Jackie Speier

Mr. Chairman, this really should be our Bible in this committee.

This is not sufficient from our purposes or for our low-income consumers to provide adequate funding.

As Ranking Member Speier mentioned, doubling the fuel economy of passenger vehicles by 2025 will reduce gasoline purchases by $8,000 over the life of a 2025 car.

I agree with Mr. Trisko and Ms. Carmody that those concerned about the impact of energy prices on lower-income households should restore the recent funding cuts in the Weatherization and Low Income Home Energy Assistance Programs.

The Department of Energy set efficiency standards for nearly 40 different appliances, including washing machines and refrigerators, that together will, quote, 'save consumers nearly $350 billion on their energy bills through 2030,' unquote.

This particular report of high-risk problems in the U.S. Government should be something that every member of this committee is familiar with.

There is $2 to $3 billion... we would be in a position to really say we are saving people money in this country.

This really should be our Bible in this committee.

The $1.6 billion funding cut for LIHEAP is less than the $2.4 billion a year that the Big Five oil companies received in special tax breaks.

Only 16 percent of those households that qualify for LIHEAP assistance actually apply for and receive it.

If we're really trying to help the low-income people in this country not spend 20 percent of their income on energy, LIHEAP is part of the solution; is it not?

No matter who controls the White House, oversight of the executive branch is fundamentally a responsibility of Congress.

The fact that the Air Force wasted $1 billion on the Expeditionary Combat Support System... we kept allowing it to continue to foment.

We, as a Congress, have got to take some blame for what is going on; and I think this committee is poised to do the right thing.

Unless we start, as a committee, requiring accountability in these various departments, nothing is going to happen.

I certainly agree with you that the only solution--if you have identified a predator and you have a--some kind of judicial process that--the research is very clear that there is very little that can be done to rehabilitate predators.

An individual who is serving as a military training instructor who has a relationship like this with a trainee has no place in our Air Force.

I am deeply concerned about the failure to have appropriate procedural and investigatory protections of alleged victims of sexual assault.

But knowing that, don't we have a greater obligation in the military to make sure that these individuals that prey on victims, trainees in this case, over and over again, get taken out?

So we can reduce--even though this is a felony, even though this is a crime, if you have been an exemplary soldier, then we are going to reduce the sentence.

How can the USAF live up to its vision when the outward appearance of the Service is that it has recruited individuals that think it is acceptable to engage in behavior that runs counter of that vision?

This month the Air Force Academy reported that sexual abuse and assault reports have increased significantly to 65 during the last academic year compared to 41 the year prior.

I would like to encourage you to speak with your counterparts in the U.K. to see how their system works

I am introducing a bill today that will basically say no longer can a consensual relationship between a training instructor and a trainee be used as a defense for the acts of the training instructor.

I am deeply concerned about the allegations of misconduct and the impact on our service members.