Mike Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Just so I understand, Mr. Chairman, have you reserved your point of order?

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. The amendment that is printed in the Record, sir, is another section of the bill. This amendment is for section 3, which we are discussing now.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I think this is going to be an improvement to the bill. This is a good bill. And what this, my amendment, does is deal with the issue of infrastructure. This bill talks about infrastructure. And we have asked the EPA, in this particular bill, to study what additives we add to make the process better when we are talking about moving alternative fuels through the infrastructure. But that sometimes infers that you are either at the point of origin, the refinery, or the point of sale. But there are lots of places that we may be able to apply additives in the process of making alternatives fuels viable, and what we are asking with this amendment is very simple and noncontroversial. We are saying, when you are studying what additives to put in, you should also include where is the best place to put those in in the long process. Our fear here is that we get isolated to only looking at a very small section of where those additives ought to go in this system. And one thing that we know, and we have talked about it here, the gentleman and my friend from Massachusetts made a great argument about the retrofitting gas stations and how important the infrastructure is. Well, if we don't know where these additives go in the system, we, in fact, may be shooting ourselves in the foot here. All it does is take what is existing in this bill and expand it by saying, don't only look at what, but where, those additives can go in the system to make an improvement in our alternative fuels as we march to the future. Very simple. I would argue it is certainly germane to the bill.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping for an 11th hour reprieve on this issue. We had sent up the call and the white flag to try to get this worked out. Hopefully, maybe in the few minutes I will take to talk about this, you will be moved to tears and be ready to accept the amendment, my friend. One of the things that we have talked about today, and this is an important issue, is how we move forward on alternative fuels. This bill is important. It outlines some pretty important steps for us to move forward. But this amendment gives us the opportunity to have a concrete action that we can take that will immediately allow us to impact. You think about my generation: It was going to the moon. The generation after me was the E-economy. This generation is going to be alternative fuels and how they change the course of our consumption of fuel both in our homes and in our cars; how national security, by getting us away from foreign oil, is changed forever, and not soon enough; how it helps our economy, how it helps our environment. All of that is right now. It is not 10 years, it is not 15 years, it is right now. We have set up a pretty good system for research and development. We now have great amounts of resources going to get us to alternative fuels. We also have a look at the production of it. How do we produce biomass? How do we produce ethanol? What is the next level of cellulosic ethanol? Then the big problem is the distribution of it. That is the one thing that we are just having a difficult time getting over. It is the one hurdle for an exponential growth in our ability to move to alternative fuels. Be it hydrogen, be it ethanol, be it biomass, all of those things have infrastructure problems. The one thing that we know we can do is expand the number of ethanol pumps. We have to do it. It must happen. But there is a problem. If you are a small, independent gas station owner, you have to take a huge risk, $30,000 to $60,000 to put in an ethanol pump on an economy of scale that isn't there yet. So we have to kick-start it. This is our opportunity to double the number of ethanol pumps available across the country. I know we are going to get into some wrangling about germaneness, and about this paragraph doesn't jive with that paragraph, and this committee hasn't had a chance to talk about it, but this committee has. This bill passed by voice vote last year. Voice vote, we all agreed in a bipartisan way. It went through committee. It had its hearing and moved on to the Senate. Unfortunately, that is where we didn't move it forward. But this is our opportunity to get it done and get it done soon. My friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, talked about the urgency, about how fast we should go forward on this and how important it was that we get away from dependency on foreign oil; and what that means to our national security, our economic security, our environmental security. There are only 34 States where you can even get ethanol at a gas station. Let us take this bold move now. If we are serious about moving forward, let's just swallow this one and say, this is the right thing to do. We have already had hearings. We have already voted on it in the House. Let's get this thing moving, so we can double the number of ethanol pumps and move forward for the safety and security of the next generation that will change the course of our economy here in the United States. I ask my friends to reconsider their reservation, and I would urge the support of this amendment. I look forward to working with you on this and other issues in the future. Point of Order

