Supporting the goals and ideals of the Year of the American Veteran.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008.

The purpose of the bill, very simply stated, is to promote energy savings for all Americans by increasing use of public transportation throughout this country, a fact that has been a need, let us say, that has been driven home dramatically by $4 a gallon oil and gasoline prices since Memorial Day, and I thank the Speaker and majority leader for making time for us to bring this bill to the House Floor.

Basic law of economics is that the price of gas is a two-part equation: Supply and demand. Demand is a critical factor in the cost of oil, and decreasing demand is one of the most immediate ways we can attack the high cost of gasoline prices. And our fellow citizens understand this. They are making choices. They have been making choices for several years.

Over the last 3 years, in particular, there has been growth of 1 million new riders a day on public transportation systems across America, for 375 million new transit trips nationwide last year, a total of 10.3 billion transit trips throughout the country.

There was a time when New York City accounted for 60 percent of all transit trips in the United States, but no longer. In the last 3 years, New York's share of transit ridership nationwide has slipped to 38 percent, not because New Yorkers are riding transit less; they are riding more. But more Americans have found their way to public transportation, and increasingly in droves since the skyrocketing price of gasoline.

Transit systems throughout the United States have found every new transit project, every new light rail project has more than tripled its original projections of ridership nationwide.

Innovative cities like Denver under then-Mayor Wellington Webb, said: Ride our transit system free in the center city. Keep your pollution out of the center city. Ride the transit system free. And it has been an enormous boost and benefit to the city of Denver.

I can and I will cite some very specific ridership improvements in my own State. In Minneapolis, the Hiawatha light rail, 20 years in the waiting, finally was constructed; ridership opened, and 9 months later, 10 months ahead of schedule, they achieved their 10 millionth rider. Dramatic improvements.

Seattle, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Francisco all have similar increases in transit ridership. The Charlotte Area Transit System recently opened a new light rail line. They have increased ridership 34 percent from February of last year to February of this year.

CalTran, the commuter rail line that serves the San Francisco Peninsula and Santa Clara Valley, set a record for average weekday ridership in February of this year with a 9.3 percent increase over last year.

The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, my good friend, the ranking member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) knows well, posted a rise of more than 20 percent ridership from Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach in March and April of this year as compared to last year.

Americans are making the choice. They have decided. We need to help them with that choice. And the bill before us will make a huge step in that direction.

This legislation provides substantial support for States and public transportation agencies increasing incentives for computers to make their choice to ride transit: 1.7 billion, 2 years for transit agencies that are reducing transit fares or expanding the services to meet the needs of growing transit commuters. We increase the Federal share for clean fuel and alternative fuel transit bus, ferry, and locomotive related equipment or facilities, helping transit agencies become more fuel efficient.

In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the increased Federal share for these activities will go from 90 percent to 100 percent of the net capital cost of the project.

We also provide authority to extend the Federal transit pass benefit program which has operated over the past few years on a pilot basis in the National Capital Region and in a few selected areas throughout the country. After evaluating the transit pass program, the U.S. Department of Transportation recommended that it be expanded nationwide. We do that in this legislation. There was an executive order signed by President Clinton in 2000 that launched this initiative. It was supported in the SAFETEA legislation. The 3-year pilot program under our legislation would be substantially expanded nationwide.

The Department of Transportation says that expanding this program will implement their own department recommendation by giving more Federal employees incentives to choose transit options. And we also create a pilot program to allow the funding expended by private providers of public transportation for van pools to acquire the vans to be used as their non-Federal share for matching Federal transit funds in five community pilot projects. Under current law, only public funds can be used as the local match. This pilot program will induce private funds to participate in the van pooling initiative.

I would observe we had a very successful van pooling program in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area in the mid-1980s when companies like 3M, Control Data, and Minneapolis Honeywell bought the vans for their employees and provided a fuel subsidy and encouraged their employees to join together. The vans were full. The program was successful. It cut down on congestion in the greater metropolitan Twin City area, and reduced cost for all of the riders. We should do that nationally, and we provide further authority to make that change and to take that initiative.

There are other provisions in this bill that are important, and I will submit those for the Record, but I want to close this part of my remarks with an observation by Paul Weyrich in a very thoughtful publication, Free Congress Foundation. ``Does Transit Work: A Conservative Reappraisal.'' It begins, ``The first recorded example of mass transportation was the movement of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. At that time, 100 percent of the population was moved at once in a single trip; a record never equaled since.'' Then he says, ``According to most studies of mass transit, it has gone straight downhill from there.''

Well, we are on the way up and we are going to lift mass transit and speed its acceptance and its use by the public with the legislation that we bring before you today.

Toward that purpose, I express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Florida, the ranking member, Mr. Mica, for the partnership he has engaged in with us and for the thoughtful, constructive suggestions he has made every step of the way. I appreciate very much the gentleman's participation.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6052, the ``Saving Energy

Through Public Transportation Act of 2008''. This bill promotes energy savings for all Americans by increasing public transportation use in the United States.

As gas prices have skyrocketed past $4 per gallon since Memorial Day, everyone is talking about how we need more oil. I thank the Speaker and the Majority Leader for scheduling today's bill, H.R. 6052, so that we can also talk about using less.

Let us all remember the basic law of economics that the price of gas is a two-part equation: supply and demand. Demand is a critical factor in the cost of oil, and decreasing demand is one of the most immediate ways that we can tackle the high cost of gas.

Americans understand this. They are making choices today that are decreasing our global demand for oil. We're seeing record ridership on public transportation all across the country, as well as decreases in the number of miles traveled in cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks. Without doubt, many Americans are making these choices based on the economic hardship caused by the high price of gas. However, in my discussions with constituents in my district and people across the country, Americans are also considering transit alternatives because they're sick and tired of knowing that our great nation imports 60 percent of its oil, much of it from the Persian Gulf.

As a result, across America, public transportation has experienced a renaissance in big cities, suburban communities, and small towns. In 2007, Americans took more than 10.3 billion trips on public transportation, the highest level in 50 years. In the first quarter of 2008, commuters took more than 2.6 billion transit trips nationwide, an increase of 3.3 percent over the first quarter of 2007.

Now that the price of gas has surpassed $4 a gallon, even more commuters are choosing to ride the train or the bus to work rather than drive alone in their cars. Public transit systems in metropolitan areas are reporting increases in ridership of five, ten, and even 15 percent over last year's figures. Light rails saw the largest jump in ridership with a 10 percent increase to 110 million trips in the first quarter. Some of the biggest increases in ridership are occurring in many areas in the South and West where new bus and light rail lines have been built in the last few years.

In Denver, for example, ridership was up eight percent in the first three months of 2008 compared with last year, and Minneapolis, Seattle, Dallas-Fort Worth, and San Francisco all reported similar increases. The Charlotte Area Transit System, which recently opened a new light rail line, has increased ridership more than 34 percent from February 2007 to February 2008. Caltrain, the commuter rail line that serves the San Francisco Peninsula and the Santa Clara Valley, set a record for average weekday ridership in February with a 9.3 percent increase over 2007. The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, which operates a commuter rail system from Miami to Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, posted a rise of more than 20 percent in ridership in March and April as compared to the same time last year.

Madam Chairman, Americans are proving that riding transit is an easy, immediate, and important part of the solution to decreasing our demand for foreign oil. However, meeting this impressive new demand for public transportation services is no small task for our transit agencies. With these record-breaking numbers of commuters riding transit, many of our nation's transit systems are busting at the seams. In addition, the cost of fuel and power for public transportation providers has sharply increased, compounding costs of serving all of these new transit riders.

