Paul Hodes

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. I thank my distinguished colleague from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am not shocked but disappointed to hear the callous and cynical suggestions from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that Democrats are responsible for the inflation in gas prices that so many Americans are suffering from today, that somehow, in the past 2 years, it is the Democratic energy policy that has caused the inflation in the price of oil and gas. Let us remember that we have two oilmen in the White House and $4 a gallon gas today. Let us remember that we have an energy policy that was made in secret by the Vice President, by the oil companies, for the oil companies and of the oil companies and, today, we are reaping the benefits of that secret energy policy on which we have been stonewalled time and time again. We have 68 million acres of land available on and offshore, on which the oil companies could drill. We have the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska on which the oil companies can drill. Eighty-one percent of all known oil reserves are available to drill on right now. The estimates are that there is a 14-year supply just waiting for Big Oil to put metal to the ground, put metal to the ground and drill. That's why I rise in support of this bill. All the oil companies have to do is to start drilling on available land, and they could help increase supply and help consumers. Calls from the White House and their allies on the other side of the aisle who somehow claim that we should open ANWR and offshore areas to drilling, which in 20 to 30 years might start producing, are cynical attempts to deflect us from the real challenges that Americans face today and that we face as a Nation in going forward to a new energy policy. It's estimated that the average American would spend about $57,800 before the first drop of oil could be produced from ANWR. So what's the point to deflect us from the pain that Americans are feeling now to try to point fingers and to set us aside from changing our energy policy? What part of ``drill now'' don't the oil companies understand? What part of ``drill now'' don't my colleagues understand? No one is stopping the oil companies from drilling. It's time to drill now, help the American people with gas prices, heating oil costs. This bill says ``drill now.''

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. I thank my distinguished colleague, Mr. Clay, for his leadership along with Mr. Waxman on this bill. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5811, the Electronic Message Preservation Act. My colleague from Virginia has said that the Archivist suggests that the requirement for certification under this bill is unprecedented. Well, this bill is filed, in part, as a response to White House practices that have been unprecedented and show clearly the need for this legislation. The documents, which include e-mails, correspondence, memos produced by an administration belong not to the President but to the people of the United States. This bill will help ensure that these records are preserved properly for our future generations, and more importantly, this bill will help lift the veil of secrecy that has fallen over our government under this administration. Every day the President and his staff generate thousands of documents on the issues confronting our Nation. These documents contain important insights into the way that our government is making decisions that affect our lives. Why are those decisions being made? Who benefits? Who gets to influence our government leaders? We have serious concerns about the way the White House is preserving these documents, or not preserving them, and whether the true purpose of not preserving them is to hide the dealings from the American people. Through the investigations by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we have learned that the White House lost hundreds of days of e-mail records between the years 2003 and 2005. Additionally, it appears that senior officials in the White House have been found to be skirting the historical record laws by using an e-mail system provided by the Republican National Committee for most of their e-mail correspondence. For example, Karl Rove, former Deputy Chief of Staff, is said to have used the RNC system for 95 percent of his e-mail correspondence to which the American people will never have access. Under the Presidential Records Act, the President has the sole authority to manage his records during his time in office. The General Accountability Office found that this administration did not keep records as it was required to. So the question becomes: What were they trying to hide? It is no surprise that the administration that leaked Valerie Plame's covert identity and organized propaganda to promote a war in Iraq is evading record-keeping practices to hide information from the American people. This is arguably partisan politics at its worse, and the only remedy is more accountability and more sunshine. The Electronic Message Preservation Act will help to make sure that these important records are kept and help shine light on what our government is doing and why. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter for the Record a letter supporting this legislation that brings accountability back to the White House. The letter was signed by a number of groups that advocate for an open, transparent government, including the Government Accountability Project and openthegovernment.org. