Paul Hodes

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. HODES. Thank you. I am happy to yield now to my colleague, Betty Sutton from Ohio.

Mr. HODES. I thank the gentleman. That is a remarkable story. I am glad you kept your boots. I am glad your boots got you here to be with us to share those stories. And what you are talking about gets me thinking about the history and how we got here. Think about how those in my generation; I am 55, on my way to 56. I am one of those baby boomers who was born at the beginning of the 1950s, grew up through the 1950s and 1960s. And think about what it meant in this country for hard-working families to have organized labor on their side. Think about the factories, the manufacturing, what it meant to us as kids to have ``Made in the U.S.A.'' And what the contribution organized labor and the growing rights of working families meant to this country. This country and its great prosperity that some are enjoying today was built on the back of an organized labor movement throughout the 20th century. And in my particular State in New Hampshire, some people say that the organized labor movement isn't as large as it is in other places. But it is certainly vibrant. But it is not just the organized labor movement we are here to talk about, because really, the Employee Free Choice Act is about all working families. It is about all who are in the middle class or want to get into the middle class that are so important to this country, because today, the squeeze on the middle class is real. Working people in this country have endured blow after blow, including astronomical health care costs. They are up 50 percent a year from the year 2000 to the year 2007. They have been going up at astronomical double digit rates. Think about fuel costs from the year 2000 to today, going up in double digit rates. Ever increasing tuitions. College tuition at public colleges is up 40 percent over the past 5 years. We have seen spikes in housing prices, inflation is on the march. And now, in the first years of this administration, there was terrible job loss as we saw this flight of jobs away from our shores and going offshore. Now, some of the jobs have come back. But what we have seen is the great jobs have been replaced by people taking part-time jobs, by more people working longer hours, more people working harder, more two-income families. That means more caretakers out of the house, leaving more kids to fend for themselves. So working families and workers are working harder, they are working longer, and they are sometimes working many, many multiple jobs. So when we hear the statistics about the rise in productivity, it is true, American workers and working families have contributed to a great rise in corporate productivity. And this chart talks about U.S. productivity and wages and the change from the year 2000. It is a pretty simple chart. And what it shows is, very simply, median income right down there, the lower line of median income has actually declined over this period of time. Median income in real wages has actually declined the productivity of American workers and the contribution to the profits that have gone to the very top at the wage scale. That top 2 percent who have really enjoyed a terrific time over the past 6 years has gone up, and it has been fueled by more people working harder and harder, more people working longer hours, more people working double jobs with fewer benefits and a greater squeeze. So the Employee Free Choice Act is really a matter of fundamental fairness. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about leveling the playing field so that our workers who are dealing with their employers have a chance to talk in an organized way, have a voice, have some fundamental fairness when it comes to bargaining for the kinds of wages that they need to make a living, to send kids to school, to put the food on the table, to get from their jobs to do the things that we know are important to building a prosperous economy. At this point I will throw it over to John Yarmuth.

Mr. HODES. I am happy to do that. I think first, before we talk about some of the myths and the real facts, let me just turn it over to Congressman Ellison.