Currently, public transportation reduces gas consumption by 1.4 billion gallons a year (3.9 million gallons per day), which equates to more than 33 million barrels of oil. It's equal to 108 million fewer cars filling up year.

Although those fuel savings are incredible, we can do better, and we must.

H.R. 6052 provides much needed support to states and public transportation agencies and also increases incentives for commuters to choose transit options, thereby reducing their transportation-related energy consumption and our nation's reliance on foreign oil.

To increase public transportation use across the United States, H.R. 6052 authorizes $1.7 billion in funding over two years for transit agencies nationwide that are temporarily reducing transit fares or expanding transit services to meet the needs of the growing number of transit commuters. It is important to note that the funds authorized by this bill will be distributed to States and local communities in the same manner as they currently receive Federal transit urban and rural formula funds. However, in an effort to provide transit choices to smaller urban and rural areas, which may not currently have any transit service, this bill specifically increases the relative share of the transit funds that will be going to the rural areas.

H.R. 6052 also increases the Federal share for clean fuel and alternative fuel transit bus, ferry, or locomotive-related equipment or facilities, thereby assisting transit agencies in becoming more fuel efficient. In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the increased Federal share for these activities is 100 percent of the net capital cost of the project.

H.R. 6052 also extends the Federal transit pass benefits program to require that all Federal agencies offer transit passes to Federal employees throughout the United States. Current law requires that all Federal agencies within the National Capital Region implement a transit pass fringe benefits program and offer employees transit passes.

Data from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority covering the first three years of the National Capital Region transit pass program show that more than 15,500 automobiles were eliminated from roads in the Washington, DC area as a result of Federal employees shifting their travel mode away from single occupancy vehicle (``SOV'') use to public transportation use for commuting to work. DOT estimated the energy savings from this mode shift included the reduction of more than eight million gallons of gasoline for each of the three years that they studied. DOT also studied the results of a nationwide pilot program and found that, within the three agencies, 11 percent of the participants shifted their travel mode away from SOV use to public transportation use for commuting to work, again producing marked energy savings.

The Department of Transportation has determined that both the National Capital Region transit benefits program and the nationwide pilot program produce marked energy and emissions savings, congestion reductions, and cleaner air, and recommends that the transit pass benefits program be extended to Federal employees nationwide. This provision will implement the Department's recommendation by providing more Federal employees the incentives to choose transit options, thereby reducing their transportation-related energy consumption and reliance on foreign oil.

H.R. 6052 also creates a pilot program to allow the amount expended by private providers of public transportation by vanpool for the acquisition of vans to be used as the non-Federal share for matching Federal transit funds in five communities. Under current law, only local public funds may be used as local match; this pilot program would allow private funds to be used in limited circumstances. The Department of Transportation will implement and oversee the vanpool pilot projects, and will report back to Congress on the costs, benefits, and efficiencies of the vanpool projects.

Finally, H.R. 6052 increases the Federal share for additional parking facilities at end-of-line fixed guideway stations. This provision increases the total number of transit commuters who will have access to those facilities.

Public transportation use in all of its forms--bus, rail, vanpool, ferry, streetcar, and subways to name a few--saves fuel and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. As such, increasing public transportation use by providing incentives for commuters to choose transit options is a priority of this Congress.

Given the price of gas, Americans are more focused on the costs of commuting than at any time in recent history. And they want choices. We need to provide them. With passage of this bill, we have an opportunity to provide transit choices that will change the way that Americans travel.

The impact of such changes on our nation's dependence on foreign oil would be extraordinary. According to a recent study, if Americans used public transit at the same rate as Europeans--for roughly 10 percent of their daily travel needs--the United States could reduce its dependence on imported oil by more than 40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 million barrels of crude oil that we import from Saudi Arabia each year.

That's the difference this bill can help make.

I strongly support H.R. 6052, the ``Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008'', and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC, June 3, 2008.

Hon. James L. Oberstar,

Chairman, Committee on Transportaiton and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oberstar: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 6052,

the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008,

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform on May 14, 2008.

In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 6052,

the Oversight Committee will not separately consider this

legislation. The Oversight Committee does so, however, with

the understanding that this does not prejudice the

Committee's jurisdictional interests and prerogatives

regarding this bill or similar legislation.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the

Oversight Committee should H.R. 6052 or a similar Senate bill

be considered in conference with the Senate. I also request

that you include our exchange of letters on this matter in

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Report on

H.R. 6052 or in the Congressional Record during consideration

of this legislation on the House floor.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman,

Chairman.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, June 3, 2008.

Hon. Henry A. Waxman,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Waxman: I write to you regarding H.R. 6052,

the ``Saving Energy through Public Transportation Act of

2008''.

I appreciate your willingness to waive rights to further

consideration of H.R. 6052, notwithstanding the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice

any further jurisdictional claims by your Committee over this

legislation or similar language. Furthermore, I agree to

support your request for appointment of conferees from the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform if a conference

is held on this matter.

This exchange of letters will be placed in the Committee

report and inserted in the Congressional Record as part of

the consideration of H.R. 6052 on the House floor. Thank you

for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding

this matter and others between our respective committees.

I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

James L. Oberstar, M.C.

Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just remind my good friend that the bill before us is not ANWR or the other subjects. It is about moving people more efficiently with lower costs and lower energy consumption. I think we do ourselves service by sticking to the subject matter at hand.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) who as chair of the Surface Subcommittee has held 22 hearings on the future of transportation in America and has done a superb service for the Nation.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Subcommittee on FEMA and Economic Development and other related subjects, the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman made a thoughtful observation, and I'm sure the gentleman is aware that there already is a tax exemption in Federal code for private sector employers and employees. But that doesn't apply to the Federal government or to other governmental agencies because they don't have a tax. So the transit benefit for Federal employees is a matter that we could do within the context of the current bill.

In the longer term, next year, when we consider the longer-term authorization, the gentleman's suggestion would be an appropriate matter for consideration. We will have better figures which we're requesting now from public agencies for those matters.

I yield to the gentleman.

I wish we could have, too, but we didn't have good numbers to see what those costs might be.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a representative of the beautiful Sonoma Valley.

How much time remains on both sides, Madam Chairman?

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, a long-time proponent of and advocate for and practitioner of public transportation, a man who saves 8 barrels of oil a year by consuming 86,000 calories on his bike.

We have several speakers, Madam Chairman, who have not arrived yet, and does the gentleman from Florida have other speakers?

If the gentleman will yield back the balance of his time, we will yield the balance of our time.

We do have a speaker on the transit subject, and I'm very

pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, with great appreciation, and thank him for making it possible for us to bring this bill to the floor today.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Madam Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I listened with great interest to the gentleman's ruminations on a wide range of subjects. I won't comment on those that reach beyond the subject matter at hand, our transit bill. I do reaffirm my appreciation for his partnership in bringing this bill to the floor.

This is an important piece of legislation. In the larger scheme of the billions of dollars, $125 billion a year, that we need to be investing in all levels of government in our surface transportation system, this $1.7 billion is a relatively small step, but it moves us in the direction of a mode shift in transportation to 10 percent of all trips by transit. If we made just that little step in America, we would save the equivalent of all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia. That is what we can do. It's within our grasp now. We don't need a research program. We don't need a man-on-the-moon program. We just need the funding to invest in what is already at hand: solid, responsible, reliable, effective transportation systems for the public to use instead of getting in their private vehicle.