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration has been one of the most secretive and least transparent and most closed in American history. We still don't know what was said in closed-door meetings with Big Oil executives to set our energy policy, and today, we suffer from record- high gas prices. The secrecy in the White House has prevented officials in the White House from being held accountable to the American people. The Electronic Message Preservation Act will reform White House record keeping and allow the American people to have confidence that future administrations will not be able to hide the truth from the people of this country or from history. July 9, 2008. Hon. Henry Waxman Chair, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Waxman: We are writing to support the passage of H.R. 5811, the Electronic Message Preservation Act. Investigations and reports by your Committee and by several nonprofits document the significant deficiencies in the preservation of e-mail by the federal government. H.R. 5811 directs the Archivist of the United States to establish standards for the capture, management, and preservation of White House e-mails and other electronic communications and to issue regulations requiring agencies to preserve electronic communications in an electronic format. This legislation demonstrates that Congress is paying attention to this serious issue, and taking steps to begin addressing the systemic problems with electronic records in general and electronic communications records that the federal agencies and the White House have failed for too long to address. Thank you for your leadership on this critical aspect of government management and accountability. We look forward to working with you on this and other issues in the future. Sincerely, American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Common Cause, Essential Information, Freedom of Information, Oklahoma, Government Accountability Project (GAP), iSolon.org, Liberty Coalition, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Coalition for History, Mine Safety and Health News, and Minnesota Coalition on Government Information. Mississippi Center for Freedom of Information, National Freedom of Information Coalition, National Security Archives, National Press Club, 9/11 Research Project, Open TheGovernment.org, Peacefire, People For the American Way, Project on Government Oversight (POGO), ReadtheBill.org Foundation, Society of Professional Journalists, and Washington Coalition for Open Government.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate Dr. Lori Arviso Alvord, the world's first female Navajo surgeon, on being inducted into the American Indian Hall of Honor at Mount Kearsage in Warner, New Hampshire. Her selection is a testament to her hard work and dedication to the field of medicine. Dr. Alvord grew up in Crownpoint, New Mexico, a small town where many families had no water or electricity. Yet her tenacity and hard work allowed her to follow her dream of becoming a surgeon. She is now affiliated with Dartmouth-Hitchcock, one of America's most prestigious hospitals, located in Lebanon, New Hampshire. Congratulations Dr. Alvord on your induction to the American Indian Hall of Honor.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida, and I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Transportation Committee.

Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HODES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I rise in support today of my carpool promotion amendment. First, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Committee and the ranking member for introducing this important bill to encourage the use of public transportation in this country. Public transportation obviously needs to be part of a forward thinking 21st century energy strategy. However, in my home State of New Hampshire, many of my constituents live in rural areas where they don't have access to public transit, and many in my district have to commute by car 20 or 30 miles or more just to get to work. Today, in intraday trading, oil hit a record of $140 a barrel, and gas prices are over $4 a gallon for regular gas in New Hampshire. The people I represent are struggling. Many drive more than an hour to work. And we have seen carpooling begin to increase in New Hampshire. With an extremely limited public transportation network, except for city bus service in the cities of Manchester and Concord, often the only option for alternative transportation is carpooling, and the opportunities are often limited for that. Since the average local commuter is spending more than $2,000 a year in gas just to drive to work, if a driver shares his car with just one other occupant and those carpoolers share the cost of gas, obviously they cut their costs for gas in half. Now, New Hampshire Department of Transportation has introduced a great program called Ride Share. They work with the New Hampshire Regional Planning Commissions and employers to encourage ride sharing, and they have implemented a Statewide ride sharing program. The program is dedicated to finding an alternative way for commuters to travel to and from work. These days, our highways and byways are increasingly gridlocked; and many of those cars stuck in gridlock, and all you have to do is go outside this building to see the kind of gridlock that Washington is famous for, and many of the cars that are sitting there are single occupant vehicles. Driving alone is not only expensive, but it also contributes to increased traffic congestion and air pollution. To help commuters cut costs and to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, New Hampshire Ride Share uses geographical computer matching to provide commuters with information and assistance about ride sharing and alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle, which can include carpools, van pools, buses and trains. Right now, two other States, Missouri and Michigan, have introduced similar programs. The amendment that I have propose will help provide additional funding for programs like Ride Share across the country. We have seen in one month a tripling of interest in participation in ride sharing in some parts of New Hampshire, and we need to see more. With the record high gas prices, rising food prices, the mortgage crisis, and the credit crunch, families across our Nation are feeling the economic squeeze. Commuters across our Nation are suffering under the strain of record gas prices, and they have to sacrifice more of their paycheck just to earn one. This amendment provides a real-time way to help commuters save money, reduce air pollution, and increase efficiency. It is a win-win all around. I urge my colleagues to adopt this important amendment to help commuters across our Nation. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. I am.