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman. I look forward to working with you on the committee. I know you are a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I think we can all agree this is an important direction and I look forward to working together. Mr. Chairman, I would move to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of WHMI radio in Howell, Michigan, on the occasion of the station's 50th anniversary celebration scheduled for one week from today, on February 14, 2007. Serving Livingston County since Valentine's Day, February 14, 1957, WHMI has grown through the past five decades into a modern broadcast station serving the fastest-growing county in Michigan. Awards for broadcast excellence and community service fill a wall at the station's state-of-the-art facility, exhibiting innumerable testimonies to the commitment of WHMI and its service to its community, listeners, and supporters. Today, under the ownership of Greg and Marcia Jablonski, WHMI broadcasts a classic rock hits format with local news, sports, traffic, and weather via a signal that covers all of Livingston County and reaching into the outskirts of the Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint and Lansing markets. When the station was launched in 1957, the Valentine's Day start-up was very fitting as the call letters, WHMI, stand for ``Heart of Michigan.'' The theme was drawn from an advertising campaign of the late 1950s that promoted Livingston County as a good place to live. WHMI has grown with the community and today reflects the pulse of Livingston County life. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring WHMI's 50th anniversary and in recognizing the station's contributions to the community it serves. The station, its owners and its staff are truly deserving of our respect and admiration.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, on the legislative day of January 22, 2007 the House voted on three measures under suspension of the rules. H. Res. 52, paying tribute to Reverend Waitstill Sharp and Martha Sharp, H.R. 390, to require the establishment of a national database in the National Archives to preserve records and H. Res. 29, supporting the goals and ideals of National Mentoring Month 2007. On rollcall votes Nos. 44, 45 and 46 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express concerns with the College Student Relief Act, which passed the House on January 17, 2007. As the author, while a Michigan State Senator, of legislation creating the Michigan Education Savings Plan, my commitment to helping families afford college has been a long-standing priority of my public service tenure. In fact, this program has helped thousands of Michigan families save for college expenses as well over 100,000 accounts have been opened since the program's inception. Unfortunately, for many families, their ability to save cannot keep pace with the rising costs of post-secondary education. For these families, student loans represent an integral piece to the higher education puzzle, which is why we, as policymakers, must ensure that our actions meet the twin goals of reducing the cost of, and increasing access to, a college education, The College Student Relief Act represents a short-term solution for student loan relief for a very specific group of student borrowers. This legislation reduces the student loan rate on only subsidized Stafford loans. It does not reduce the rates of undergraduate students borrowing from unsubsidized Stafford loans, nor does it provide relief to graduate students. Furthermore, this legislation does not permanently reduce student loan rates but cuts rates over five years, after which point they will go back to a higher interest rate, in effect providing only six months of relief. Lastly, I believe students must be provided with borrowing choices, and they should be able to borrow from lenders who provide the most affordable option for them and their families. A competitive student loan marketplace is central to lowering the longterm costs associated with higher education Rest assured, I will continue to work in Congress, must work, to help make college more affordable and attainable for every American family.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is a three-legged stool if we are going to get to energy independence. It is alternatives fuels, which there is great promise. There is also the expansion of refineries. We knew that early, and if we were going to have a stable supply and cheaper prices, we needed more refining capability in America. And it was domestic production. You need all three so that we do not send more money to Ahmadinejad and Chavez. Political theater is what we see here today. A bill that did not go through the committee process gives you this. I agree, giving $400 million to a CEO of which they had no material stake in a company is wrong, but what is worse is giving more money to the very people who are targeting the United States and seek our destruction. Do not fool yourself. This is where this money is going. You make it more expensive to refine gasoline in the United States, this bill does it, they will buy it offshore. You make it more expensive to produce energy in the United States, they will buy it offshore. These will be the recipients of these dollars. Let us take this bill back and go do it the right way. We can come together on renewable energy. Michigan State University is doing great work on cellulosic research, so we can get to that next generation of ethanol that burns efficiently in American-made automobiles. But we cannot do it if we are sending money to the very people that seek our destruction. Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge that we have a little common sense, we close the curtain to this political theater and we get back to the reality of what our policies will really mean for the future of this country. If you care about your children, stop sending the money to Ahmadinejad and Chavez.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. CBO said this will not save money. Something interesting happened. You had the chance, my friends on the other side of the aisle, in committee in the negotiation of this bill, had the chance to set prices, what this bill would do. And when you went out to set prices, you said we cannot do it. The private sector cannot do it for any cheaper than $35; so let's protect the American people, and we are going to put an amendment into this bill that sets those premiums at $35. Let me read just from the amendment that was offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle and, thankfully, didn't pass. It is to set the premium at $35 including, as it says here, for months in the subsequent year, and some legal hyperbole here, and then in the previous year increase by the annual percentage. So every year you were going to increase the prices because the government set the price at $35. If we had believed that price-setting was the answer in providing prescription drugs to families who needed it, who were making the decisions between food and prescription drugs, we would have increased their cost in my State by 100 percent. It doesn't work. You are empowering the same bureaucrats who came up with the $500 hammer, and you are asking them to go out and get into America's medicine cabinet. As a matter of fact, the ones that do it now, they are even telling you that you can't have certain drugs because it is too big for them. There are 4,300 different drugs, 55,000 different pharmacies; and when the Secretary right after 9/11 knew that they had to purchase Cipro, it took them over a month to negotiate the price because government isn't designed to be in the business of negotiating prices. They set prices, and it doesn't work very well. Why would we take away all of the savings that all of these seniors are enjoying today? And that is what you will do, just by your example. I would strongly encourage this body to reject price-setting and raising the cost of prescription drugs to our seniors around the country.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, please excuse my absence from the formal House of Representatives swearing in ceremony today as I was unavoidably detained while paying my respects to a fallen soldier from my district at his funeral in Arlington National Cemetery. I appreciate the opportunity to take my oath of office on my return to the U.S. Capitol.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act and specifically the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act. I would like to thank Chairman Barton, and the Energy and Commerce Committee staff for their support. I would also like to extend a special thanks to my colleague Congresswoman Anna Eshoo for her work on the issue. Biological weapons have been proven to work, are capable of causing massive disaster, are relatively cheap, and are increasingly easy to design, build and disseminate. The materials and technical know-how needed to make a bio-weapon that could infect hundreds of thousands of people are already widely distributed around the planet, and the number of people who possess the expertise needed to create bioweapons is rapidly growing as biotechnology and pharmaceutical research and production expand into developing countries. Preventing either a natural epidemic or a bioterrorist attack is, unfortunately, unlikely. Therefore, the Nation's ability to rapidly and effectively respond in the face of a bio-security crisis must be a central pillar in our bio-security strategy. Medicines and vaccines that can counter illnesses caused by exposure to bioterror agents are obviously an essential component of biodefense and would be critical to controlling the spread of contagious disease. This legislation will enable the government to better develop, procure, and make available countermeasures to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear agents for use in a public health emergency. Bioterror countermeasures for agents of terrorism have no market other than the government. This legislation will provide assurance to companies that the government is fully engaged and a willing and able business partner. This legislation will speed up the development and procurement process by reorganizing and enhancing these responsibilities into the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency, BARDA. 1. BARDA would create a single point of authority within government. 2. BARDA would streamline the approval and acquisition process to help bridge the ``valley of death'' for bio-pharmaceutical research. 