Had the administration in 2003 concurred in a $375 billion transportation program for the next 6 years, as its own Department of Transportation recommended, and as Mr. Young, then-chairman of the committee, and I introduced, we would have been far better positioned today than we are now.

Instead, that administration proposed only a $5.5 billion funding flat out over the 6 years for transit. We wound up with $10 billion in the SAFETEA legislation over the 5 years of the legislation. But we have to do far better than that, and this bill moves us in the right direction.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The amendment clarifies that transit agencies may use these new grants to offset the increased cost of fuel to transit agencies. Every penny additional to the cost of diesel and gasoline fuel, public transportation faces a cost of $7.6 million.

The amendment clarifies that intercity bus service is an eligible activity under the bill. The intercity bus provision was included in the version of the bill that passed the House last year, but through a drafting error, was left out when we reintroduced it. We correct that mistake.

Many transit agencies, rural and small urban centers alike, contract with intercity bus providers for more mobility. So it's important that these services are eligible for the new grants created by this bill.

We clarify that transit agencies may use the new transit grants to offset the increased cost of maintenance as they struggle to cope with recordbreaking ridership increases. I have been to transit agency maintenance centers and found very skilled workmen welding new pieces of steel in the support structures of buses that have rusted out over years of use.

Transit buses are now, on average, 12 to 14 years. They should be replacing them every 7 to 8 years. We are seeing a million miles of ridership on a bus a year. They need to upgrade and improve and continue their maintenance.

Many transit agencies are reporting surges in ridership and, at the same time, difficulty maintaining existing services because of higher fuel prices. So we are providing funding to all those transit agencies to respond to their current needs.

I want to thank several of our colleagues for agreeing to have their amendments incorporated into the manager's amendment to expedite consideration of the bill: The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) whose amendment helps transit fleets become more fuel efficient by providing more funding for clean fuel or alternative fuel vehicle-related equipment or facilities; the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) whose amendment creates a national consumer awareness program to educate the public on environmental, energy, and economic benefits of public transportation; and the Jackson-Lee amendment that clarifies that public transportation stakeholders should engage and involve local communities in the education and promotion of public transportation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman from Florida yield a minute of his time?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I do so simply to express my support for the amendment, on which Mr. Mica and I have agreed, but also to point out that in the body of the bill there are protections and safeguards for the proper use of the transit pass authority provided in the additional funding increase in the monthly limit for the transit benefit. There have been reports of abuse of transit passes in the past year. An investigation by the Office of Inspector General revealed that there are some abuses.

We have provided protection against such abuses in the base of the bill underlying this legislation. I wanted to point that out for those who may have been concerned to assure that the committee has taken appropriate steps to assure that transit passes are used by the person for whom intended and for the purpose for which intended.

I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, though I do not intend to oppose it.

First, a point of order, Madam Chairman.

I observed the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) ask unanimous consent to include an article in the Record. That request must be made in the House under the rules of procedure, not in the Committee of the Whole.

I have no objection to it, but I just want the procedure to be proper.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington was very thoughtfully expressed and explained, and I commend the gentleman on his statement, very thoughtfully done, to increase the Federal share for parking facilities that serve commuter bus routes.

The Transportation Research Board has addressed this issue and evaluated the accessibility of transit services to suburban commuters, and they have found that acceptance and use of transit services are clearly influenced by the availability, convenience, and cost of commuter parking at transit stations and park-and-ride lots, quoting from the report.

States that have successful long-distance suburban-to-central business district commuter bus operations found that increasing the use of commuter bus services and park-and-ride facilities is directly influenced by the availability of those park-and-ride services.

Increasing the Federal share to 100 percent would create additional incentives for transit systems to build more of these facilities to serve the communities, and I really appreciate the initiative of the gentleman.

In his reference to Microsoft, I know that Microsoft in past years has purchased in the range of 13,000 fares a year for its employees to ride the Sounder and other transit options in Seattle. It is very commendable of a company to engage in that kind of service to its workers, to encourage them to get to work in a better frame of mind, to help the environment, and to serve the public need.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

If the gentleman would yield.

The gentleman is an alumnus of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, a refugee who has been taken in by the Ways and Means Committee; and he will be most welcomed at further hearings of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee to elaborate on this very thoughtful proposal that he has set forth. We welcome that contribution as we shape the next transportation legislation.

I rise in support of the amendment which I am certain arises out of the experience of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation which has a program helping commuters find alternatives to riding alone. The State of North Carolina has created RIDE NC to do the same thing.

I just want to observe that this bill pending before the House now is the 110th bill reported from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to the House, 110th bill in the 110th Congress. We have completed action on 63 bills and resolutions including 29 bills enacted into law; in addition to that, eight concurrent resolutions and 26 House resolutions. That's a remarkable record of bipartisan participation for which I express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida. On all of these, we've had bipartisan support.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Yes, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, in the introductory paragraph of the motion, to strike the word ``promptly'' and substitute therefor the word ``forthwith.''

I ask unanimous consent.

I made a unanimous consent request dealing with the motion of the gentleman, not the extraneous items the gentleman has now proposed.

If the gentleman is serious about his motion to recommit, we're serious about accepting it where it's forthwith and bringing that language immediately back to the House.

Did the gentleman object? I could not hear.

Then the gentleman is not serious about this motion, and this is a sham motion.

Under the language ``promptly,'' we would not be able to consider this legislation again until well after the 4th of July recess of the Congress, which the gentleman fully understands.

The substance of the motion is well-intentioned. However, under title 23 and title 49 of the U.S. Transportation Code, school buses are specifically not eligible for public funds out of the Highway Trust Fund, nor would they be under the provisions of the bill that is before us.

Since the gentleman from Oregon objects to accepting his language and making that change in Federal law to make school buses eligible, then I would suggest that he come back to the committee at an appropriate time, we're going to continue hearings--we've had 22 hearings already in the Surface Transportation Subcommittee last year and this year on the future of transportation--and make the case for such a provision to be included in the authorization that we will have next year. We would certainly be delighted to hear the gentleman's case for this provision and to perfect it. But as it stands, this ``promptly'' simply kills the transit expansion funding that we provide in the underlying bill.

Therefore, because the gentleman objected to my unanimous consent request, I say the motion is not offered in good faith, not offered with good intentions. It is a sham motion, and we should defeat it.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank our chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, my Democrat counterpart, Mr. Oberstar, for his work on this piece of legislation that does deal with some of the issues that we are facing right now and follows some of the discussions that we have had on the floor relating to energy and energy conservation.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a very small piece of the puzzle, but it is nonetheless an important piece and we have tried to exercise our jurisdictional responsibility in coming forth with this, again, small piece of the puzzle.

This bill does provide for expansion of some of the transit grants around the country, and I think that there are some beneficial provisions for those in rural areas, suburban areas, and for much of the public that relies on public transportation.

This bill further does allow sort of an unprecedented ability to use some of the money traditionally used for projects to assist some of the local transit authorities that are suffering now with high fuel costs. Just like the average family is suffering with high fuel costs, transit agencies have also experienced the same problem. They are cutting back on services, sometimes when people really need to have an option and don't have that option, by cutting out routes, and that has been announced even in my area. So I think we are doing a responsible thing.

This is a 2-year authorization. It is an expansion of the authorization of $1.7 billion that does give some of the folks on my side some hiccups, but it is authorization, it is not appropriation and each Member is going to have to judge their support or opposition based on the final product. But I have joined Chairman Oberstar in support of this authorizing bill. I think again it fills our small piece of the puzzle.