Mr. HODES. What we are talking about is fundamental American values. We are talking about values of equal opportunity and fairness and what lifts us all up together. One of the common misconceptions that is sometimes advanced when people have opposed the Employee Free Choice Act, or they stand in opposition to organized labor or the rights of working class families for fairness, is that somehow it is damaging to business if the employees in a business place come together and are allowed to express themselves and advocate for their cause that there is great fear out there, but there is really no good reason for that kind of fear. Let me tell you another story that comes to mind. On the same trip back home last week, I had occasion to meet another group of workers. They were cameramen at the local statewide television station. The local statewide television station is a wonderful station. I have enjoyed being on the station. I know the folks on it; they are good people. They do a great job of reporting. They are a part of an organization that owns a number of stations. They are a good-sized business. When a couple of years ago these cameramen decided that they wanted to have a voice together, join together to be able to talk about some reasonable suggestions and thoughts and fairness so that they could have a voice to talk to the management of the station, which had been purchased, and they wanted to come together to talk, they were surprised to find that management, probably out of fear of what it meant, was using tactics that some might call intimidation, but I might tend to see more as fear based on wanting to protect something that they didn't know about. One of the things I say to people sometimes is that people prefer the misery of the known to the mystery of the unknown. When you haven't had an organization come together for employees to talk with management, sometimes that can provoke the kind of fear of what that means. So what happened was over the course of a couple of years, the management in this organization would take camera people aside by ones and by twos, and they would say things like if you come together to form this union, this company is going to be in real trouble. We are going to lose money. If we lose money, we are going to have to lay people off. If we have to lay people off, it might very well start with you. They did this over a period of time by ones and by twos and delayed the process, and delayed the process and delayed the process. I have to tell you, when it finally came to pass that these folks got together and were able to get their union, without the benefits of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have made it much easier, which would have made it fairer, which would have made it smarter for them to get together by simply having a majority of them get together to sign the cards and form the union and have the union recognized, they didn't have that process at the time. So they were delayed when they did come together and get their union and sit down and talk with management. You would be surprised, I think, but I wasn't, to say that the company didn't suffer. Their profits aren't down. They are treating each other fairly. They are having a great dialogue together. But this company is doing just fine. In fact, since that time, unions have been formed, they have had productive discussions. Really what it is, it is about the respect. It is the respect for the dignity of working people. If we cannot give working people in this country the dignity and respect that they deserve in the workplace, then what kind of country are we. That is why the Employee Free Choice Act that we passed today, on a bipartisan basis, I might add, with some of our colleagues who had the courage to join us from the other side of the aisle, that is why when we passed the Employee Free Choice Act in this House. We are expressing something about the new direction that we are going to take this country, one in which working families are accorded the dignity and respect that we know as Americans they deserve. I give it back to Brother Braley.

Mr. HODES. You know, 69 percent of Americans are supportive of what we did here today. I think the secret ballot issue is an important one. I just want to highlight it because it is myth number 1 on this chart which I have up here that the Employee Free Choice Act somehow abolishes the National Labor Relations Board secret ballot election process. What this really does, what we are doing today, and what we have done, is it gives employees a choice between using the NLRB election process or the majority sign-up process. Under current law, employees can use the majority sign-up, but the employer can veto that majority employee choice and force the employees through the broken, undemocratic NLRB election process, which is open to employer delay, intimidation, and coercion. It is the kind of thing I was talking about when I talked about those constituents of mine from New Hampshire who had to form a union and had to deal with their organization. Under this act, under H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, employees can still petition for an election. But if a majority signed cards saying they want a union now, they get a union, and the employer must respect that choice. So somehow this myth out there that what we have passed is somehow undemocratic could not be further from the truth. It opens up choice, it makes the process easier, it reduces the kind of temptation to intimidate and harass or coerce that we have seen, and it promotes better dialogue and more fairness in the workplace. I now hand it over to the Congressman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, let me turn it over to Congressman Braley for some closing thoughts. As we have a few minutes left in this, our first session as members of the Class of 2006, the majority makers, members of the new Democratic freshman class, are going to come to the floor of the House on a regular basis to talk with the American people and with each other and with any of our colleagues from across the aisle who choose to come and talk about the issues that are facing us in the day. I would be happy to hear from you and have some of your closing remarks.

Mr. HODES. Mr. Yarmuth, any final thoughts?