3. BARDA is an aggressive partnering with universities, research institutions and industry on the advanced development of promising drugs and vaccines and would of these countermeasures. As the Chairman and my colleagues on both sides of our aisle know, the House passed version of this legislation also included specific authority under BioShield for HHS to enter into procurement contracts with multiple companies for multiple products and technologies. We all know from lessons learned that this is a complicated and uncertain process. These vaccines and other medical countermeasures are only in the early stage of development and history suggests that most will not be successfully developed or only a few will receive FDA approval. That is why the House-passed bill included a provision intended to direct a risk mitigation strategy that the Department not put all their eggs in one basket. Is it the understanding that while the bill passed by the Senate had no similar provision, that currently the BioShield statute provides authority for the Department to enter into multiple procurement contracts for products and technologies for the development and acquisition of countermeasures and that this is an important risk mitigation strategy for the government. I have been in communication with Senator Burr and he agrees with this policy. I urge your support of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of the Lake Orion Review newspaper on the occasion of its 125th anniversary of service to the Oakland County community of Lake Orion, Michigan. The Lake Orion Review is also the oldest surviving business in Lake Orion. The Review was established on December 24, 1881, known simply as the Orion Review with the original slogan: ``Independent in Everything-- Neutral in Nothing.'' At that time, the community was home to only 400 citizens. Today, the Review circulates to about 35,000 readers and the community continues to grow and prosper, with numerous new businesses and families calling Lake Orion home. The weekly newspaper was originally published by John Neal, Joseph Patterson and Frank Sutton, in the rear of Lou Warner's store on North Broadway Street. When hard times hit during the Great Depression, the newspaper's demise seemed written on the wall. Apparently someone erased the premature obituary, because today the Lake Orion Review, published by Sherman Publications, is regarded as a beacon and trusted friend of the community. The Review has received multiple honors from the Michigan Press Association over the years, and enjoys a positive relationship with its readers and local news sources. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Lake Orion Review on its 125th anniversary and congratulating the staff for its continuing dedication to integrity, fairness and balanced news coverage for the community and its people. They are truly deserving of our respect and admiration.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise today to echo the strong support for H.R. 6164. I want to thank Chairman Barton and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Chairman Deal, committee staff, everybody who put so much of their heart and soul into this bill, including my legislative assistant, Kelly Childress, who spent hours helping us put some of the provisions in this bill and the bill that was just before us. This legislation does a lot of great things. The chairman of the committee stated why the NIH is our crown jewel. This bill does something very, very important. It is going to get more money to the people doing the research who come up with the solutions for so many ailments in this country. No other nation in the world has this kind of intellectual power in one place working to solve some of our most challenging health care problems. This bill accomplishes great things to that end. I want to highlight one thing, if I may, a provision that for the first time addresses pain and palliative care. It is long overdue, but it is here. Fifty million Americans are either partially or completely disabled because of acute or chronic pain, and for the first time we elevate it in the eyes of NIH so they can study it. I always say lend me your EAR: Education, Access and Research can happen now because of this bill and because of the work of this House in a bipartisan way to reach out to 50 million Americans who suffer from pain, for people who suffer cancer and diabetes and arthritis and HIV-AIDS. The list is long. This House gives them hope tonight. I want to say thank you to all who have put so much in it. This will make a difference in Americans' lives for now and in the future. I commend everybody who had a piece of it.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5533, the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2006. I would like to thank Chairman Barton and Chairman Deal and the Energy Committee staff for their continued support on this effort. I want to thank my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, and her staff for your commitment, your energy, your counsel and your enthusiasm to get this bill as far as we have come. Thank you very much. It has been a joy to work with you. And I have to say at the time of this intense pre-election partisanship, I am thankful that we might serve as an example to many, that you can reach across the aisle to pass important legislation that affects the American people so deeply as their future security, the security of their children and their families and the well-being of the United States of America. Thank you for working with us. I appreciated the opportunity to do that. I would also like to recognize the administration