Mr. HODES. I would be happy to talk about that. One of the interesting things that we have seen, unfortunately, is a do-anything- to-stop-progress mentality from our colleagues. While they have been long on accusations about the Democratic attempt to move us, to address the current issues and move us to a new future, their leadership has unfortunately been lacking. For instance, on the issue of OPEC price fixing, the House will once again take up legislation to empower the Justice Department to take legal action against OPEC-controlled entities for participating in oil cartels that drive up oil prices globally in the United States. We are in the grip of monopolies with price fixing. It is a basic right of American law that we deal with that in the proper way to stop price fixing. The Republicans have stood in the way without any leadership on that issue. In terms of price gouging by the oil companies, we have passed, the Democrats have passed legislation cracking down on Big Oil that are gouging American consumers. The Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act would give our Federal Trade Commission authority to investigate and punish companies that artificially inflate the price of energy. It sets criminal penalties for price gouging, and permits States to bring lawsuits against wholesalers or retailers who engage in such practices. The Bush administration has threatened to veto the measure and the Republican leadership has consistently voted ``no, no, no'' and ``no'' on price gouging. On renewable energy as we discussed, we have been moving towards renewable energy provisions. The House leadership of the Republicans, every single one of them has voted ``no'' on renewable energy. They are voting ``no'' on America's future. They are voting ``no'' on a responsible free market. And on our energy security which we have been working on as Democrats to make sure that we are moving to real security for the United States and energy independence, they voted ``no, no, no.'' So in closing, and there is so much more we could say about what we have been doing, but as I close tonight I want to say to you and to the Speaker's attention I appreciate, another member of our freshman class of 2006, a distinguished member, that it is time to say yes to the future. It is time to say yes to American consumers. Our special interest must be the interest of the people of this country. It must be an answer to the pain that they are feeling at the pumps, and where they know, where the American people know the great future and destiny of this country lies. So our job is to say yes. We understand that we need to do something now and we are. We are answering the call now. Democrats will answer, Republicans will say no, but we will be steadfast in the special interest of the people. We will be responsible in unleashing the forces of the free market to take us into the energy future that the American people need and deserve. It is time to say yes to the future. Green is the new red, white and blue. I look forward to working in the years to come on the legislation and the policies that will move us into the future in a way that the American people will be proud of, and I thank you for being with me tonight.

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here tonight on the floor of the House of Representatives with a number of my colleagues who will be coming in and out, I imagine, as the evening goes on. And I'm also especially glad to be able to follow my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King), who's got an interesting, but obsolete, perspective on the energy future for this country and what we need to do not only in the current crisis, but for the future of our great country, for the future of our economy, for the future of our energy use. So tonight we will be talking about what it means to go green. Because, let's face it, green is the new red, white and blue. And before I jump into the energy issues, but sticking with the theme of going green, I cannot help but stand to congratulate the Boston Celtics for winning the NBA finals. And if anybody exemplifies what it means to be green and to be champions, it certainly is the Boston Celtics. It's the kind of lesson that we all could learn in this country. Many of us in New Hampshire are diehard Celtics fans. And some of a certain age, including myself, remember the great championship Celtic teams from the sixties, seventies and eighties. And this has been the longest stretch in the Celtics' franchise history without winning a championship. The Boston Celtics last night beat their rival, the Los Angeles Lakers, by a whopping 39 points. It was the first NBA championship for Boston since 1986. Now, Celtics fans are especially proud today of Captain Paul Pierce, who, in the great tradition of Celtic champions like Red Auerbach and Larry Bird and Kevin McHale and