I did want to take just a minute or two, I didn't get a chance to speak on the rule or on the energy legislation that was before the House earlier, and there was quite a bit of banter. And some people were bashing the President and this administration for not having a plan. In fact, someone said he didn't recall a plan, which is kind of funny.

I am very fortunate to have outstanding staff, but this summer I also have some outstanding interns. They come from all over the country to Congress, and I have gotten some from my district and elsewhere. So you have a little more staff to do research rather than just keep on the track that we are on here every day. I said wasn't there a Bush plan? And all be darned, there was a Bush energy plan. So I had a little research done on that.

Lo and behold, very shortly into his term, it was May 17, 2001, the President of the United States, George Bush, just a few months into office, he set two major priorities, one being education. You remember on 9/11 he was in a Florida classroom talking about his plan to improve education. But even before that, in May as one of his first priorities, he announced his plan. He announced his plan actually in the home State of the chairman, in St. Paul, Minnesota. On that day when he announced it he said, ``If we fail to act, our country will become more reliant on foreign crude oil, putting our national energy security into the hands of foreign nations, some of whom do not share our interests.''

On that same day when he announced his plan, he said regarding part of his plan, ``We will underwrite research and development into energy- saving technology. It'll require manufacturers to build more energy- efficient appliances. We will review and remove obstacles that prevent business from investing in energy-efficient technologies.''

Furthermore, President Bush said, ``The second part of our energy plan will be to expand and diversify our Nation's energy supplies. America today imports,'' and now this is May of 2001, ``America today imports 52 percent of all of our oil. If we don't take action, those imports will only grow. As long as cars and trucks run on gasoline, we will need oil, and we should produce more of it at home.''

The President called for burning coal more cleanly, expanding nuclear power, and drilling for new oil in new places, that included the Arctic area in Alaska. The President said that is banned now, but the President said it can be done safely.

Listen to this one. This is the President in St. Paul. ``ANWR can produce 600,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 40 years. What difference does 600,000 barrels a day make? Well, that happens to be exactly the amount we import from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We're not just short of oil; we're short of the refineries that turn oil into fuel. So while the rest of our economy is functioning at 82 percent of capacity, our refineries are gasping at 96 percent of capacity.''

That was part of the President's plan, and how prophetic could you be. This was before 9/11. This was in May of 2001, announcing his plan.

I can't take up all of the time, but I have Mr. Gephardt's response: Congress will take action to stop them. Mr. Kerry vowed to filibuster, and the Sierra Club is already running ads against it. Those were some of the responses.

It is interesting how quickly we forget that there have been plans, and those plans could have made a big difference.

Here today we are trying in a bipartisan fashion to make a small difference to give some of our Federal employees outside the Capital Beltway the opportunity to have the same transit advantages and payments that we give within the Beltway to Federal employees outside, expand some of the grants for transit, and also help some of those transit operations that are suffering like the American family is with cutbacks because of high fuel costs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 2\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the T&I Committee, the gentleman from beautiful southwest Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time at this time.

Madam Chairman, I'm in the same situation that the gentleman from Minnesota is.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, again, I have to compliment Mr. Oberstar, and folks have to look at what we're doing here this afternoon. This is the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We can't solve all the energy issues. We have a very small piece, and we're trying to take care of that small piece here today.

We don't get into some of the other issues that have been raised, but I must say that I'm going to be going back to Florida tomorrow, and I'll be talking to folks. And you know, it doesn't take you long to talk to folks at home and have them get your attention. And they are getting our attention by saying, what are you doing about $4 a gallon gasoline, what are you doing about energy costs that are soaring, what are you doing about the price of food and other things that are being affected by energy costs.

The people who are on a limited income, God bless them. I don't know how they're making it, or a fixed income, with the prices that they see both at the pump, at the store, in their lives. They want answers.

I'm sorry that some of the other committees are not acting and the Congress is not acting like the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, because when I go home I have to tell them that how things are left in their Congress was that we took care of a small piece. We provided transit grants for those Federal employees working outside of the Beltway. We provided additional grants through eight transit companies who are hurting because of increased fuel costs and trying to expand transit service that people are becoming reliant on now because of the high cost of fuel. But I can't tell them that I've done anything about supply, that, again, the supply has been cut off.

I even agree with the child that's crying in the gallery. People are not happy about this. They want a response from this Congress, and this Congress has the ability to act to increase the supplies so we're not reliant on reliable friends like Venezuela, the sheiks and leaders in the Middle East, and that dependable source of energy, Nigeria.

Folks, that isn't going to cut it for an answer when we get home, and this isn't complicated. It's a question of Economics 101. This is a question of supply and demand. Right now, in the short-term, we need to increase supply. If we had worked together over the past 7 years from that introduction by President Bush some 7 years ago, one of his first plans--and I cited his rollout statements, and let me just read also what he said on May 17.

President Bush said: ``Too often, Americans are asked to take sides between energy production and environmental protection--as if people who revere the Alaska wilderness do not also care about America's energy future; as if the people who produce America's energy do not care about the planet their children will inherit. The truth is energy production and environmental protection are not competing priorities. They're dual aspects of a single purpose--to live well and wisely upon the earth. Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also need a new tone in discussing energy in the environment, one that is less suspicious, less punitive, less rancorous. We've yelled at each other enough. Now it's time to listen to each other and act.''

Again, these are the words of our President before 9/11 on the energy issue.

You know, again, if you want to look at the Record, and I will be glad to submit for the Record how many Republicans and how many Democrats opposed each of the proposals, all that's history, folks. What the American people want is now us to act as the President said 7 years ago.

So, today, Mr. Oberstar and I don't bring an answer to the whole energy problem. We bring our little piece. We ask the rest of the Congress, I ask the rest of the Congress, to come forth and to act, and that needs to be done because when we get home, those people are going to ask you, what did you do about the high cost of energy, the high cost of food, the businesses that are closing, the lives that are being impacted by high energy costs, and we need to be able to give them an answer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time?

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, this is an important debate. It's a little piece of the big national debate that's going on now. Mr. Oberstar and I lead the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We came forward with this measure. This measure is within our jurisdiction, as I said earlier, and it is just a small piece of the puzzle.

Many Members come to me on my side of the aisle and ask me how I am going to vote, and I am going to support this legislation. It does increase the authorization. That's a fairly substantial piece of change by any estimate, $1.7 billion over 2 years, and it does make some significant changes in policy, in opening up authorization to spend money to help transit companies and agencies that are suffering like the American public is suffering with high fuel costs, and I think that's a good thing. It expands some services for mass transit, which is also a good thing. And it also expands from just within the beltway to other Federal employees the benefits of using public transportation, and that's a good thing too.

This is general debate, and we have gotten into general debate, and I have heard the distinguished majority leader speak and he quoted George Soros. I don't use him as a quote too much or rely on him for my opinion seeking, but I did just happen to have some sources that quote the American public and their opinion.

The Los Angeles Times Bloomberg Poll said when all registered voters are asked whether they support increased exploration for oil and natural gas, 68 percent respond in the affirmative, and that was just within the last 2 days. Rasmussen reports, according to them, 67 percent of the American people support oil drilling off the Nation's coasts and 64 percent think it will lower gas prices. Now, they seem to get it. The other committees with jurisdiction and the rest of Congress don't seem to get it.

Now, don't tell me you can't do it. I mean this is an incredible institution

and can do anything. We represent the greatest ingenuity, the greatest people that ever walked the face of the Earth. God blessed this Nation so much, and we are the custodians of coming here and doing things.