and their willingness to work with us to build upon Project BioShield, of which they really led the charge. We found that it was not sufficient, it needed some improvement, but it was very forward leaning of this President to come out and establish for the first time BioShield, knowing that the threat was real from terrorists around the country and trying to develop at least a program that would deal with the bioterror threat to the United States. They have been so willing to work with us in finding out what worked and what did not work and this second round we think improves BioShield dramatically and really has to happen if we are going to have protection against biothreats in the future. The efforts include both offensive and defensive ways to find new developments and better treatments for those infected by bioterrorist attacks and naturally occurring attacks, as was mentioned by the mention of the bird flu. The problems that we have discovered in looking at BioShield was that there was no single point of authority within HHS for the advanced research and development of countermeasures and quick procurement decisions, and, really, there is only one customer for these type of vaccines, and this is the place where we found some difficulty. There is really only one customer, and that customer is the people of the United States, the government of the United States. With a single source contract it is very hard to attract venture capital, very hard to get private industry excited about developing something if they did not know where the Federal Government was going to be when it came to purchasing something that we are the only ones that were going to buy it, a hard place to be. So we came up with the single point of authority to make quick decisions; and the Valley of Death takes a long time, 8 to 12 years, to develop these vaccines, very labor intensive, a lot of intellectual power applied to coming up with the right vaccine to be the right prophylactic for what we know is a bioterrorism or natural-occurring event. That Valley of Death, because we are the single source of those contracts, was very real and stalling what we know is great research to happen for the cure and the development of these vaccines. Also, we found that it did not motivate academic researchers, drug and vaccine manufacturers and other possible partners to commit substantial resources. What this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is address all those issues and gives us a framework to go forward and bring out the best in our scientific community, our academic community, our producing community to come up with the right safety net for the protection of the United States when it comes to bioterror threats and natural occurring threats in and around our societies, which we know is already here, bird flu mentioned, but we also know the real threat of bioterrorism as well. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we could encourage the Senate to take our lead here and set aside any partisanship that may arise in the course of this bill in the Senate and take quick action. This really means the safety and security of every family in this country. Bioterrorism is, unfortunately, a reality in 2006 and beyond; and they need to set aside any differences they may have in the Senate and take this bill up. So I would encourage Senate Democrat leadership to do just that. I would also commend Senator Byrd, who has created this bipartisan product, and urge they move this product as soon as possible. And I would also urge, Mr. Speaker, that this important piece of legislation be passed as quickly as possible.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, today is really an important day because what we celebrate today are those people who sacrificed of themselves and gave of their all to save the lives of someone else, and that is the real difference between us and our enemy. We celebrate those who save lives. They celebrate those who take lives. That is the difference to remember. Al Qaeda has a very radical plan, and this attack was not just to poke America in the eye and to kill our civilians. It was to obtain a goal, a goal that they had publicly stated, a tale of faith that ranges from all of the Mideast, northern Africa, southern parts of Europe, including Spain and Indonesia. This is a war not only of ideology but about a political geography that they believe they own and they are willing to kill Jews and Christians and men and women and Muslims to get it. Amrullah Saleh visited the United States. He is now head of the intelligence services in Afghanistan, and he said when he was visiting here, ``Only we in Afghanistan have seen what happens when Osama bin Laden is king or prime minister or commander-in-chief of a nation. Our freedom, our culture, our way of life was completely taken from us.'' Under the Taliban, it was against the law to teach women to read or to drive. They could not go outside unless they were escorted by a male relative. They had burned buses because they were a modern necessity. They could not listen to music, watch movies or television, shave or use the Internet. Osama bin Laden said, ``The war is for you or for us to win. If we win, it means your defeat and your disgrace forever.'' Strong words by a cowardly enemy, but we know that threat is real, and sometimes we get lost in the haggling when we all know that this is the time that we pull together and celebrate those who celebrate life, pull together against those who celebrate death. Today is our day that we rededicate ourselves to the task of protecting and defending this Nation against a vicious and merciless enemy. We must not forget and we must do what it takes to prevail against those perpetrators of 9/11. This is what we commemorate in today's resolution, and I would urge all of us to remember who the enemy is