Dennis Johnson and other greats, was the obvious choice for the NBA Final MVP Award. I'm proud to stand tonight to congratulate Paul Pierce for securing his place in Celtics history and the rest of the team for bringing the 17th banner back to New England. It's time to go green: Go Celtics. Now, along with going green, what's important to note is that, as we are here tonight, in my home State of New Hampshire, New Hampshire families are paying record prices for gasoline. Today, the average is $4.04 for regular gas and $4.73 for diesel. Last year at about this time, New Hampshire families were paying $2.92 for regular gas and $2.82 for diesel. Now, for some reason, as if to rewrite history, the President of the United States and my Republican colleagues, regrettably, would like to shift the blame for the soaring energy prices to the Democrats in Congress. They would like somehow for the American people to believe that it is simply the fact of the switch of majority in 2006 and Democrats who have been here working hard on reasonable, responsible, smart energy legislation, who are somehow the cause of the pain at the pumps. Well, tonight we'll talk a little truth, we'll talk a little truth to what are outrageous scams. It is simply not true. The President today proposed, for example, drilling in ANWR. He proposed giving the oil companies even more access to drilling. The President's proposal today is, unfortunately, another page from the administration's energy policy that was literally written by the oil industry. I don't think anybody can forget that it was Vice President Cheney, an oil man, who, together with President Bush, an oil man, sat in secret with the oil companies to create this country's energy policy. The product of that energy policy is that today, after the first quarter of 2008, we've had another record year for oil company profits. Apparently Mr. Cheney's energy policy seems to be working for the oil companies. In 2002, the profits of the oil companies were $6.5 billion in a quarter. And today, in 2008, first quarter of 2008, the record year for oil company profits, $36.9 billion in profits, while we pay $4.04 at the pump. So the plan from the President now is to give away more public resources to the very same oil companies that are raking in record profits; and all the time those oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres of Federal lands they've already leased; 68 million acres of Federal lands they've already leased and already have done the environmental permitting on. That's 68 million acres ready to be drilled on for oil. The President's speech, in a time of record gas prices, had no ideas for more efficient transportation or renewable American energy; no ideas for conservation and an alternative future that will actually free us from oil; no real ideas to deal with the current crisis now, as well as looking toward the future because they are inseparable. And we are now paying the price, frankly, for 30 years of not paying attention as we should, and for 8 years under the Bush administration, together with a previous 12 years, much of that with a Republican Congress in which energy policy has been designed for the oil companies, favoring the oil companies, and the American consumers have been paying the price. The President's proposal is nothing more than a continuation of addiction to fossil fuels and dependency on an oil industry earning record profits. Now, just before I turn it over to my colleague, my good friend from the State of New York, John Hall, who has been working on environmental issues his entire life, what is clear is that we will need to transition from the current addiction we have to oil that binds us to unfriendly countries, that threatens our national security, that depresses our economy, we will need to transition to a future of energy efficiency and conservation, and renewable and alternative fuels, which will explode the entrepreneurial spirit of this country, deliver real security, real jobs, and a sustainable future. But in that transition, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like the American people to think is that somehow, by drilling in Alaska, they will see some real benefits. We will talk more about it later. But the last thing I will say before I turn it over to Mr. Hall is, what the Department of Energy has told us about drilling in Alaska is very simple: Even if you opened ANWR to drilling it would take until about 2025 to see any of the benefits, and at that point you might reduce the price at the pump by 1.8 cents. So that is what the President of the United States proposed today to deal with our energy crisis and the future of our energy use. Drill in ANWR, and by 2025, we will reduce the price by 1.8 cents. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to turn the proceedings over to my colleague from New York, John Hall.