Now, Mr. Oberstar and I on a Monday introduced a piece of legislation. We worked together on it, and within the same week on a Thursday night, we had the President of the United States at 7 o'clock at night sign the legislation as is. So we can do these things that the American people want.

Now, 1 week from tomorrow, people are going to try to celebrate Independence Day in this great country, this great country for which so many people made so many sacrifices, and I have to go back home and tell them I increased transit grants for Federal employees outside the beltway and I also helped transit agencies who are suffering like they are to pay their fuel bill, but I don't have an answer for them. That's not what they want to hear, folks. This is the Congress of the United States, and we can and we must do better.

I have been here going on my 16th year, not as long as Mr. Oberstar. He knows transportation inside and out and he's an expert renowned on a whole host of issues, but the good thing about being here just half as long as he is that you hear some of these things.

First, we're going to solve this problem; we'll tax it. So what do they do? They say, windfall taxes for the oil companies that are taking advantage. Windfall taxes, that's it. So first we'll tax it.

Well, that didn't work. People come up to me, did you ever hear of a time when you tax something and the price goes down for consumers? Duh. Well, that didn't work.

So now there's speculation; so we'll get 'em. We'll regulate. We're going to regulate those speculators. That'll take care of it.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Oh, good. So I can tell this story, Madam Chairman.

This reminds me of sitting on a committee coming here, and this took over some time. We always hear about high drug prices, and I sat on the committee, and everyone was railing about the price of vaccination drugs. So we dragged in the drug companies to sit them down, and I remember this guy who represented a drug company, and this was an investigative hearing. And he showed a little vial, and he said, this vial of vaccine, this medicine, only costs about $2 to produce. So we hammered him. It only cost $2 to produce, but he said that the liability on it was reaching $30, so $30 and increasing.

So then we dragged in the insurance company. ``You're charging them $30 for this vaccine?'' We hammered them. So they left.

And then the next thing we knew was we weren't producing any vaccine in the United States because no one would insure it. So the next hearing we held--remember this, now, folks--the next hearing we held was on its now being produced in Great Britain and we had some bad batches. Well, we hadn't sent enough FDA inspectors over to inspects the batches there.

Folks, these aren't the answers: additional taxation, additional regulation, chasing business off our shores. And the same thing isn't going to happen with energy. The American people get it. I just read the poll. It doesn't take a lot, folks. They know if you increase the supply, the price will go down. And we have the capability of doing that. We built the Alaska pipeline in 3 years.

Next Friday is Independence Day. It's going to be a sad Independence Day because instead of America's being independent, we will be dependent on energy. That's affecting all of us, and it's not right.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I claim the time in opposition, but I do rise in support of the manager's amendment. I particularly find most attractive in this measure the provision that would allow grant funding to subsidize increased full costs for some of our transit systems in the country.

My support is not based on some lobbyist from a transit agency in New York or Washington or Orlando. My support is based on probably a little lady whose face I have never seen, but she wrote me and said, Mr. Mica, she said, They are going to cut one of the routes and I have no other way to get to work, and I am a constituent in your district. They are going to cut off those routes because of the higher fuel cost.

So the reason I support this is because someone in my district is being dramatically affected. It may not be a big deal here in Congress, but I can assure you in that lady's life, if she can't get to work and make a living, it's a big deal to her. So that is why I support this manager's amendment and this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). As has been explained, this does provide the Federal employee transportation benefit program, which has been so successful, is expanded in its usage, and for that, I think that our side agrees, and this is a bipartisan amendment and has our full support.

On behalf of Mr. Davis, I urge adoption of that.

I reserve the balance of our time.

May I inquire as to how much time we have.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Let me say that the only problem that I have with this amendment as offered from my colleague from Florida is the amendment does not go far enough in correcting or addressing all of the problems caused by section 526 of the energy bill that prohibits the Federal Government from using coal derived, oil shale and other non-petroleum- based alternative fuels regardless of existing procurement rules or what is actually cost efficient or practical.

I am not going to vote against his amendment, but I do have some concerns I wanted to express against the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield myself such time as I may consume just to point out, again, I am not going to object. I have concerns. I would like to have gone further.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

I thank the gentleman so much, that we have a distinguished member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee offering this well thought out amendment. It is going to clearly provide availability, convenience, and assist the cost of making eligible again these bus end-of-the-line parking facilities. Well thought out. There was a gap here, and I am glad the gentleman from Washington filled that so adequately, and we support the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Madam Chairman, we are pleased to support the gentleman from New Hampshire's amendment. And it will also, I think, encourage commuters to find other ways other than single occupancy vehicles to get to and from work. He has the support of the American Association of Commuter Transportation.

Again, it is a small piece in the larger puzzle. We only have jurisdiction, as I said earlier, over transportation issues; we can't resolve all the other problems we have with energy. But I commend the gentleman, and our side supports the amendment and urges its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I don't want to take the time, but we are concluding debate on this amendment, the Hodes amendment. I urge its adoption. I urge those who feel it is appropriate to support the measure, as I said it does have an increased authorization, not appropriation, of $1.7 billion. It does expand some of the transit grants to transit agencies that are hurting across the country. It does expand the transit benefits that are now restricted to those within the Beltway to Federal employees outside.

It does not solve the problem. It is a small piece of the solution, and I have been pleased to work with Mr. Oberstar in a bipartisan fashion to do our small part.

I must conclude, however, by saying that the House and the Congress can do a better job. My side of the aisle does not control the Congress this time. We have heard that there is a larger energy plan. We need to bring that energy plan forward.

I didn't have the time that the majority leader had in his remarks, and this isn't a blame game situation nor should it be. People are suffering in this country with $4-plus a gallon gas. I just saw this $5.25, which must be from California. That's not why our constituents sent us here. They sent us here to solve problems. In the same bipartisan spirit that Mr. Oberstar and I are bringing forward this little piece, we need a much larger piece.

A week from tomorrow is Independence Day, and that is a day we should be celebrating, not lamenting that we are not independent of foreign oil. We can work our way out of this. We can't tax our way out, we can't regulate our way out, but we have the means of moving forward and increasing the supply and lowering the price for the American people. We haven't done this, this Congress hasn't done this, and I am sorry that I have that to report at the end of my remarks, both in favor of the Hodes amendment and in favor of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my name is pronounced BOO-yer, B-u-y-e-r. It looks like ``buyer.'' The descent is from Alsace-Lorraine, pronounced de BOO-yea, and you just Americanized it. But we refer to it as BOO-yer. Thank you.

In the previous debate, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Record to properly reflect that the chairman had made a comment with regard to four naming bills that was not accurate at all. I support consideration of this naming bill and three other veterans' naming bills on the schedule today. I do wish to correct the record regarding the statement I understand Chairman Filner to have made during early consideration of H.R. 2818 that I, quote, ``objected to the consideration of the veterans' naming bills today, all four of them.''

While I do not think Chairman Filner intended to dissemble about the matter, I thought I detected his impish grin for which he is so well- known. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear that I support the consideration of veterans' naming bills.

I did ask Chairman Filner by way of my staff director to his to address specific drafting concerns I have about H. Res. 1291 before scheduling the resolution for the suspension calendar today; but that was not done so I will try to clarify the matter on the resolution with the author of the bill when it is considered.

I also need to clarify for the Record in the last debate that in response to Mr. Salazar's remarks, my dear friend from Colorado, that ``all of these bills were passed through committee.''

The only bill which we are considering right now, Mr. Speaker, that was passed through the committee is H. Res. 1098. It was marked up and reported out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. The other seven bills are being brought straight to the floor without committee report or action.