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Sergeant Raymond Plouhar, who gave the ultimate sacrifice for his Nation on June 26, 2006, while serving in Iraq. What follows is an inspirational poem Sergeant Plouhar wrote before he was killed in the line of duty. This is who I am This is me, this is who I am I am a Marine to the very end I live by the motto that is Semperi Fi I come to countries in far off lands to fight for freedom for which most are to scared to stand Do not judge me for what I do for what I do I do for you I will kill for those who cannot kill I will die for those too scared to I will leave my loved ones, my kids, my wife I will leave them all behind to give you a better life I have seen and done things that will haunt my dreams I have given up many things for you to be free Do not feel pity for me, for this is my choice I chose this life so people like you can have a voice I will die on my feet, I will not live on my knees I will do this so America can stay free This is me, this is who I am I am a Marine to the very end.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman and Mr. Dingell for working so hard and so long to help us put this bill together, as did Mrs. Miller and Mr. Stupak. When many people across the country think of Canada, they think of great trading partners and great allies. They think of hockey great Wayne Gretzky, Michael J. Fox, Shania Twain, all great contributions to our society here and good neighbors. But when the people from Michigan think about Canada, we don't have that luxury. We think about trash and Canadian trash. We think about PCBs, soiled coffin waste and medical waste. We think of the loss of half of our landfill capacity in Michigan to Canadian imports of household municipal waste. That is what it looks like and that is where it comes, to the great State of Michigan. There is no value added to it. It comes and is thrown into a hole. Because of the fact that they are consuming our landfill capacity, and coming to a neighborhood near you, my great State of Michigan is a landfill. This bill, with the work of so many people, will stop the flow of Canadian waste. It will give Michigan citizens, and every citizen across the country in their own States, the ability to make the determination if they want to take this trash in their landfills. Just a week ago they talked about, as they have since this bill was first introduced in 2001, the Canadians said we will reduce the trash and try to get to our 100 percent recycling rate and we will get back to you. The problem was since that last verbal promise to do that, 5,500 equivalent garbage trucks have come over the bridge in the last week. That is 288,000 garbage truck equivalents coming across our bridge every year for the foreseeable future. It is 11 million cubic yards a year ending up in Michigan landfills. Why are we concerned about that? You can see on the far chart there is human blood dripping out of the back of that truck. You can imagine what chaos that caused when that truck was coming across the bridge. We had testimony by a Michigan State police officer that they believed that there may have even been a human body in that truck. They stopped it and searched it, and what they found was not a human body, but human medical waste. That is one mosquito away from an epidemic. It is dangerous and illegal. We have no way of knowing what other medical waste is in those trucks. It is impossible to inspect them. This is really a good-neighbor policy. This says we love our Canadian friends to the north. We want to continue with the most robust trading partner we have in the world, but good neighbors don't throw their trash in another person's yard; and they have been doing it for a long time. This bill is important for a couple of reasons. It is balanced. It is balanced because it directs the EPA to implement the existing U.S.- Canadian Transboundary agreement; but it also, more importantly, gives the State of Michigan and every State the ability to make their own determination if those trucks should continue at that rate coming into our landfills in the great State of Michigan. It allows Michigan citizens to be good stewards of their environment. There is no better place to place that trust and legal authority and that binding agreement than in the hands of these Michigan citizens. Mr. Speaker, those PCBs, that blood, we even found illegal drugs coming across in those trucks, as well as soiled coffin waste. It is all living proof of what we have endured over these last years. Today is the day we will stand up and tell our good friends the Canadians we are tired of getting their trash in the State of Michigan. Let us be good stewards of our environment. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his hard work and all he has done to bring us to this point and put all of the right people in the room to make this happen. I thank Mr. Dingell for working with us and Candice Miller for pushing this vote. This is a vote that will send a very clear signal to our Canadian friends that we won't put up with political promises, that we want real action and we want it now.