge operators and train engineers.

An additional $2 billion included in the Energy Policy Act encourages the use of new equipment to better clean the air and higher-efficiency power generation machinery, making the use of coal more environmentally friendly. This will lead to increased jobs for virtually every industry in the region.

Pennsylvania is already at the center of the country's coal production thanks to the hardest-working, most dedicated workers in the world. Clean coal technology will allow the region to prosper and meet America's energy needs for years to come.

The bill also boosts production of clean natural gas to help alleviate soaring prices for the environmentally friendly fuel. Specifically, the bill breaks the bureaucratic logjam that has stymied work on approximately 40 liquefied natural gas facilities nationwide.

Nuclear power is a vital part of the energy mix in this country and in our State. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 will encourage this clean- burning energy source by promoting the construction of new nuclear reactors. Building a nuclear reactor creates between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs. Running a nuclear reactor creates an estimated 1,500 jobs. These are highly trained trade or professional positions that pay well.

The bill provides $2.7 billion for nuclear energy research and infrastructure support, including development of safe uses for spent nuclear fuel and advanced reactor designs, support for university nuclear science and engineering programs and establishment of a program dedicated to increasing the safety and security of nuclear power plants. Westinghouse here in Pittsburgh is a major developer of nuclear technology, and our universities are active in this area.

To meet rising energy demands in the future, we need continued advances in energy efficiency and conservation--helping to reduce our demand on foreign supply and stimulating economic growth. Included in the Energy Policy Act are provisions that will save Pennsylvania consumers and businesses money spent on energy, so they can invest, spend and grow the economy and improve our standard of living.

These include a package of energy efficiency, renewable energy and state energy measure that are key steps forward toward enhancing our natural economic drive to use existing energy supplies more efficiently.

The bill authorizes more than $2 billion for a hydrogen fuel-cell program with a goal of launching hydrogen fuel-cell cars into the marketplace by 2020. Hydrogen fuel cells for stationary source use are being developed right here in Pittsburgh.

Financial incentives in the bill will spur renewable energy companies to produce electricity from renewable and alternative fuels such as wind, solar, biomass and waste coal. Funding is provided for energy efficiency programs for public buildings, including schools and hospitals, and increased fuel efficiency requirements for federal vehicles.

The Energy Policy Act expands the Energy Star program, a government- industry partnership for promoting energy-efficient products; establishes new energy efficiency standards for many new commercial and consumer products that use large amount of energy--providing sufficient savings on monthly energy costs; and dramatically increases funding for the Low Income Housing Assistance Program, low-income weatherization programs, and state energy programs to improve energy efficiency.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 recognizes that renewable fuels can be made from a variety of materials, including the animal fats and other biomass materials collected by renderers. Renderers collect and process materials generated from the livestock industry, as well as used cooking oils from restaurants. Rendering is environmentally beneficial because the reuse of these materials prevents pollution of surface and ground waters that might result from their improper disposal or management. Rendered materials are now used to make detergents, fabric softeners, perfumes, cosmetics, candles, lubricants, paints, plastics and biodiesel.

Moreover, these materials can create renewable-based fuels and feedstocks that in turn reduce the amount of fossil fuel material needed to produce a gallon of motor vehicle fuel. For example, animal fats and other biomass materials can be introduced as renewable fuel feedstocks into the refinery processes, solely or in combination with other conventional fossil fuel derived components, in order to produce renewable fuels. This process will yield renewable fuel or renewable fuel blending components commensurate with the percentage of renewable material introduced to the process.

In establishing the renewable fuel provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress has intended that these provisions allow the broadest use of renewable materials to produce fuels and renewable fuel blending components in order that we might reduce our use of virgin oil, increase our fuel diversity and decrease our dependence on foreign crude oil. Accordingly, implementing regulations should consider these types of uses and establish compliance mechanisms to account for the applicable volumes within the renewable fuel programs.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Barton and all the Conferees for their hard work on this vital legislation and urge its quick passage.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to pay tribute to Lance Corporal Ryan J. Kovacicek of Washington, Pennsylvania, part of the 18th Congressional District. Lance Corporal Kovacicek was killed July 10th from a mortar attack in the town of Hit, located in western Iraq. He died alongside Sergeant Joseph P. Goodrich, another member of his unit from Pittsburgh.

Just 22 years old, Lance Corporal Kovacicek was a member of Kilo Company, a Marine Forces Reserve unit based in Moundsville, West Virginia. Like so many other young men and women in our reserves, Kovacicek was a student. A junior at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, he was studying criminology and played on the hockey team. He also lettered in hockey all four years he attended Bishop Canevin Catholic High School.

Following in a long tradition of military service in his family, Lance Corporal Kovacicek enlisted in the reserves to help defend his country. His father, Joseph, served in Vietnam as a Marine, and his grandfather, Paul Karpan, fought with the Army in Europe during World War II. Understanding the true meaning of patriotism, Lance Corporal Kovacicek paid the ultimate sacrifice. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family. God bless them, and all the members of the armed forces fighting the war on terror, and their families.