As the ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have an obligation to help ensure that veterans and their families have access to the benefits and services they so richly deserve. More importantly, I have been an advocate for military members and veterans almost my entire life. I have been in uniform with the United States Army Reserves both on and off active duty now for 28 years. For the last 16 years, I have simultaneously served in Congress as I have also been in the Army Reserves. It is a great part of who I am. It is for this reason that I am proud to support H. Res. 1098 which supports the goals and ideals of the Year of the American Veteran.

As the chairman stated earlier today, there are over 25 million veterans in the United States who sacrificed by defending the freedoms we enjoy as Americans, and supporting the ideals of liberty all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes those sacrifices and commemorates the service of veterans in times of peace and war. This resolution also encourages the people of the United States to join the Commission of the Future of America's Veterans in celebrating the year 2008 as the ``Year of the American Veteran.''

Before we pass this resolution, I believe that my colleagues should also pause for a moment and say why is this Congress bringing this resolution to the floor at this time. I view bringing this resolution to the floor at this time as a continued matter of the chairman attempting to inoculate the majority, inoculate because the Democrats who control this Congress, they want to bring a bill to the floor that would cut a monthly pension to wartime elderly, disabled and indigent veterans in the amount of nearly a billion dollars. So before the Democrats take nearly a billion dollars away from war-time disabled, indigent, homebound veterans, they want to stand and put their arms around veterans and say, We are going to name 2008 the Year of the American Veteran so it makes them look good just before they take a billion dollars from the most vulnerable veterans.

I need to inform not only the Members but the country so they know what this Congress is about to do. I believe it is a matter of principle that the Nation should not be taking money from one group of deserving veterans to fund someone else. In this case, the attempt is to take this series of dollars and if we adopt what the chairman had done in the full committee, it would be to take nearly this $1 billion and make these payments that would then go to Filipinos who fought with the United States during World War II. If we pick up what the Senate had done, they take nearly the billion dollars and they spread it out among a number of veterans programs of which a smaller portion then would be with regard to the Filipinos.

I bring that to everyone's attention because the President of the Philippines is in the United States and is here to deliver a resolution that passed through their legislature wanting our country to know that if Mr. Filner and this Congress is successful, they will not offset any moneys the United States will be sending to the Philippines.

So this matter before the House is very serious. The American people, Mr. Speaker, should know and all Members should clearly know that before we say that 2008 is the Year of the Veteran, we better make sure that is exactly what we mean. That we embrace those ideals before we take nearly a billion dollars and cut that from the very same soldiers that fought right next to those World War II Philippine veterans.

You think about this, we make it a law and say if someone is about to die, well actually, let me rephrase that.

We believe it is shameful and therefore make it against the law to actually go up and put your hand in the pocket of someone who is dead and steal from that person, take money away from them. Well, I think that is right. We should do that.

But then what are we about to do here with regard to these wartime elderly and indigent, homebound veterans whom are the most vulnerable. Many are lying in a bed. They are homebound. They are 60 percent or greater disabled, and now we are saying Congress, we are going to deny that monthly pension that goes to you. We are going to stop it, take it away from you. And oh, by the way, we are going to give it to the living because you are about to die, so we are going to spread it among other veterans, which will be the nonresident alien Filipinos that served valiantly in World War II.

Now, if in fact that's what Congress wants to do, fund it with some other source, don't take it from this vulnerable population. When I talked about what the Senate bill approved--actually, when I referred to it as almost $1 billion, it's $912 million in pension benefits for these wartime elderly, indigent, severely disabled, or homebound American veterans. A portion of the funding saved by this unprecedented cut in veterans' benefits would be used to fund, if we followed Chairman Filner's view, which would be a very oversized pension for World War II Filipino veterans; or if we followed the Senate's

version, we would take those moneys, reduce the size of the pensions and spread it among other veterans. We would be doing this in the very same year in which the chairman is asking we make the Year of the American Veteran.

Now, I suspect that most Americans would be shocked and dismayed that any Member of Congress, regardless of what party they are in, would propose such a drastic cut. But that is exactly what the chairman intends to do very soon.

What is more ironic is that today we are here on the floor to consider this worthy resolution that will recognize this year as the Year of the American Veteran while in the same stroke, this very Congress wants to cut veterans' benefits from the very same people from which we are honoring with this resolution.

The bill that I am referring to is Senate 1315 as amended which passed out of the Senate in April, and a similar bill that I earlier had mentioned is H.R. 760 as amended, which passed the House Committee on Veterans Affairs last July. Both of these bills contain this cut of nearly $1 billion.

When the Democrat majority passed these bills out of the Senate and out of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, they voted to eliminate, as I said, a special monthly pension for severely disabled veterans over 65 who were receiving pensions for wartime service. This special monthly pension provides an additional payment of up to $2,200 per year to the most severely disabled veterans.

In 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims overturned the Department of Veterans Affairs decision that denied the special monthly pension to an 86-year-old legally blind World War II veteran named Robert A. Hartness, who was also receiving a VA pension granted to poor, disabled veterans. The court reversed the VA's denial of benefits to Mr. Hartness and required them to begin paying this monthly pension. The court held that the United States Code requires an award of a special monthly pension to an eligible veteran for VA nonservice-connected disability pension if, in addition to being at least 65 years old, the veteran has a disability rating of at least 60 percent or is permanently housebound.

This, in the Year of the American Veteran, Senate 1315 and H.R. 760 would override the court's decision.

According to the VA, more than 20,200 veterans could be affected by this unprecedented cut in veterans' benefits. This cut in veterans' benefits is opposed by the American Legion, AMVETS, the National Association of Uniform Services, the Gold Star Wives of Americans, and other veterans' service organizations.

The following excerpt is from an April 25, 2008, letter to all Members of Congress: ``The American Legion believes the sacrifice of these heroes warrants relief. Balancing the books on the backs of the very patriots that protected and defended this Nation is unconscionable. Don't make a grave mistake in the name of fairness, equality, or even fiscal responsibility. Do what is right.''

Well, I wholeheartedly agree. Congress has an obligation to protect these vulnerable veterans, and it's because I believe they have no voice, and indeed many of them are so severely disabled, they are housebound, and require aid and attendance.

While I recognize the service of the Filipino veterans of World War II, those who advocate for their compensation should do so from other funding sources. It should not be at the expense of our needy veterans.

I believe that we should not cut benefits from aging veterans who need us most to fund new entitlements. To do so would violate the principle of honor that defined their service and our obligation to both them and the Nation they served.

Mr. Speaker one of the provisions of the resolutions states, ``Resolved, that the House of Representatives (1) encourages the American people to recognize and acknowledge the sacrifices the American veteran demonstrates in the name of freedom.''

How can the House of Representatives encourage the American people to acknowledge the sacrifices of American veterans when very soon afterwards, this very same Congress that is supposed to represent the people wants to vote to cut nearly $1 billion from these wartime elderly, indigent, disabled veterans who need it most? We are sending veterans, servicemembers, and the American people the wrong message if we do this.

So I would remind my colleagues who vote in support of this resolution to please recognize that when this legislation may come soon to the floor. Because if my colleagues join me in embracing our Nation's veterans, particularly those who are disabled by sacrifice for the ideals and the heritage of this Nation and truly want to thank them by naming 2008 the Year of the American Veteran, then I ask you do not cut their veterans' benefits if this bill is brought to the floor.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, but I do not support the rationale of continued inoculation and a mixed message that will result in this cut of nearly $1 billion from these wartime elderly, disabled, and indigent veterans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to support the chairman's resolution.