Mr. HODES. In closing, I just want to take 1 minute to thank my colleagues, Mr. Braley, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Sutton, who was here earlier. I want to thank you all for coming to the floor of the United States House of Representatives to work on this bill and to stand together today to talk about the importance of this bill to the American people. And I just want to close by pointing out that the issues of economic and social justice that we are dealing with, and we are now dealing with a Democratic majority, are not partisan issues. We were joined in passing a rise in the minimum wage by our colleagues across the aisle. We were joined today by our colleagues across the aisle. The American people sent us here to work in a bipartisan fashion, and we have worked in a bipartisan fashion, and will continue to because these aren't issues of left or right. These are American issues. And when we respect the dignity of working families and help the middle class in this country, everybody is helped from the top to the bottom. So I congratulate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who aren't here right now, but I want to congratulate them for coming today and working with us to pass this. And I urge everybody who may be listening and may be watching today to voice their concern to the Senate. Reach out to the administration, and let them know your thoughts, that this is an American issue that respects fundamental values of dignity and respect for working people, and that working together, we can lift the middle class, we can help this country continue prosperity and distribute fairness in a way that helps us all. I thank you all for being here today.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, when Democrats gained the majority in this House last November, we pledged to fight to make America better for all Americans, not just the privileged few. This Congress has already passed legislation increasing the minimum wage and making college more affordable to middle-class families. This week, in a bipartisan fashion, we will continue our work on behalf of middle-class families by bringing legislation to the floor that would restore workers' rights to form unions and to collectively bargain for better salaries and better benefits. At a time when corporate executives are routinely negotiating lavish pay and retirement benefits for themselves, workers have little leverage to negotiate for a better life. This has been particularly concerning over the last 6 years when wages have remained stagnant while everyday costs like housing, transportation, education and health care have increased dramatically. The Employee Free Choice Act says that if the majority of workers at a workplace sign cards saying they want a union, they get a union. The act protects the rights of employers, too. The legislation shares bipartisan support and is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Let's pass it this week.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to voice support for our troops, without reservation, and to oppose the administration's proposed escalation in Iraq. We are at a turning point in American history. This Congress will shortly vote on a bold, clear resolution, repudiating the administration's failed policy in Iraq, a fiasco which has weakened our security, threatened our military readiness, cost thousands of lives and wasted billions of dollars. I was elected to Congress from the great State of New Hampshire, promising return of congressional accountability and oversight. For the past 6 years, while Congress was under Republican control, only 12 hearings were held on the Iraq war, but in the past 6 weeks this Congress has held 52 hearings. The evidence is clear that the American people and Congress were misled into the war in Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction, no links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, no imminent threat to our national security. Our resources, effort and attention were recklessly diverted from the war in Afghanistan, which I supported, and which continues to require our vigilance and commitment. This administration has now lost its credibility with the American people and with the world. To succeed in the Middle East, we must regain our moral compass and embrace a new direction in Iraq. The administration's stubborn arrogance and incompetence has magnified the chaos in Iraq. Our brave troops have done everything asked of them, but the administration's failures in planning postconflict reconstruction and its shocking incompetence in management have opened the Pandora's box of sectarian violence and civil war. Escalation has been tried before and it has failed before. The administration claims this escalation is different. The administration says there are benchmarks for the Iraqis, but what I have concluded from our hearings and briefings is that no firm benchmarks for the Iraqis have been set. Clearly, the administration intends to escalate, whether or not the Iraqis step up. And today it is reported that they plan to send our troops off to Iraq without up-armored Humvees. This is deja vu all over again, a lack of planning, combined with a lack of candor. Relying on a military force alone as a strategy continues the administration's one-legged-stool approach to foreign policy. Absent an Iraqi Government committed to forging a political solution to the country's woes and absent the infrastructure for jobs and reconstruction programs, the one-legged stool cannot stand. We have already lost billions in U.S. and Iraqi dollars to fraud, waste and abuse. Baghdad is a city of some 7 million people. In a city that size, an injection of 20,000 troops is too little too late. The administration talks of victory in Iraq. The word is meant to stir our patriotic fervor. But in this matter, it has, unfortunately, a sad and hollow ring. As a result of the administration's ineptitude, we are left making the best out of a bad situation. We owe it to our troops, the American people, and the Iraqis to act wisely and strategically. The administration talks tough. We must be tough, smart and fearless. That means a new direction in Iraq. Our first order should be to address the missing second leg of the stool. Replace the military surge with a diplomatic surge, convene a high-level team of special envoys, send them to the region, and send them there until the job is done. The third leg of the stool is economic. We need a real economic reconstruction program, but only on strict conditions that the Iraqi Government step up to quell the violence and engage in reconciliation and oil revenue-sharing. It is past time to remove our troops from the middle of this civil war, redeploy them strategically in the region to give pause to our foes and send the troops we need to Afghanistan where they can support the government and deal with the resurgent Taliban. Dealing with Iran is, of course, challenging; but harsh rhetoric and saber-rattling are counterproductive in the complex, destabilized Middle East. The true test of leadership is facing reality and having the good judgment and wisdom to adapt to the reality. By passing this resolution, we are sending the administration an unambiguous message: No more blank checks. We have had enough. It is time to face the reality in Iraq and develop a responsible and comprehensive strategy to protect American security in the region. Much has been asked of this country in the past, and the future will inevitably require sacrifice, but it does not require sending 20,000 more American troops to Iraq. It does not require an escalation of this war. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I oppose the administration's escalation of the war in Iraq.