Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007

I would like to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is our duty to do all we can to provide future generations a better world in which to live. Our Nation has made great strides in protecting human health and the environment, but there is still much more to do. We must continue to decrease carbon emissions and invest in multiple forms of energy-efficient technologies to help preserve the environment and lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources.

For our national security, we must make investments to increase clean energy sources and increase domestic energy supplies. From 2001 to 2006, Republican-led Congresses invested nearly $12

billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable domestic energy sources. They included the development of biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, advanced hybrid and plug-in, hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies, wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies.

The underlying legislation, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, further promotes research and development into next-generation energy resources such as solar, wind, geothermal and marine energy. Furthermore, it authorizes almost $3 billion for energy storage and development programs to make renewable energy sources more effective. But we must keep in mind that right now, alternative fuels will not eliminate the need for traditional energy sources, and without additional supply, the tight market conditions that have put pressure on prices are going to persist.

I am pleased that incentives for the domestic production of oil and gas have been retained in this final legislation. These incentives are aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by encouraging domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas. Removal of these incentives, which were included in earlier versions of this legislation, would have driven up the costs of oil and natural gas to American consumers even further and increased our dependence on foreign suppliers such as the strongman/clown in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

I am also pleased that a provision that would have taxed domestic oil companies at higher rates than the Chavez-controlled oil company was removed.

This legislation also provides for the H-Prize. The H-Prize will award cash prices to individuals, universities and businesses making significant advances in the field of hydrogen energy. Hydrogen is a clean domestic energy source that produces no emissions other than water. The use of hydrogen as an energy source will simultaneously reduce dependence on foreign oil and emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

Unfortunately, this bill has taken almost a year to make it to the President's desk because the majority decided to shut out the minority from deliberations for much of the year. When this bill first came before the House in the opening days of the 110th Congress, the majority blocked all amendments with a closed rule. In August when we considered H.R. 3221, the majority shut out over 90 amendments and allowed only five minority amendments out of 23 amendments. Just last week, we considered Senate amendments to H.R. 6, and once again the majority blocked the minority from providing amendments. If the majority had just decided to follow its campaign promise and allow the minority to participate in the formulation of this legislation, this bill could have been signed into law months ago.

I would also point out that the majority brings this legislation to the floor as a Senate amendment instead of as a conference report. As such, it fits into one of the loopholes of the majority's earmark rule, just as it did last week. Because the earmark rule did not apply to the legislation last week, it wasn't possible to find out that the bill contained earmarks until after the bill passed the House. So we wonder if the legislation we are considering today also contains earmarks. Unfortunately, we will not know, because the legislation is not subject to the earmark rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

It is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule, while closing the loopholes we have found over the last few months.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or a report or a statement there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.

However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill.

The earmark rule is also not applicable when the majority uses a procedure to accept ``amendments between the Houses'' such as they plan to do with the underlying legislation. Because the energy bill is not a conference report,

the bill will fall squarely within one of the loopholes to the earmark rule and the rules of the House will not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be contained in the legislation.

I would like to direct all Members to a letter that House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, recently sent to House Rules Committee Chairwoman Slaughter which confirms what we have been saying since January that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on

how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that

waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the

rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill

or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or

joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''

to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

The same would be true in the more common case of a

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule

XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability

of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object

of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the

question whether a special rule waives the application of

clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any

application.

In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

points of order except those arising under that rule--when

none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its

negative implication would be that such a point of order

might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

except those that can only arise in the case of a general

appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this

area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

response is to be shared among all members of the committee.

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan,

Parliamentarian.

This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule. I urge my colleagues to close this loophole in the earmark rule by opposing the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 877 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 877.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H. Res. 877 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 6, to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, and to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options. In short, it's a comprehensive energy bill.