I yield back all my time.

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

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.

Jim Oberstar is one of the most knowledgeable people in America on energy issues and on transportation issues. And the two, of course, are closely related. I want to thank him for his leadership and for his service. We are fortunate, as an American people, to have him chairing this critically important committee.

There is no stronger proponent of rail service and mass transit than Jim Oberstar. That service has never been more important than it is today. His vision and his service have put this country in a place where we now have the opportunity to make additional investment which is critically needed so that the demand for mass transit resulting from the cost of gasoline and energy products can be met by our mass transit system. And I thank him for his leadership.

This bill, as well as the other two bills considered on this floor today on drilling and market speculation, is a clear recognition by this House majority that America's energy policy cannot be one dimensional.

We've heard a lot of finger pointing on the floor today, and finger pointing is relatively easy. The fact of the matter is we all need to come together. I don't just mean Republicans and Democrats and the Congress of the United States, but all 300 million of us in this country need to come together and understand that we have 3 percent of the world's oil supply and 25 percent of the demand. It does not take a great mathematician to understand, therefore, that simply drilling for new product will not solve our problem. That is not to say by any stretch of the imagination that that should not be done.

These bills, taken together, and when combined with other actions taken by the majority on energy, are a clear reflection of the alternative to the Republicans' sole focus on drilling, to the exclusion of alternative and renewable sources of energy.

Let no one be mistaken: Democrats do not oppose further drilling, discovery and production of product, period. All we are saying, as I will explain in more detail shortly, is that the oil and gas companies should utilize the 68 million acres--that's 68 million acres--currently available to drill on which contain, according to experts, over 100 billion barrels of oil. And we use about 7.5 billion a year in this country, so that is approximately 14 years of oil. That's what the experts tell us, not Democrats and Republicans, the experts tell us are available on these untapped resources currently available, currently leased. I would tell my friends that, not only that, but they contain hundreds of millions of cubic feet of natural gas.

Now, as to Chairman Oberstar's bill: It promises Americans relief from our $4 per gallon gas prices. Tomorrow? No. Next week? No. Next month? No. Very frankly, we have been too long delaying our investment in alternative energy sources and alternative transportation modes. But it does promise that in the future we will have the capability both to provide mass transit for our people, and to provide for the alternative to lower demand which, therefore, should lower prices as well.

It authorizes $1.7 billion over the next 2 years to provide grants to mass transit authorities to reduce public transit fares and will help transit agencies deal with escalating costs. That is a rational response to increased demand.

In just the first 3 months of this year, Americans took almost 85 million more trips on public transit than in the same period the year before. Surely all of us in this body, faced with 85 million additional trips, will want to respond in a way that provides capacity to accommodate that growth.

Public transit reduces America's oil consumption as well as carbon dioxide emissions. Thankfully, the administration has, very late, come to the conclusion that, yes, global warming is a problem. Unfortunately, for 7-plus years of this administration they denied it was a problem, but coming to the right conclusion late is always timely.

In addition, the legislation on market speculation that was introduced by Chairman Peterson and Congressman Van Hollen is an effort which I hope every Member of this body will support to address this issue, record high gas prices, from another angle.

Oil producers are telling us they believe that a large portion of the price is related to speculation. Can I guarantee they're right? No, I cannot. Am I an expert on this issue? I am not. But I do know that they have said that is the case. If it is the case, it's incumbent upon us to find out, because if it is, and we can reduce prices for the consumer at the pump, they expect us to do so and we want to do so.

The Bush administration, of course, insists that the spike in gas prices is not attributable to market speculation. That may be why the commission that is supposed to oversee this has not acted as vigorously as they otherwise might. George Soros, a very successful investor, has said this: ``The crude oil market has been significantly affected by speculation.''

The legislation that we will vote on shortly simply directs the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use its full authority and emergency tools to curtail excessive speculation and other practices distorting the energy market. Why would any Member of this body vote against asking this commission to look at that issue to determine whether or not there is validity? If there is not, presumably the commission will so find.

Finally, about Chairman Rahall's bill, let me simply say this: What could make more common sense than saying to the oil and gas companies that they should drill or pursue drilling on the 68 million acres of Federal land currently under lease or simply lose those leases? After all, they are leased for the purposes of us producing more product. If they lie fallow and are not being worked, not being investigated, not being explored, not being tapped, then the American consumer finds a dwindling or short supply. And what happens in that context? Prices go up. And yes, oil companies make record profits, but consumers lose. This bill simply says to the oil companies, be diligent in the development of what you have or lose the lease to someone who will pursue the discovery and production of oil.

Democrats believe that we need to find product. I mentioned the 68 million acres that you've heard a lot about, that's a lot of acres. But there is an additional 23 million acres in Alaska, 22 million of which is under congressional set-aside for oil production and discovery. Nine hundred thousand acres have already been leased for that purpose. And experts tell us there is more oil there than there is in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, but our Republican friends continue to focus on the Alaskan Refuge.

Let no one be mistaken: The oil companies have many acres to look at onshore and offshore. According to the Minerals Management Service and the Bureau of Land Management, these 68 million acres on land and waters, 74

percent of which we have already leased, are not producing oil and gas.

Our Republican friends have also charged that we're keeping the best lands out of the hands of oil and gas companies. That is not the case. They can say it again and again and again and again, but it's not the case. In fact, 81 percent--I hope all of my colleagues hear this, and I hope the American public will read the Record--81 percent of estimated oil and gas resources on Federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf are presently available for development. And here, perhaps, is the most important fact: These resources are equal, as I said, to 107 billion barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is 10 times the amount of economically recoverable oil that could be produced from opening up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and more than 14 years of current U.S. oil consumption.

Finally, Madam Chairman, let me say that there is no silver bullet, we all understand that; to pretend otherwise would be dishonest. We need to be honest with the American public. Unfortunately, for over a quarter of a century we have had mostly administrations or Republican control of the House and the Senate which essentially said that drilling more oil and not looking for alternatives was the policy they wanted to pursue.

When we got here, we passed an energy bill that focuses on alternatives. If we only have 3 percent, we have 25 percent of the demand, you can bet your sweet life that those who have the oil all over this world are going to say to us, you pay us what we tell you to pay us. And not until we pursue policies--which this administration has failed to do, which this Republican leadership failed to do--not until that time will we be able to say to our friends and, indeed, some not so friendly, we're not going to pay your price because we have alternatives. We have mass transit provided by Jim Oberstar. We have alternative energies provided by the bill that we passed. We are expecting electricity--which the Republicans oppose--to be produced by alternatives. We have renewable fuel standards passed in this House, sent to the Senate.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we have taken significant steps last year, we're taking significant steps today, and we will continue to take significant steps so that America will be energy independent. That's in the best interest of our national security, our economic security and, indeed, it is critically important for our global health.

The bills we are considering on this House floor today are key components of a comprehensive energy strategy that seeks to provide Americans with relief at the gas pump while we wean our Nation from its dangerous addiction to foreign oil. The President said we're addicted to foreign oil. And yet there was a meeting on energy in 2001, just after the President became the Chief Executive, and they convened oil company executives to tell us, what should our policies be? One of my colleagues said, well, whatever they said--because the meetings were secret--their policies failed. Perhaps. Perhaps they failed. One cannot inevitably draw that conclusion, however, because those same companies, 7 years later, are making the greatest profits they have made in the history of their companies. Perhaps their policies failed, or perhaps their policies led to success.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need to pursue mass transit and invest in expanding it so we can meet the demand of our consumers and of our citizens and of our energy independence.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership. And I urge my colleagues to vote for all three of these critically important bills. Are they the sole solution? They are not. Are they the only solution? They are not. Are they the solutions that we will take and then stop? They are not. But they are a step, each and every one of them, in the right direction. Let's take those steps today.