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker. Last night I watched the State of the Union Address in this hall for the first time as a Member of Congress. While I found the pageantry inspiring, I wish I could say the same about the speech itself. We heard another attempt to allay with hollow rhetoric the concerns of an alarmed Nation about the war in Iraq. And rather than seizing an opportunity to level with the American people and set the new course they rightly demand, the administration, once again, chose to cling to its delusions and insist that its failing policies be enacted. In 2003, the administration requested and received from Congress authority to invade Iraq on the basis of the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and presented an imminent threat to our national security. Senior administration officials claimed that the Iraqi Government was connected with the al Qaeda terrorists who perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001. And we now know that neither the premise for the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq nor the claim of a connection to 9/11 was true. After the fall of Baghdad, the administration sent in officials with little or no knowledge and understanding of Iraq, its people, its culture or its politics. Costly mistakes, including the dismantling of the army and the failure to secure weapons stockpiles, paved the way for the current situation in Iraq: More than $450 billion spent with billions unaccounted for; an undependable Iraqi Government, unwilling or incapable of controlling warring sects in their militias; more than 3,000 American deaths, and more than 25,000 soldiers maimed or grievously wounded; hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, wounded or driven from their homes by sectarian violence; and a profound loss of respect for our country in the region and around the world. All in all, it constitutes an unparalleled foreign policy disaster for the United States. The administration still has no plans for a responsible exit strategy to protect our security. And unbelievably, the administration wants to send an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq. The proposal is a cavalier rejection of the sound views of the American people, the consensus of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and the counsel of wise military commanders. In a city of some 7 million people, and without a unified government or the infrastructure to provide jobs to an ever more agitated population, an injection of 20,000 troops will not succeed. It can only stoke the flames of chaos and bloodshed in Iraq. Our national strategic interests, Mr. Speaker, require a change of course, not an escalation. The imperative to support our troops requires a change of course, not an escalation. Last year the Republican-controlled House declared in the defense authorization bill that 2006 would be a year of transition to Iraqi control of Iraq, and that redeployment would begin at that point. Yet here we are in 2007 with the administration calling for an escalation supported by many in this body. In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, the time has come and gone for this Congress to say ``enough is enough.'' The time has come and gone for statements of concern. The time has come and gone for ``trust but verify.'' The situation in Iraq is dire. It is now time for this Congress to do what the American people said so clearly in November that they wanted us to do: Change the course in Iraq. We have a saying in my home State in New Hampshire, ``When you're in a hole, stop digging.'' Mr. Speaker, I support our valiant troops, and I oppose the administration's proposed escalation. I resolve to work with my colleagues over the coming weeks for a concrete new direction in Iraq. In the absence of an acceptable plan from the President, the American people are calling upon Congress to lead the way. Popular demand for new direction in Iraq is, in large part, the reason I am here in Washington and the reason Democrats now hold the majority. We can no longer accept empty promises from the administration or hope the administration will honestly confront the realty of its failures. The American people are looking to this Congress for leadership. They are impatient. And we must and we will respond.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here in the House of Representatives. It is an honor and privilege to rise to represent my State of New Hampshire, and also as a new Member of the Democratic majority to celebrate the 100-hours agenda that has recently been completed. I note with interest that the gentleman from Iowa suggests that somehow the new Democratic Members have not had great input into the agenda for America that the 100 hours was meant to advance and did advance, and somehow the suggestion might be that we haven't participated fully with our leadership in the Congress in determining the new course and a new direction for this country. I would correct that gentleman because the new Democratic majority and the new Members that are here have had great input with the leadership because the American people have sent us here with a mandate for change. As we campaigned this fall all across this country, nothing was clearer from the American people than they wanted change. They wanted change in the way government did its business. They wanted change in the direction of this country, and we are now privileged and honored to be part of history and be here on the floor of the people's House to help make that change happen. Today, in some sense, we come to celebrate the 100-hours agenda. My colleagues across the aisle have made much over the past 2 weeks about hours and minutes. The gentleman from Iowa produced a chart that counted hours and counted minutes and they have counted seconds. But the American people, Mr. Speaker, have counted years. They have been waiting for years for a new direction for this country. They have said to us in clear and unequivocal terms that they wanted honest leadership and open government. We heard time and time again about a culture of corruption, concern from the American people that the House of Representatives and the Members in this House seemed more concerned about themselves than representing the people of this country. And so in the American agenda that the Democrats advanced and has been advanced, we pledged honest leadership and open government. We pledged to restore government as good as the people of this country deserve starting with real ethics reform. So, Mr. Speaker, one of the first things that happened here in the 110th Congress was through the rules process we advanced significant ethics reform to restore honest and transparent leadership in the House of Representatives. The American people spoke clearly to us about their concerns about what was going on not only across the sea in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are concerned about real security for America. They are concerned that although the 2001 attacks had been the subject of a bipartisan commission, the 9/11 Commission, to determine what needed to be done to make our homeland safe, to keep the people of this country safe from attacks here, that this Congress somehow had stalled in making those promises, in keeping those promises and making the homeland safe. So in H.R. 1 as part of the 100-hours agenda, we voted to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies. We believe in a strong national defense. And we believe in being tough and smart. But we realized that homeland security must be a priority, and so we voted to implement homeland security. We were concerned about economic prosperity and educational excellence. We wanted to create jobs that stay in America and restore opportunity for everyone, and that means all Americans, Americans earning all kinds of incomes. I can't tell you, Mr. Speaker, how many times as I walked my district door to door and met people in coffee shops and factories and schools and libraries, everywhere I went the subject of the minimum wage came up time and time again because the good people of this country recognized that the minimum wage was an important factor for millions of Americans. Single moms raising families were trying to do it on a minimum wage that hadn't been raised in 10 years. I always find it interesting when my colleagues from across the aisle complain about raising the minimum wage, and yet so many voted with us, they voted themselves increases in their salaries for 10 years before raising the minimum wage. We accomplished that in H.R. 2. We were able to introduce important medical research with stem cell research, to expand stem cell research in a careful and appropriate way, in the way that the American people wanted. We started to help reform Medicare part D in H.R. 4. We helped our students go to college in this country by cutting the rate of student loans in half, and we started a move towards energy independence by rolling back tax breaks for big oil companies. In the last Congress, that Congress voted to cut taxes, give tax breaks to huge oil and gas companies while they saw record prices at the pump, and at the same time cut $12 billion in aid for our college students when we need to send people to college. So we passed H.R. 6, which started to pave the way for energy independence. Having advanced that agenda, at this time I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. HODES. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. In terms of the energy independence, the program we are going to advance as leaders in this Congress is designed to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of this country. Mr. Speaker, last year the Federal Government only spend $2 billion, one week in Iraq, on all of its research into alternative and renewable energy forms. By setting up the kind of reserve we have now, rolling back the subsidies for Big Oil and putting it into a reserve for Federal research and research into alternative energy, just think about how we are going to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of this country for new jobs and economic prosperity on into the century. It is now my pleasure to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. HODES. I appreciate the congratulations. Some would say condolences.