The rule makes in order a motion by the majority leader that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The rule waives all points of order against the motion except clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, this is historic legislation. Today, we will move from a policy of dependence on foreign oil, a policy of endless drilling, to a policy of independence and efficiency. It's a policy that is overdue. It's overdue for the health of the American economy, the health of the world environment, and for the strengthening of our foreign policy options.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the American economy is being hit very hard by spiraling fuel prices. Around the country, families are sitting around their kitchen tables wondering how they are going to afford their fuel bills this winter. In December of 2002, just a few years ago, the price of a gallon of gas was $1.48. It's now $3.09. Five years ago, in Vermont it cost a family about $600 to heat their homes. Now, it's about $1,500.

Our current energy policy of spiraling costs, environmental degradation, and increasing dependence on people who are not particularly our friends is weakening America, harming our environment, and stretching the budgets of our families.

Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses each and every one of these problems. It's fiscally responsible. It starts by repealing some, but not all, of the big oil and gas tax giveaways and reinvests that money to ensure energy independence. It increases fuel efficiency standards, and this is probably the single most important provision of this bill. The last time this Congress increased fuel efficiency standards was 32 years ago, and since that time the American auto industry has lost market share. The cost of operating a car has increased. What this bill does, which is historic, is increase the mileage standards by 40 percent so that the fleet-wide average in 2020 will be 35 miles per gallon.

That is the first real step toward fuel efficiency in those 32 years. It's going to save American families $700 to $1,000 at the pump; it's going to produce $22 billion in net annual savings for consumers by 2020; and through the application in this legislation of efficiency standards, which essentially is that you make a toaster that uses less rather than more energy, and other appliances the same, it's going to save consumers $400 billion through 2030.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is long overdue, and it is a declaration of independence from the old energy policy that had us relying on people who were not our friends to supply us oil that we were addicted to, at prices that we could no longer afford. Today, we are going to turn the corner, and the American people are going to see direct results in our economy, in our environment, and in our security as a result of this landmark legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Mr. Markey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas was expressing his concern about the impact on American families with the ever-escalating cost of gasoline, the ever-escalating cost of home heating fuel. Certainly you are no stranger in your job to the impact of that on our budget, trying to find money for the low-income heating assistance program. All of us have constituents that experience the kind of pain the gentleman from Texas is describing.

The problem is the policy we have pursued has resulted in endless consumption, endless escalation of prices, and constant dependence on the Persian Gulf folks who are not really our friends. If there is a metaphor for what has been the American energy policy through many administrations, one of dependence, of drilling and drilling, consumption and wastefulness, it was a photograph that appeared in the New York Times in April of 2005.

At that time there was an emerging sense that the cost of energy was having an enormously negative impact on our families. The cost of gasoline had risen over $2 a gallon. That price now seems quite wonderful; but in an effort to deal with it, the President of the United States invited the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to Crawford and invited him there for discussions. And the picture on the front page of the paper was of the President of the United States and the Crown Prince holding hands going into the President's home to discuss energy policy. And the request by the President on behalf of the American people to the Crown Prince was that they raise production, in order, theoretically, to lower prices. Well, you know what? That's the same policy that we've pursued for generations, raise production, drill more, leave control in the hands, many times, of foreign countries that have very little regard for the long-term interests of the American people.

It's a policy that has not worked and is running into the dead-end reality that there are limits on how much fossil fuels we can drill. There's damage to the environment, and the cost is ever escalating as the demand for this commodity increases with the growth in economies in India, China, and the rest of the emerging world.

That was a photograph of dependence. This energy bill is about turning the corner and being the self-confident Nation that we should be, that within our own borders, with the resources and technical skills of our people, with what can be done in the agriculture sector, the engineering sector, that we can actually take resources that are immediately available to us, that are renewable, and we can transform them into the energy that our families need to drive their cars to and from day care, to get to and from work; that we can transform that into the energy that our industries need in order to produce, manufacture, and create jobs for the American people.

And the side benefit, and a central goal, is that it can, as it must, dramatically reduce the carbon emissions that are polluting this world and threatening our planetary future. That is a real crisis that requires immediate action.