Mr. HODES. Thank you. And what strikes me is as you recite the litany of terrible tragedies, natural disasters, or unnatural disasters, that have struck the world, my district underwater in various parts of it, as yours has been in the last 5 years, with unprecedented floods, the floods around our Nation, hurricanes, Katrina, in Burma, Indonesia, around the world, clearly, the world's climate is changing. What strikes me as radical is to attack the notion that global warming is here. What seems radical to me is not to accept that we're going to need to make the kind of transition that seems evident that we will have to make from a fossil fuel past to a new energy future. And in the middle of all this, how convenient it is at summertime with people in pain from rising gas prices, caused by lots of things, to say, for my friends on the other side of the aisle, it's those Democrats, if only they would let us drill, if only those Democrats would let us drill, everything would be fine. If only we could drill in ANWR. If only the Democrats weren't stopping us from drilling, gas prices would come down. Let me point out that since the 1990s, the Federal Government has consistently encouraged the development of its oil and gas resources, and the amount of drilling on Federal lands has steadily increased during that time. The amount of drilling on Federal lands has steadily increased. Now that includes the period of time in which the Democrats have had the majority in Congress. Federal lands have been open to the oil companies. They have leases. The environmental permitting is done. As you pointed out, they haven't been drilling, although the number of permits has been going up. In fact, we would call it an explosion in Federal permits to drill for oil on Federal lands, a resource for all the people which, through the wisdom of the Federal Government, the Federal Government is allowed to be drilled on in the environmentally proper ways. In fact, 5 years ago, there were 3,802 permits to drill, and in 2007 there were 7,561 permits issued to drill. We're not stopping drilling. We're not stopping drilling. What we are talking about, though, is truth. And one of the questions that you have to ask is, so where is the drilling getting us? What effect will the drilling have, has the drilling had, on gas prices? Well, if the President's answer is we want to drill more, if my friends across the aisle's answer is, oh, drill more, the more you drill, the lower the gas prices will be, then let's at least first take a look at that claim that more drilling means lower gas prices. In fact, between 1999 and 2007, when the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased, as you said, by 361 percent, gasoline prices have also risen dramatically. The chart to my left shows emphatically, categorically, with no room for argument, that more drilling, more permits, doesn't equal lower gas prices. When you look at this chart and you start down here in the corner that I'm pointing to, we have the price of gas along this side. I'm pointing to here. The years are along the bottom. We see in red, the bars are drilling permits issued. In blue, we see the number of wells drilled. And the green line is the price of gas. So we're showing all three components of the question I asked: Does more drilling lower gas prices? Because if it doesn't, then the President's argument to drill in ANWR holds no water. The complaints of the minority that we're somehow stopping progress, we are the fault for keeping gas prices high, holds no water. And we're going to have to look for other enemies to point the finger at and other solutions for our energy. So let's take just a quick look. Without going through it all, what this trend clearly shows, as you can see, are the permits issued. This starts in 1994 and goes up to 2007. As you can see, in the early years, with the red bars, there are more permits issued than there is drilling because, first, you have to issue the permits before you drill on it. Then by about 1999, after we've issued permits from 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997--here we are in 1998 and 1999--what we're seeing is that the number of wells drilled has caught up and has surpassed the number of permits issued, and it's relatively stable through there. Then starting in the year 2000, we're going to see that the number of wells drilled is declining. As you pointed out, the oil companies are getting permits. They're buying up leases. They're holding onto the supply, but they're not drilling wells, not because there aren't the permits issued, not because they couldn't drill but because of some other reason. Now, let's remind ourselves that they're also making, in these last years here, record profits while their drilling on public lands available to them is lower than the permits issued. Now let's take a look at the price of gas. Notice how the price of gas basically tracks these lines. So it shows more permits, more drilling, higher prices of gas. More permits, more drilling, higher prices of gas. The argument that if we simply open up ANWR to drill will somehow lower the price of gas is absolutely wrong. It just doesn't hold water. What is so interesting to me is that this is a, theoretically, free market economy, and this country has always stood for free markets with reasonable regulation because, as Abraham Lincoln--a good Republican-- said, the purpose of government is to do what the free markets cannot or will not do so well for themselves. In our free market economy, if the oil companies tapped the 68 million Federal acres of leased land, it could generate an estimated 4.8 million barrels of oil a day. That is what is available to them now under lease with the environmental permits done. 4.8 million barrels of oil a day is six times what ANWR would produce at its peak in the year 2025. It's available to the oil companies today. Yet, somehow, the President and our colleagues want to open ANWR, which will take 20 years to get done and will reduce the price, theoretically, by 1.8 cents. It simply doesn't hold water. The fact is that 80 percent of the oil available on the Outer Continental Shelf is in regions that are already open to leasing, but the oil companies, in their wisdom, haven't decided it's worth their time to drill there either. They have the leases. They have the permits, but they don't want to drill there. So we have the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a small place up there in Alaska where the caribou are wild, where wildlife flourishes, where it's tough to get the oil out of there because you've got to build a pipeline forever. We have onshore Federal lands available to the oil companies. We have offshore lands available to the oil companies. They're not drilling. They want more leases. It sounds kind of like grab and greed to me. Grab and greed. We're a nation that has, perhaps, 2 percent of the world's supply of oil. We use 24 percent of the world's supply of oil. There is a disconnect there. We need to find new solutions because the bottom line is we cannot drill our way out of an energy situation in which foreign countries, many of them unfriendly to us and multinationals who are making record profits, control our supply of oil. It has had disastrous consequences for our foreign policy because now you read the various evidence that's coming out about the reason we went to war in Iraq. I just finished the book of President Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, called ``What Happened,'' which is on the reason we went to war. What is very interesting is that, when you read the passages of the discussions in the White House about why we went into Iraq and Vice President Cheney's concerns about oil, many of the fears that people have seem to be clarified about the reasons we went to war in Iraq. Now, I understand the motivation that says we need oil and that we need to secure our supplies and that we're going to use our geopolitical power and our military might to make sure we have the energy, but the bottom line is, when our energy future runs our foreign policy instead of our foreign policy and our energy future being tied together for our independence, we're at great risk. Here we are in 2008, stuck in a quagmire of a war with a huge debt. We have a deficit with China. Our gas prices are soaring. There is no way to drill our way out of the solution, and so we're going to talk about some more facts, some more truth and some of the things we're doing both to deal with the current issues and what we're doing for the future of this country. I'll yield back to you, Mr. Hall.