Mr. HODES. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. It is an honor to be a member of a class with such distinguished people in it of such skills and talents who are ready to move this agenda and move this country forward for the people, because we understand that it is the people's business that we are here to do and we are putting the people back in the People's House. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut. I yield at this time to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea- Porter).

Mr. HODES. I thank the gentlewoman from New Hampshire. I just want to say how proud I am that now New Hampshire has two Democratic Congress Members serving our great State and we will be working hard on behalf of our constituents as I know all our members of the new Democratic majority-makers are going to be doing. I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks. At this time I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. HODES. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. HODES. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his remarks and for quoting a great American artist, Bob Dylan. It is important that we bring art and culture down to the floor of the Congress and make sure that the people of America know that we are connected not only to the past but to the future. I also note that the 100 hours agenda as it turned out was subject to full debate here on the floor of the House. Now our colleagues across the aisle, from time to time, raised complaints about procedures. They claimed they were cut out. But they were all here and had the opportunity to debate the 100 hours agenda. And, in fact, when it came to votes on the 100 hours agenda, Mr. Speaker, we averaged 67 Republican votes for what we passed in terms of the 100-hour agenda. We averaged 67 votes from our colleagues across the aisle. So while they may have raised their voices about the procedure, we were fulfilling promises to the American people. We knew it was important. They joined us. And so I think we all should be proud of the fact that the 100 hour agenda really was an American agenda. It is an American agenda. It is a down payment on what we are going to do to keep on moving this country forward. And I am proud and glad that our colleagues from across the aisle had the wisdom, the courage, and just the plain smarts to join us on what the American people know is right for America as we move forward in the 21st century. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize and yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Mr. HODES. I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii for the remarks, and pointing out how important what we are doing really is to the future of this country. And at this time I would yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) with whom I am very proud to serve.