We have a responsibility to the families that the gentleman from Texas mentioned to do everything that we can to make it affordable for them to do what they have to do to raise their families, to get to work. And we all jointly have a responsibility to the environment because it is our obligation, very simply, that we leave this planet as clean, hopefully cleaner than, as when we found it. The path that we're on has been one of further degradation. The path we're choosing is one of renewal and redemption. This is good for jobs. It's good for the environment. It's good for securing America's foreign policy independence.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 877

Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall he considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) the amendment printed in section 5,

if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee,

which shall be in order without intervention of any point of

order or demand for division of the question, shall he

considered as read and shall be separately debatable for

forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as

follows:

Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following:

(1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or''

at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the

end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding

the following at the end:

``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between

the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to

an order of the House, unless the Majority Leader or his

designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited

tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and

amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident

Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective

item in such list) or a statement that the proposition

contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or

limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional

Record prior to its consideration.''.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for allowing me to speak.

I have to admit, it is not very often I follow my colleague from Massachusetts and support a lot of what he said. The legislation before us today is the result of almost a year of hard work

and negotiation to compromise by the new majority to produce an energy bill that helps address the serious concern of climate change in our Nation.

For the first time in over 30 years, Democrats increase the fuel economy standards by 40 percent, as well as increase energy efficiency requirements and promote research and development of alternative sources of energy.

Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and Chairman Dingell deserve special praise for their work in crafting this historic legislation.

Almost as important as what is included is what is not included. H.R. 6 omitted provisions from the previous energy bills that I feared could raise the cost of energy for consumers, including a Federal renewable electricity standard, new taxes on the energy industry outside of those carefully negotiated in the original H.R. 6 from January of this year that could tilt the competitive playing field against U.S. companies, and provisions that could hamper domestic oil and natural gas production. These changes are commendable and represent a more balanced proposal which I support.

What was unfortunately omitted was the opportunity to create a balanced energy policy that invests in our energy future without ignoring America's energy needs today. Energy security cannot be achieved by alternative energy and conservation alone.

The Energy Information Administration predicts that natural gas, oil, and coal will comprise approximately the same share of our total energy supply in 2030 as they did in 2005, even with new investments in renewable sources of energy.

Comprehensive energy legislation must be enacted that will increase America's domestic energy supply, particularly clean-burning natural gas which will play a critical role in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

What's also lacking was the debate on renewable fuel standards, RFS, a provision not moved through the regular process of the House and that lacks a clear mechanism to reduce the mandate prior to taking effect in the case of environmental challenges, technological, feasibility or supply issues, or other adverse consequences.

There is no shortage of literature detailing the negative environmental impacts of corn-based ethanol, its questionable greenhouse gas emission reductions, its reduced fuel efficiency, and its effect on food and energy prices.

I hope in a few years down the road we don't find ourselves asking whether the supposed cure for our oil addiction is not worse than the disease.

In closing, I believe as Democrats we can craft a sensible energy policy that actually enhances our energy security. I hope our House leadership will continue to try to work with Democrats and Republicans together to address America's need to produce additional domestic energy, both conventional and renewable, and to ensure the reliability and affordability of our Nation's critical energy supplies.

[From the Houston Chronicle, Dec. 8, 2007]

Energy Policy

The energy bill passed by the U.S. House last week is more

a political statement than a blueprint for U.S. energy

policy. Titled the Energy Independence and Security Act, it

misses many chances to attain those goals.

The bill's best feature is the requirement that automakers

have a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. The measure's

proponents say the higher mileage standard would save the

United States 1.1 million barrels of oil per day--about half

of what the country imports from the Persian Gulf. With

populations and demand for energy growing, more efficient

cars and SUVs are essential.

The bill's reliance on the use of ethanol to cut crude

imports is suspect, however. Most ethanol here is made from

corn. The present mandate for gasoline blenders to use

ethanol has driven up food prices, but the nation hasn't

enjoyed a significant net gain in energy. The bill aims to

force the development of efficient cellulosic ethanol, but

the technology might be slow in coming. If House Democrats

wanted to increase use of efficiently made ethanol, they

would eliminate the tariff on imported ethanol made from

sugar cane.