Mr. HODES. Thank you, and I appreciate the kindness and decorum with which you discuss the change in apparent policies from our President, who was Governor, apparently understood the importance of a renewable electricity standard which would help industry, help consumers and help move us to the kind of energy future that is responsible, American independent energy future. As Governor of Texas, as you said, he signed a 10 percent renewable energy standard. As technology has developed, in our bill in the House, when we tried to pass a bill with a 15 percent national renewable portfolio standard to give our utilities who generate the power and the electricity we need the certainty they are waiting for, to unleash the free market forces, to use the renewable and alternative energies with technology already existing to do it, that would come from a variety of sources around the country and start to give us the kind of power around the country that could come from renewable and alternatives, but unfortunately it didn't get past the Senate where, unfortunately, Senators from my State of New Hampshire stood in opposition to it, along with a number of their Republican colleagues. It didn't pass. We did pass an absolutely important, precedent-setting new CAFE standard, which means that for the first time in 30 years the mileage standards for automobiles will begin to rise. We have been able to pass legislation to correct the obsolete standards we were stuck with, and now by 2020 we will be in a 35-mile per gallon standard. But as you discussed in your earlier remarks, the technology is here today for our automobile companies, which are now languishing in the doldrums. These former engines of the American economy, in which some people estimate 20 percent of the workforce of this country is in some way involved directly or indirectly in the supply chain, our car companies are taking a back seat to others which seem to have gotten on the new technology bandwagon a lot earlier. They have simply fallen behind, when if they had kept up with advanced technology, technology that's available now, think about the markets around the world, which our car companies, thus the people who are working directly and indirectly in that supply chain would then have the benefit of, we would then be exporting advanced technology instead of being behind the rest of the world, because the technology is certainly here now. One area that you touched on that I would like to amplify are the kinds of innovative and entrepreneurial activities that are going on at home in our districts in our State. In New Hampshire, we have a lot of wood, and in much of the Northeast and in much of the cold belt of this country we are heavily forested, have a lot of wood resources. One of the things that I was glad to see in the farm bill, not a perfect bill by any measure, as you know, in any of these large bills, there is a lot to like, there is a lot not to like. One of the things that's important in the new farm bill is that cellulosic ethanol will receive much more help from the Federal Government, as opposed to corn ethanol, which we now know I think to be somewhat of a problem. The subsidies were lowered for corn ethanol, raised for cellulosic ethanol. With all due respect to my colleagues on all sides of the aisle, whose districts produce a lot of corn and have been producing corn for fuel, we now know there are some issues with corn ethanol. It takes about this much energy to produce this much corn ethanol. There may be some byproducts. Food pricing around the world has suffered, so we clearly need to find a range of solutions. Cellulosic ethanol means ethanol that can be added to the fuel of automobiles and other vehicles that comes from wood waste, biomass, switchgrass and other organic matter other than corn. It's very important in the Northeast where we can use wood chips, and the waste from logging and forestry products. One of the fascinating things that I had the privilege to visit in my own district was a wood pellet plant in Jaffrey, New Hampshire, New England Wood Pellet, which is one of the pioneers of wood pellets. Now, wood pellets are essentially compressed wood waste where you take sawdust. Then you are able to compress it under very high heat. When compressed and fed into a stove, it's incredibly efficient, extraordinarily clean at the same time, and very convenient. You can put it in the