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of Brigadier General Robert Taylor as he retires after nearly 40 years of service with the United States Army and the Michigan Army National Guard. I thank General Taylor on behalf of those individuals who have benefitted from his time, contributions, and leadership abilities. Robert Taylor began his career in the Michigan Army National Guard in 1964, where he served 3 years as a Military Police enlisted soldier. Soon after, he was commissioned a Second Lieutenant, Military Police Corps in June of 1969. He has held command and staff assignments in the 146th Military Police Battalion, 1st Battalion 119th Field Artillery 38th Infantry Division, 72nd Rear Area Operations Center, and Commander, Recruiting Command, Michigan Army National Guard. During his over 40 years of service, he has been promoted to several, senior staff assignments. Some of these prestigious assignments included positions as Deputy Chief of Staff Operations, Chief of Staff, Michigan National Guard, and in October of 1993, he was promoted to General Officer as the Assistant Adjutant General, Army. General Taylor held the position of Commanding General, 46th Military Police Command for the Michigan National Guard from June 1, 2004 until June 29, 2006, at which time he reverted to sole duty as the Assistant Adjutant General for the Army. In this assignment, Taylor was responsible for the wartime readiness of over 8,300 soldiers of the Michigan Army National Guard. Brigadier General Taylor's dedication to upholding the principles of the United States Army, and his continued work on behalf of the people in his community, is a testament to his strength of character. General Taylor's years of service in the Army and his dedicated work on behalf of his country are honorable. His decorated medals include the Federal Legion of Merit, the Federal Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the State of Michigan Distinguished Service Medal, and the State of Michigan Legion of Merit Medal. In addition, Taylor has been awarded the Department of the Army Staff Identification Badge and currently serves as the Chairman of the Board, National Guard Association of the United States. General Taylor's academic background includes a Bachelor's Degree in Management from Spring Arbor University. His military education includes the Military Police Office Basic Course, the Field Artillery Officer Basic and Career Course, the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and the Senior Reserve Component course at the Army War College. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring General Robert Taylor's exceptional service to America. May he know that his Nation is greatly appreciative for his tireless work.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate it. I want to compliment Mr. Conaway from Texas for his introduction and pushing this bill, H.R. 5611, to the forefront. It is an important part of what we are doing in this House. We get to the point where Asia has used more oil last year than North America, and India is yet to come online fully in its oil consumption. There is only going to be more pressure on the oil produced around the world. So this House has taken some important steps to try to steady our supply. We have invested in the policy changes for domestic production and expansion of our refinery capability. We have invested in alternative fuels, not only in research and development but trying to make sure there is refining capability for ethanol across the country. Lastly, we talk about conservation, when I recall back to being a young child and my parents coming home and telling us about President Nixon's challenge to every American to lower their thermostat in their house to help conserve energy, and it worked. What this bill does is really present some very commonsense options for all of us that we get to follow. It is a true partnership from all of the players who have really the most to gain by conservation. It will lower demand, number one; and it will reduce our dependency on foreign oil, number two. They are small, commonsense things that we can do individually that add up to big solutions. That is what is important about this bill. Just a few examples, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Replacing your clogged air filter can improve your car's gas mileage by as much as 10 percent. You can improve gas mileage by around 3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure. You can increase your gas mileage by 2 percent by using the recommended grade of motor oil by your car's manufacturer. These are commonsense, simple things. But Americans need to understand how important those small things are in adding up to big savings of barrels of oil consumed every year, which means, at the end of the day, lower prices, less dependence on foreign oil. Every family has sat at the table and talked about the consumption of their budget by gas prices. If you stop to fill up your pump on the way to take your kids to school, or to go to work, or run an errand, you know how painful it is today. If we continue on the path of this House with good energy policy and domestic supply and alternative fuels, and individual conservation, Mr. Speaker, we will ensure that we have an energy supply for the future that is both affordable and meets the demands of an American economy that is on the move.