Mr. Speaker, due to illness, I was not present in the chamber on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, and was regrettably unable to cast my vote on rollcall No. 432, rollcall No. 433, rollcall No. 434, rollcall No. 435, rollcall No. 436, rollcall No. 437, rollcall No. 438, rollcall No. 439, rollcall No. 440, rollcall No. 441, and rollcall No. 442.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 432, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 433, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 434, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 435, ``no'' on rollcall No. 436, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 437, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 438, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 439, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 440, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 441, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 442.

Madam Speaker, this is one of many bills we need to pass that deal with China and its continued policy of government support, pegging of its currency, not complying with trade laws. They have significantly lower wages, sometimes slave wages, in their plants. Over 90 percent of their steel production comes from government-owned steel mills. Their steel enjoys millions of dollars in government subsidies. China limits foreign participation in the wireless market by imposing severe regulatory requirements on telecommunications imports. The lack of intellectual property rights enforcement has resulted in epidemic levels of counterfeiting and piracy, causing serious harm to U.S. businesses. The implementation of questionable health standards affects what they will import from our agriculture. Their policies mandate the purchase of Chinese-owned software. They have a value-added tax on all non-Chinese semiconductors, which also hampers American manufacturers' ability to export to them.

These unfair Chinese policies are hurting all American businesses, not just a few, and impact workers here.

Only a strong American commitment to hold China accountable will bring about the changes necessary. Consideration of this bill is an important part of what we need to be doing in an extensive selection of things to hit back on China.

Mr. Chairman, although we may be living in the age of technology and more than a few of us cannot live without our e-mail, the United States Postal Service continues to serve a key role for both personal and business communications. With 9 million jobs and $900 billion in annual commerce dependent on services provided by USPS, consideration of this reform package could not come soon enough.

In recent years, the U.S. Postal Service has struggled to perform its core mission of providing affordable mail service 6 days a week to every American. Today, the Postal Service operates under the same set of rules established in 1970; yet the service now delivers nearly 2\1/ 2\ times more mail to almost twice as many homes.

Rising costs and financial losses, coupled with rate increases meant to remedy a declining fiscal situation, have left the Postal Service in a position that threatens the long-term viability of mail as an affordable, effective business communications channel.

I am pleased H.R. 22 protects universal service while taking steps to alleviate the seemingly constant threat of rate increases by modernizing rate regulation and by freeing up $73 billion in civil service retirement savings that have been held in escrow.

Accountability and transparency are of particular interest to me as there continues to be unresolved questions surrounding the unfair and inconsistent application of a postal regulation more than 5 years ago.

This particular issue is one I have championed for some time, and while I am disappointed that we were unable to reach a resolution before the bill reached the House floor, I look forward to working with the committee and the Pennsylvania Senators on the issue of postal reform legislation moves into conference.

Comprehensive legislation is 10 years in the making; and without the passage of this bill, we are putting in jeopardy millions of American jobs and the future availability of affordable mail service, the repercussions of which will be felt well beyond the mailing industry.

In the last session of Congress when I was a member of the Subcommittee on Postal Reform and the Committee on Government Reform, we worked on this bill. I am pleased it has come before us, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 22.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of one of my constituents. On August 10, 2005, Wilma Bane Woodruff will celebrate her 100th birthday.

Born August 10, 1905, in Cameron, West Virginia, Wilma is the youngest of three daughters born to William and Clara Fletcher Bane. On December 10, 1923, at the age of 18 she and Dorsey Woodruff were married. The couple raised four children: Willadeen Johnston, Frank, Ada Stimmel, and Eilleen Dobbin and spent 59 years farming in Southwestern Pennsylvania.

After Wilma and Dorsey farmed as tenants for 13 years, they bought a 325 acre property on the main highway from Pittsburgh to Washington, PA The attractive white brick farmhouse and other buildings, lying across a deep valley, caught the eye of many travelers. It was here that Wilma and Dorsey raised beef cattle and sold hay and straw to manufacturers and other farmers. Dorsey was recognized as a Master Farmer in 1951. The couple bought two other properties in South Strabane and Hickory, PA, and in later years also raised horses. Dorsey passed away in 1982 and the farm is now the Woodruff Memorial Park.

Wilma has been a member of the Chartiers Hill Presbyterian Church and North Strabane Grange for more than 70 years. She was also active in the A.A.R.P. and Senior Citizens of Canonsburg.

At the age of 21 Wilma registered to vote, and she is very proud of the fact that she has never missed a year of voting until she was 96 years old.

In her life Wilma has accomplished many great things, but perhaps the most important was raising her wonderful family of 4 children, 11 grandchildren, and 17 great grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you in joining me to celebrate the life of Wilma Bane Woodruff. Her life has been a great influence to many people in Pennsylvania and across the country.