hopper, and power your home and heat your home with it. The sad thing is that after wood-pellet technology was developed in the United States, the leader has become Germany. Now, when I was visiting a closed paper plant up in my district, there were Germans who were thinking of coming to take it over and turn it into a wood pellet plant. So we have the capacity, clearly in this country, to use our entrepreneurial skills and use local resources to produce our energy. The even more interesting thing about the wood pellet plant in my district is that they have attached an innovative system to their wood pellet plant. What they have done is they have brought in a large turbine, it kind of looks like a jet engine, that's housed in a small business, that's attached to the wood pellet plant. Now, as I said, the wood pellets are produced using extraordinary amounts of heat and sawdust to compress it into the wood pellets for use in a stove. What these folks have done is they have attached their own heating and electricity generating system right off their own building, so they have these two buildings interconnected. The turbine, which looks like a large jet engine, is fed through a series of filters and tubes. What happens is from the wood pellet process, the waste gases and the waste, of which there is some, is fed through the filtering system, gasified, and then fed into the turbine. The turbine spins, it provides heat first to preheat the heating system that makes the wood pellets. It provides all the power, the electrical power to run the wood pellet plant, and it provides additional electric power which they sell back to the electric grid. So they are heating their plant, they are preheating their manufacturing process, they are providing the power for their building. They are selling electricity back to the grid all in an integrated system that is creating fuel from a locally produced product that can be used to heat homes in a renewable energy efficient and appropriate way. Now, if that one small wood pellet plant in my home district of New Hampshire can do that, we can be doing that all over the country in different ways, whether it is geothermal, whether it is tidal, whether it is small hydro, of which there is plenty all over this country, solar, wind, biomass, we have the capacity. We have the brains. We have the entrepreneurs, we have the technology, the computer systems, and the people who are just waiting to have the entrepreneurial spirit of this country unleashed. To hear the President, and to hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, trying to propose that we go backwards in time to a technology which clearly does not lower the price of gas for consumers and clearly threatens our planet, is surprising, to say the least. I asked my friends on the other side of the aisle, for whom I have great respect, because this is an important process, to have two different philosophies come before the American people so that they can help discern the truth. I have asked them, and I have yet to hear a good answer, what is it, what is it that prevents you from seeing the free markets, which you say you believe in, are waiting for the signals from the Federal Government, are waiting for the standards to be set here in Congress, are waiting to be unleashed. They know it means jobs, they know it means good products, they know it means new markets around the world, they are ready. The utilities are ready, industry is ready, the market are ready. I just don't understand the thinkers who are stuck in the past and aren't ready, not only to address the issues we are facing today, but help move this country into the future. I don't have an answer. I haven't heard an answer. I certainly would like to hear one, because what is being proposed by the President makes no economic sense except perhaps to the oil companies, whose record profits will go up even more if the President's plan were followed. They would get more leases, get more permits, do less drilling, let the price go up, and make more money as they have been. That doesn't seem to be a good deal for the American people, so why the President would propose it, I have no idea. But I don't understand why he and his colleagues, his supporters, don't understand that the future is simply waiting. If they are real free market folks, then let's go, let's unleash the free markets. Do you have an answer for me, Mr. Hall?