Mr. HODES. We thank the gentleman from Maryland for speaking with such passion about the important connection between what we are doing here to make a positive difference in the lives of this country and what it means to every single American that we represent from around this country, what impact it will have on their daily lives, because, as the gentleman from Maryland rightly understands, we are dedicated to making a positive difference for all the people of this country, not just those at the very top, but all the people, those who need it the most, doing the most good for most of the people all the time. And I would yield briefly now to the distinguished representative from Pennsylvania, Mr. Carney, a gentleman who, Mr. Speaker, has served his country in the military with great distinction, and, Mr. Speaker, a gentleman who has the distinction, as a new Member of Congress, of now leading a subcommittee on the Homeland Security Committee, a distinct honor worthy of his experience, skill and talent. I am very proud to serve with him and I yield to Mr. Carney.

Mr. HODES. Thank you very much, Mr. Carney. Mr. Speaker, I note the hour. I thank the Speaker for your service today and in this august body, we thank the American people for giving us the privilege to serve the people of this country, to have served in this historic time, to move the 100 hours agenda from a promise into reality, to make good on our promises to the people of this country that we care about all the people, that we are going to make a positive difference as we move forward. I thank my colleagues, new Members. We have been called majority makers, and I am proud that we are, and we are going to work in a bipartisan way to move this country forward.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in strong support of the underlying bill, H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. Mr. Speaker, my State, New Hampshire, is a State known for its pragmatism. The energy crisis that this country faces is no mystery to my constituents. They see our independence on foreign energy sources, they see our climate changing, and they see the tax breaks for Big Oil while their own resources are stretched thin. They have seen roller-coaster high prices at the pumps, giveaways to Big Oil, and those same Big Oil companies reporting record profits. This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue because it is a common sense issue. And the bill we will consider today is a commonsense and much needed start to solving the problem. H.R. 6 would repeal the billions of dollars in subsidies given to Big Oil in the ill-conceived 2005 energy bill and reinvest those funds in clean renewable energy and energy efficiency. The bill would require oil companies to pay their fair share in royalties, and would close glaring loopholes in the Tax Code. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill would create a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit in this country, to jump-start our investment in renewable and alternative energy resources, and to promote conservation and the development of critical new technology. Energy independence is an issue of national security, it is an issue of jobs, and it is an environmental imperative. No issue is more important to our future or our children's future. Mr. Speaker, I am exceedingly proud of this new majority's 100-hour agenda, but I am perhaps most proud and most ardently supportive of H.R. 6. It is time to invest in a new energy policy, and I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and support H.R. 6.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, thank you to the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding time. Dear colleagues, it is my great privilege to rise today for the first time as the Representative for New Hampshire's Second District. It is humbling to serve with so many men and women I have admired for so long and to stand in this Chamber, hallowed by American history as the people's House. But while today is dedicated, in part, to celebration, there is no time to waste in fixing the ills that have plagued this House in recent years. Traveling across my State of New Hampshire this fall, I heard one clear, consistent message from voters--from Democrats, Independents and Republicans. We are fed up with the mess in Washington. Go down there and fix it. Mr. Speaker, while most Americans see Congress as somewhat distant from their lives, they probably couldn't rattle off the names of Congressional leadership, for example, or quote bill numbers, they do understand with absolute clarity when Members of Congress are working for them or when Members of Congress are working for themselves. Now, the Democratic ethics reform package is much needed and it is long overdue. While some in this body may bristle at its stringency, and some are now heard to complain, apparently, that it doesn't go far enough, as a new Member, I can tell you that it is only logical and only just to make these changes to the House rules, starting today and starting now. We must ban gifts and travel from lobbyists, we must put a stop to the pernicious K Street Project, we must reform the way we spend taxpayers' money and the way we write and pass the bills meant to protect taxpayers' interests. I strongly support the adoption of the Democratic rules package. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes.''