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, many thanks to the staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Mr. Boucher as well, who helped and assisted along the way, and Mr. Fossella from New York for helping put this legislation together. I can't tell you how timely it is. Every day, Americans must fill up their cars with gasoline that comes from some of the most unstable regions of the world. American dollars flow to dictators, despots, and committed enemies of the United States, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Ahmadinejad of Iran and Obasanjo of Nigeria. However, we do have other options, and that is the exciting news. Today, nearly 5 million Americans drive flex-fuel vehicles. These cars are capable of running on gasoline or renewable fuels, like E-85, which is 85 percent ethanol; and that number is growing. Currently, Ford, General Motors and Daimler Chrysler are in the process of announcing that they would be soon producing 2 million flex- fuel vehicles annually. The fastest way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to make ethanol, the fuel that is grown right here in the United States, available to Americans all across the country. Unfortunately, renewable-fuels infrastructure has not kept pace with the number of renewable-fueled cars on the road. Today, only 600 or so gasolines have E-85 pumps installed, consisting of less than 1 percent of all gas stations. In fact, only 34 States even have E-85 pumps available to the motoring public. We have come up with a good solution for that, a kick-start, if you will, to the ethanol revolution that is about to take hold of America. Remember our choices are this, Madam Speaker: we can send that money to an Iranian ayatollah, or we can send our fuel money to an American farmer. Today, we start that process of allowing consumers to make a good choice and send it to an American farmer. Each year, there are automobile companies who pay fines because they are not in compliance with CAFE standards in the United States, and those fines come to the general treasury. What we have done is to take those CAFE fines, fines that they pay for not meeting fuel economy standards of the United States, and roll it over and allow small loans to independent gas station owners all across the country to install ethanol pumps. We think that this can double the number of ethanol pumps next year and start to fuel the fire for private investment in ethanol all across the United States and meet a demand from 5 million current users and 2 million future units from Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors cars all across this great country. The one thing that we have figured out in this whole process, there is a great researcher at Michigan State University, Dr. Bruce Dale, who believes that within 5 to 6 years with his continuing cellulosic research and other things, there can be an ethanol product at the pump for $1.25 a gallon. $1.25 a gallon. That is an economy built entirely on the energy of the United States. We are going to build the refineries here that refine the ethanol product. We are going to transport that fuel to the pumps all across America and we are going to produce those cars right here in the United States. It is good for the environment. And it is good for reducing our demand on foreign oil. Madam Speaker, I think this is long overdue. The science of this is so exciting. We are right on the edge of turning the corner, not only from corn-based, but from switch grass and other things. It is all right here. This is just part of that three-legged stool. It is the research and development. It is the ability, as we passed not so long ago, the energy bill that gave incentives for more ethanol refineries all across the country of some 93, four being built in Michigan, being built all over the United States is starting to catch on. The last leg of that stool to make this successful is distribution. And this is that kick-start that we so desperately need. Again, Madam Speaker, we think this is an important bill at an important time in our history. We can see the conflicts around the world, how it draws us in to some of the worst governments the world has to offer. This is our chance in America to stand up for our American farmers, for our ingenuity, for our ability to produce clean burning fuel for the cars that we use in this wheeled economy of ours. We can move forward through innovation. This bill is that kick start that is so desperately needed to do it. Madam Speaker, these grants will be for no more than $30,000 to $60,000 per business for the purpose of expanding the availability of alternative fuel infrastructure. There is no new program here. That is really important. We did not create a new program to do this. This is part of the Clean Cities Program. We just redirected their purpose a little bit. Madam Speaker, there are no taxpayer dollars involved. All of the money involved is by the fines paid. In addition, Madam Speaker, in an e-mail received by the Congressional Budget Office dated July 19, 2006, it states that ``this would not affect direct spending; in other words, it has no cost.'' Madam Speaker, I urge the quick passage of this bill as we move to the next phase of how we operate our motor vehicles all across this great country, and how we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam 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 on the bill.