Mr. HODES

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

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, just last month, we celebrated the 60th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel. Last year, I was privileged to take my first trip to the Promised Land. Israel is the birthright for Jews around the world. As our stanchest ally, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, but to Jews, it is much more. It is the homeland, the true community that my own Jewish ancestors dreamed of when hounded by anti-Semitism, repression and violence. To truly honor Israel on this 60th anniversary, we must seek a true, lasting peace from committed partners to provide for Israel's long-term survival, security and prosperity. For Jews in America, we owe it to our ancestors to protect the Jewish homeland that they toiled for centuries to achieve. We owe to it our grandparents and to our great grandparents who never saw the Promised Land. We owe it to our children and to our grandchildren, who must always know a world with a Jewish homeland. We owe them peace in our time.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. This amendment will honor a fallen hero from New Hampshire who was beloved by the Nation. Christa McAuliffe was a teacher from Concord, New Hampshire, who achieved national fame for being the first educator selected to go into space. To those who knew her at home and loved her, she was a social studies teacher who touched the lives of hundreds of New Hampshire's children. When she was selected by NASA to join the 1986 Challenger Crew, she touched a chord with all of the American people. They saw her dedication to teaching and learning. She believed in helping our children succeed. She often said, I touch the future. I teach. Even though her life was cut tragically short when the Challenger exploded, her message about shaping our Nation's future through education and exploration is the reason we are here today to consider this important measure. This amendment will provide three scholarships for women to pursue degrees in science and other fields related to NASA's mission. Christa always dreamed of going into space, and today we can create the opportunity for more women to fulfill their dream of one day being able to journey into space and pursue careers in science, mathematics, and other science-related fields. These scholarships honor Christa McAuliffe, they honor her dream and are a fitting tribute to her great sacrifice. Madam Chairman, I urge passage of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind and heartfelt remarks. At this time, Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. HODES. I thank the gentleman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1145) recognizing the 100 year anniversary of the establishment of St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association, the ``Bank of the People,'' and the birth of the American credit union.

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself so much time as I may consume. House Resolution 1145 recognizes the 100-year anniversary of the establishment of St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association, the Bank of the People, and the birth of the American credit union. I want to thank Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank for his support in bringing this legislation to the House floor. St. Mary's Bank Credit Union is the oldest credit union in the United States. It was founded in 1908. Its mission was and continues to be to help New Hampshire residents with a wide range of affordable products and services, including checking accounts, personal loans, real estate loans, business banking and savvy financial planning. In 1917, the New Hampshire State legislature approved a bill changing the name from St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association to La Caisse Populaire, Ste-Marie, The People's Bank. In 1925, an amended charter allowed the institution to be called either La Caisse Populaire, Ste- Marie, or St. Mary's Bank. There are 24 credit unions in the State of New Hampshire with 403,000 members statewide. That's almost one-third of New Hampshire's population. New Hampshire credit unions alone have more than $3.7 billion in assets. Credit unions provide an avenue for families struggling during the credit crunch in these tough financial times to get critical services and low-interest loans. In these tough times we must do everything we can to help working families drowning in debt, and credit unions are important to easing the financial hardships on New Hampshire's working families. Today's resolution honors our Nation's first credit union from New Hampshire, but the excellent work and important contributions to New Hampshire of St. Mary's stand as a fine example of the work of credit unions all across this Nation, which provide working families access to financial services they must have to prosper. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HODES. I thank Mrs. Capito for her support of this bill, and I also thank my colleague, Ms. Shea-Porter, for introducing the resolution. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield as much time as she may consume to the distinguished Congresswoman from New Hampshire, Carol Shea-Porter.

Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HODES

Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to first thank my colleagues, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Welch and Mr. Arcuri, for their work on this important amendment. This amendment will help schools in my district in New Hampshire to power their classrooms with alternative energy sources, including wood pellets and wood biomass, sources that are plentiful throughout New Hampshire. For example, under this new program, the program would help invest more than half a million dollars for Concord, New Hampshire's school district, and almost $1.5 million for Nashua, New Hampshire's schools. These dollars will allow our schools to reinvest in cost-effective and clean alternative energy. Schools throughout New Hampshire are already investing to a limited extent in renewable energy and saving money. For example, Merrimack Valley High School and Middle School recently switched to wood biomass to heat their school facilities. In just one winter, the school district saved $80,000 in heating costs, and that was before the recent steep rise in the price of a barrel of oil. From March to March, that is $1.50 a gallon for heating oil that the costs have gone up, so we can only imagine what they will save in the coming winter. As you can see, the alternative energies we promote here will help save money for our Nation's school districts in power and heating costs. That means schools will have more dollars to invest in improving our children's education. It means our school districts can afford more teachers in the classroom, more computers for our students and smaller class sizes to give our kids more individual attention. It means that our wise investments in this bill will pay huge dividends. Energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy are the key to a secure energy future for the United States of America. We can't drill our way out of the energy crisis we face. Green is the new red, white and blue. To create a 21st century energy policy, we must all collectively make changes in how we power our buildings in both the private and public sector. This amendment will help our schools become leaders in an energy plan for the 21st century and give our school districts more resources to invest in our children's education. I am proud to support this amendment. I urge its passage.