A requirement that utilities produce 15 percent of their

electricity from renewable sources is arbitrary and does not

suit every locality, but it would prompt market solutions.

Texas, one of the leading producers of wind power, has a 5

percent renewable requirement, and the state's economy and

consumers have benefited.

President Bush has voiced objection to the bill's new taxes

applied to the oil industry, and he has good reason. Does it

make sense to raise the tax burden on the companies that

produce and distribute the energy the nation's prosperity

rests on? The oil industry should be taxed as near as

possible in the same manner as other corporations.

If Congress wanted to increase domestic oil and gas

production, as it should, it would allow responsible drilling

on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. There is no reason the

Gulf of Mexico should bear the strain of providing the

nation's only offshore energy.

Perhaps one day the Democrats and Republicans in the House

and Senate will agree on a compromise that would enhance

efficiency and the nation's energy supply. For that to

happen, both parties must decide policy based on the common

good rather than on narrow competing interests.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was unable to travel to Washington, DC, for votes during the week of December 17, 2007.

However, I would have recorded the following votes on the rollcall votes which I missed. They included:

December 17, 2007

(1) H. Res. 856--Rollcall No. 1163--Expressing the heartfelt sympathy for the victims and families of the shootings in Omaha, Nebraska, on Wednesday, December 5, 2007--``yes.''

(2) H. Res. 851--Rollcall No. 1164--Honoring local and state first responders, and the citizens of the Pacific Northwest in facing the severe winter storm of December 2 and 3, 2007--``yes.''

(3) Previous Question--Rollcall No. 1165--On ordering the previous question to H. Res. 873--``yes.''

(4) H. Res. 873--Rollcall No. 1166--Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules--``yes.''

(5) H. Con. Res. 271--Rollcall No. 1167--Providing for the sine die adjournment of the first session of the One Hundred Tenth Congress-- ``no.''

(6) Previous Question--Rollcall No. 1168--On ordering the previous question to H. Res. 878--``yes.''

(7) H. Res. 878--Rollcall No. 1169--Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes-- ``yes.''

(8) H.R. 4286--Rollcall No. 1170--To award a congressional gold medal to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in recognition of her courageous and unwavering commitment to peace, nonviolence, human rights, and democracy in Burma--``yes.''

(9) 1st Senate Amendment to H.R. 2764--Rollcall No. 1171--On motion to agree to the Senate amendment with the 1st House amendment--``yes.''

(10) 2nd Senate Amendment to H.R. 2764--Rollcall No. 1172--On motion to agree to the Senate amendment with the 2nd House amendment--``yes.''

(11) H. Con. Res. 254--Rollcall No. 1173--Recognizing and celebrating the centennial of Oklahoma statehood--``yes.''

december 18, 2007

(1) Previous Question--Rollcall No. 1174--On ordering the previous question to H.R. 877--``yes.''

(2) H. Res. 877--Rollcall No. 1175--Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6) to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes--``yes.''

(3) H.R. 3793--Rollcall No. 1176--To amend title 37, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to continue to pay to a member of the Armed Forces who is retired or separated from the Armed Forces due to a combat-related injury certain bonuses that the member was entitled to before the retirement or separation and would continue to be entitled to if the member was not retired or separated--``yes.''

(4) H.R. 6--Rollcall No. 1177--To reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes--``yes.''

(5) H.R. 2761--Rollcall No. 1178--To extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes-- ``yes.''

(6) S. 2271--Rollcall No. 1179--To authorize State and local governments to divest assets in companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies, and for other purposes--``yes.''

(7) H. Res. 542--Rollcall No. 1180--Expressing the unconditional support of the House of Representatives for the members of the National Guard--``yes.''

(8) H. Res. 884--Rollcall No. 1181--Providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3997, with an amendment-- ``yes.''

(9) H.R. 3690--Rollcall No. 1182--To provide for the transfer of the Library of Congress police to the United States Capitol Police, and for other purposes--``yes.''

december 19, 2007

(1) H.R. 3996--Rollcall No. 1183--To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes-- ``no.''