I urge my colleagues to support these three bills.

I want to thank my colleague from Florida for giving me a moment to speak on this bill.

We have had examples here all day today of the fact we are not going to be able to pass any meaningful energy legislation in this week before we go home for the 4th of July holiday. It is not just Republicans who are saying this. I want to point out the fact that in today's Politico, the story is headlined: ``Pelosi's Pump Pain. Aggressive Pre-Recess Plan Goes By the Wayside.''

I would like to introduce this, without objection, into the Record.

``Speaker Nancy Pelosi hoped to send House Democrats home for the Fourth of July recess with a series of votes that would show they're

serious about easing the pain at the pump.''

That obviously is not going to be done. We are passing bills here today that deserve the ``Emperor's New Clothes Award.'' Somebody has to stand up and say the emperor has no new clothes, because the bills that we are being asked to vote on are shams. We are not doing anything to help average, hardworking Americans who are paying over $4 a gallon for gasoline as a result of the Democrats' control in the last 18 months of this Congress.

This is a sham. This is for show. They are going to go home and say they did something, but they did nothing to help the average working American, and it is time that people said so. We don't need to be allowing this sham to continue without being able to talk about it.

It says here ``nothing has gone according to plan. The price-gouging bill failed to garner the two-thirds support necessary to pass.'' Even Democrats are speaking against the bill. They are talking about how it is going to hurt gas-producing States and the gas-producing people are opposed to it, the Democrats are.

So nothing that is going on here is really going to help those of you who are paying over $4 a gallon for gasoline in this country. All we are doing is letting the Democrats put on a show that says that they are reducing the price of gasoline, when they are not.

Pelosi's Pump Pain--Aggressive pre-recess plan goes by wayside

(By Patrick O'Connor)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi hoped to send House Democrats home for

the Fourth of July recess with a series of votes that would

show they're serious about easing the pain at the pump.

Their wish list included legislation giving the federal

government more authority to crack down on price-gouging by

oil companies and smaller vendors, a bill requiring energy

producers to relinquish any land not currently being tapped

for oil or gas production, and a measure creating new

restrictions for commodity traders whose speculation has

driven up the price of oil.

But nothing has gone according to plan.

The price-gouging bill failed to garner the two-thirds

support necessary to pass. An accounting issue forced leaders

to put off for a day the so-called ``use it or lose it''

measure. And the legislation to curb speculation is now

caught up in a member fight over the proper path forward--a

fight that exposes the misgivings some Democrats have about

this activist agenda.

So instead of a barrage of legislation aimed at knocking

back the Republicans' gas price assault, Democrats will

settle for a measure giving local transit agencies $850

million in each of the next two years to reduce prices and

add routes, as well as a symbolic vote calling on President

Bush to crack down on ``excessive'' commodity speculation.

The Democrats' stumbles come as congressional Republicans

continue to push aggressively for more domestic oil and gas

production on the Outer Continental Shelf and in Alaska's

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as for an ambitious

plan to turn coal shale beneath the High Plains into natural

gas.

Republicans claim an amendment--offered by Pennsylvania

Rep. John E. Peterson--to open offshore drilling sites 50

miles off the coast has enough support to survive a committee

vote on the Appropriations panel.

The committee postponed consideration of the measure on

which Peterson planned to offer his amendment, but Chairman

Dave Obey (D-Wis.) told members Tuesday he plans to bring it

up when lawmakers return from the weeklong Fourth of July

recess.

As the Democrats struggle to hold together support for the

existing offshore drilling ban, they find themselves coming

apart on another energy issue: what to do about oil

speculators.

Some Democrats, such as Agriculture Committee Chairman

Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Rep. Bob Etheridge of North

Carolina, would like party leaders to advance a modest

measure that gives federal regulators more resources to crack

down on ``excessive'' speculation in the United States and

abroad.

``I'm not, at this point, sold that speculation is the

reason these prices are going up,'' Peterson said.

Others, such as Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Maryland

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Democratic Party's campaign chief,

have urged the speaker to go further by making substantive

changes to the current laws, members and aides said.

Add to that a jurisdictional squabble between Peterson's

Agriculture Committee and members of the House Energy and

Commerce Committee--including Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart

Stupak--who have been working on this issue for years, and

Pelosi faces a major internal challenge in bringing this

legislation to the floor.

The speaker met with these and other members for more than

an hour Wednesday morning. They were joined by Michae1

Greenberger, a law school professor at the University of

Maryland and a former director of trading and markets at the

Commodity futures Trading Commission, who has testified

before Congress that speculators are driving up the price of

oil.

But the participants who emerged from that meeting

suggested the various committees of jurisdiction will begin

looking at this legislation before leaders craft a

compromise.

``I think the consensus is that this needs to be done very

carefully,'' said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-

Md.).

``We're going to focus on the actual legislation and try to

come to a consensus,'' Peterson said.

Pelosi told reporters Wednesday that she expects

legislation on the floor sometime next month, before

lawmakers leave for the summer and for their respective

nominating conventions.

Some Democrats wanted to vote on a modest bill this week to

give themselves cover before the recess, aides said.

A number of conservative Blue Dog Democrats were also

grumbling that party leaders were planning to put them in a

bad spot politically with these aggressive oversight

measures, aides said. Pelosi met with a number of these

members Wednesday, but the speculation issue was only one of

the topics discussed.

In the meantime, both parties continued their finger-

pointing over the gas prices and the policies that might have

an effect on them.

On Wednesday, the Department of the Interior questioned

Democratic claims that energy producers could pump oil or gas

on 68 million acres of land that has already been leased.

This talking point became a common refrain last week;

Democrats argued that the lease-holding oil companies could

produce 4.8 million barrels of oil and more than 44 million

barrels of natural gas each day under the current contracts.

``The views contained in the report [issued by Democrats on

the House Natural Resources Committee] are based on a

misunderstanding of the very lengthy regulatory process,''

wrote C. Stephen Allred, the assistant secretary of the

Interior for Land and Minerals Management, who favors

increased oil and gas exploration. ``The existence of a lease

does not guarantee the discovery of, or any particular

quantity of, oil and gas.''

In his letter--which can1e at the request of Republican

Rep. Don Young of Alaska--Allred further argued that a

lengthy permitting process creates a lag for energy producers

to extract fossil fuels from this land.

In a statement issued in response to the letter, House

Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-W.Va.)

called it ``a diversion from the simple fact that there are

68 million acres of leased land not producing any oil and

gas.''

Rahall said that the administration's argument about the

slow permitting process undercuts its arguments for lifting

the offshore drilling ban; a long permitting process, he

said, would slow any benefit to be gained from offshore

drilling, too.

``Roughly 80 percent of the oil and gas under federal

waters are in areas already open for leasing. They should

focus on that before trying to grab any more of our public

lands,'' Rahall said.

The fight over gas prices also has a personal component.

Pelosi has staked her speakership, in part, on aggressive

environmentalism to limit human contributions to global

warming. This puts her at odds with those in her caucus who

are more sympathetic to the oil and gas industry. That

dynamic forces her to tread lightly inside the party, but it

does not prevent her from issuing lofty challenges in the

name of the environment.

``We are in the battle of this generation,'' Pelosi told

reporters Wednesday. ``We're ready to make the fight. We are

united behind it.''

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.