(2) S. 2499--Rollcall No. 1184--To amend titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act to extend provisions under the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP programs, and for other purposes--``yes.''

(3) H.R. 4040--Rollcall No. 1185--To establish consumer product safety standards and other safety requirements for children's products and to reauthorize and modernize the Consumer Product Safety Commission--``yes.''

(4) H.R. 2764--Rollcall No. 1186--Making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes--``no.''

I thank the gentleman from Vermont.

Ladies and gentlemen, today is an historic day. It is the day when we begin to take seriously the issue of energy dependency and the issue of global warming.

The legislation that we have before us today is the culmination of a vision which Speaker Pelosi had as she was sworn in almost 1 year ago. She announced at that time that her goal was to make a huge down payment on the issue of energy independence and global warming. Today, we vote to pass the legislation which will send a signal not only to the citizens of our country but to the citizens of the world that our Nation is now serious about these issues.

I want to compliment Chairman John Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee for his statesmanship and leadership on these issues throughout this year.

I want to compliment all of the Members on both sides who have worked so hard to bring us to this point. It has not been easy.

For this decade, I have worked very hard in order to raise by 10 miles per gallon the fuel economy standard of the vehicles of our country. Back in 1985 we reached a peak of about 27 miles per gallon. Since that time, we have gone backwards. In fact, during that period of time we have actually seen an increase in America's dependence on imported oil go from 27 percent of the oil which we consume in our country to 61 percent of the oil that we consume in our country. That is since 1985. And that has sent the wrong signal to OPEC and to the rest of the world.

Today, in this legislation, we increase to 35 miles per gallon the fuel economy standard of the vehicles that we are going to drive by the year 2020. In conjunction with the cellulosic fuel component, the biofuel component that is built into this legislation, by the year 2030 this bill will back out the equivalent of twice the amount of oil which we import from the Persian Gulf today.

What we have today, is this whirlpool within which the United States has caught itself where we send nearly $150 million a day to the Persian Gulf to purchase the 2.2 million barrels per day that we import out of the Persian Gulf to bring to the United States. That is $55 to $60 billion a year that we are sending over to parts of the world which we should have no business in. And caught in that whirlpool are our young men and women in our military who are over in the Middle East protecting this oil supply so it can come to our country.

And for the first time the American people are now going to be made part of this effort. We no longer are going to pretend that the efficiency of the vehicles which Americans drive has no relationship to this amount of money that we send to the Middle East and the number of troops that we have to send to the Middle East.

So this is going to be a very powerful message: 2.7 million barrels of oil a day from the Middle East not having to be imported by the year 2030 because of the increase in fuel economy standards; 1.8 million barrels of oil per day in equivalence of oil in now biofuels, cellulosic fuels, that will substitute for the oil that we otherwise would have to import from the Middle East.

Together that is over 4 million barrels of oil a day equivalent. What a tremendous victory for the American people here today. Everyone in our country will now be part of it. Rather than in the Middle East, we will produce the fuels in the Middle West in our country and stop pretending that we can't improve the efficiency of the vehicles we drive.

Secondly, this legislation will in fact reduce by nearly a quarter all of the greenhouse gases that the United States has to meet as a goal by the year 2030. So on climate change, energy efficiency will play a huge role in reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that the United States sends up into the atmosphere. The buildings will be greener. The lighting and appliances will be better. And because of fuel efficiency and renewable fuels, we will reduce by the amount of 100 coal-fired plants the amount of greenhouse gases we will send up into the atmosphere. What a victory. What a day the United States Congress will enjoy today.

I congratulate Speaker Pelosi for her work on this legislation. I congratulate my colleague Todd Platts, and all of the Members who have worked on it. I salute President Bush for saying that he will sign this legislation. It is an historic signal. And I urge all of the Members who are here to realize that this is a moment that will be remembered forever as the energy revolution day, as the climate change revolutionary day where we changed course and sent a signal to the world that we mean business.

So, ladies and gentlemen, please today vote ``aye'' and join with Speaker Pelosi, with Harry Reid and President Bush in this effort to change the direction of our country. It is a monumental day.