Expressing gratitude for the contributions of the American GI Forum on its 60th anniversary.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1304 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida. 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 and to insert extraneous material into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1304 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008. The resolution provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and makes in order five amendments submitted for consideration.

The rule also permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules relating to two important measures: one, a measure concerning the Commodity Exchange Act and energy markets; and two, a measure concerning the issuance of oil and gas leases on Federal lands or waters. This authority is needed because House rules allow for bills to be considered under suspension only on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays. In order for the House to consider the bill today on Thursday or on any other day, the House must adopt a rule granting specific permission.

Madam Speaker, hardworking Americans all across this great country are being squeezed by this painful Bush economy that has brought on increased costs for housing and for health care. My colleague from Florida can attest to the rising costs of property insurance for Floridians and other Americans, and of course, gas prices are socking it to our neighbors back home.

Now, many of the reformers here in Congress have been standing up to the White House and have been urging them for years to change direction and to focus on long-term solutions to our energy challenges. But the oil men at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and their Big Oil allies have had a stranglehold over our country's energy policy, and unfortunately, families and businesses across America are paying the price.

Now, some bipartisan progress has been made here in our new-direction Congress over the past year and a half. One of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first initiatives was to establish a new bipartisan Select Committee on Energy Independence and Climate Change, which has been extremely productive. Democratic reformers also pushed through a historic increase in the required gas mileage of 35 miles per gallon for our cars. Now, better gas mileage for our cars alone should save families from $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump and should slash consumption in America by 4 million gallons per day, but it cannot happen soon enough. The sad thing is this technology has existed for years. Cars in Japan travel almost twice as far on a gallon of gas.

What has been missing here in our country is the political leadership to make these necessary changes. So many of the changes we have been fighting for have been blocked by the White House and by their Big Oil allies.

Remember, just 7 years ago, the administration's Energy Task Force met behind closed doors, and it consisted of former oil company executives and of other oil executives, like Ken Lay of Enron. The administration also fought to keep the other identities secret. Saving American families money through innovation was not a priority. Conservation was not a priority--the Vice President made that clear-- and public transit and public transportation were not priorities. They were stuck in the past then, and they still are today because what has been their answer to high gas prices? Their recommendations today are the same as they were 7 years ago: More drilling; more of the same.

Now, as the reformers in this Congress continue to fight for a new direction in energy policy, inexplicably, the White House announced yesterday that it opposes today's public transit bill, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act. What a shame on the White House, because expanding public transportation use is one of the most promising ways to reduce energy consumption and reliance on foreign oil.

Now, with the White House's $4-per-gallon premium, even more commuters are choosing to ride the train and to bus to work rather than to ride alone in their cars. According to two recent studies, America already saves up to 1\1/2\ to 4 billion gallons of gasoline annually. That's more than 11 million gallons of gasoline per day due to public transit.

Ridership across America is way up. 2007 was the highest ridership in public transportation in 50 years. Light rail riders are way up in Denver, Seattle, Portland, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Charlotte, and in many other communities. And my colleague from Miami will be pleased to hear that South Florida posted a 20 percent increase over last year in ridership in March and April. Transit agencies are also using more alternative fuels and clean energy technologies that improve the air we breathe and that aid America's energy independence.

Our transit bill on the floor today and under this rule will lower fares and will expand routes and frequency so public transit is an even more attractive alternative during this time of high gas prices.

So I urge my colleagues to continue to stand up to the White House, to support this rule and our first bill today, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act.

Madam Speaker, our second bill today under this rule is entitled ``Use It or Lose It.'' In the bill, we are calling the bluff of the White House, of Big Oil, and of other prominent Republicans who claim that oil companies are being blocked from drilling for oil and gas and that that is somehow related to gas prices. Well, after the White House announced that policy last week, one commentator called it a massive fraudulent and pathetic excuse for an energy policy.

You see, 68 million acres are already leased and have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 4.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. Now, if 68 million acres are already open to drilling, please do not insult the intelligence of the American people by claiming that the oil companies need more.

The truth about America's energy policy and the White House policy is that Big Oil has stockpiled supplies and has pocketed profits. A report has been generated by the Committee on Natural Resources, entitled ``The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits'' of June 2008. If American families and businesses are interested, they can obtain this report on the Internet at resourcescommittee.house.gov.

The chairman of the Natural Resources Committee is Nick Rahall of West Virginia. It's his bill. The bill forces oil and gas companies to either produce, to use it or to release the leases, to lose them, the leases they've been stockpiling. These companies can't obtain new ones unless they can demonstrate that they are diligently using the ones that they already have.

Now, what was particularly interesting, Madam Speaker, is that, last

year, the administration's own energy department, the Energy Information Administration, issued a report that determined that opening more areas would not have a significant impact on gas prices. The 2007 report of the administration's Energy Information Administration, titled ``Annual Energy Outlook 2007, with Projections to 2030'' can be found at www.eia.doe.gov/oaif/aeo/.

In fact, Madam Speaker, just yesterday, the director of the EIA reconfirmed the 2007 report and noted that expanded offshore drilling in the U.S. will not affect oil and natural gas prices very much at all.

I would like to submit yesterday's reconfirmation by the EIA director of the 2007 report.

[From Bloomberg.com, June 25, 2008]

Offshore Drilling Won't Affect Prices Much, EIA Says

(By Tina Seeley)

Expanded offshore drilling in the U.S. won't affect oil and

natural-gas prices much, the head of the Energy Information

Administration said.

Guy Caruso, speaking today at a press conference in

Washington, said his agency had considered the effect of more

drilling in a 2007 report. Higher energy prices this year

might change the results, although the time needed for

resource development would damp any outcome, he said.

``It does take a long time to develop those resources,''

Caruso said. ``Therefore the price impact is muted by that.''

President George W. Bush last week proposed expanded

drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and development of

energy sources in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as

a response to record prices. Crude-oil futures hit a record

$139.89 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange on June

16.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican

presidential nominee, has expressed support for more

drilling. His potential Democratic opponent, Senator Barack

Obama of Illinois, opposes more drilling.

``The projections in the OCS access case indicate that

access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions

would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and

natural gas production or prices before 2030,'' the agency

said in its 2007 report.

The Energy Information Administration is the statistical

arm of the U.S. Energy Department.

Madam Speaker, this sounds all too familiar: the Bush administration ignoring information generated by its own agencies. They've been downplaying, ignoring climate change, possibly intelligence, and now it comes as no surprise that they're playing games on energy policy as well. Thanks to the administration's years of inaction and incompetence, America is left with record prices for consumers and with record profits for oil companies with disastrous national security consequences.

Now, the third bill we will consider today as part of our energy package is a direction to the administration, encouragement, as we continue to stand up to the misguided policies of this White House.

Our third bill today encourages the White House to take more aggressive action in regulating the energy futures market. This is our first step in tackling the outrageous speculation that is occurring that many experts have noted could help reduce the price of gas at the pump.

This is our package today. We look forward to the debate.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm very happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, a leader on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Cummings.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Vermont, a member of the powerful Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that, under the underlying bill, we provide extensive assistance to rural America. It is clear that folks in rural America oftentimes bear the brunt of high gas prices brought on by this unfortunate Bush economy and by the failure of leadership over the past 6 to 8 years. The underlying bill provides over $100 million for rural America to expand the alternative use through public transportation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The reformers in this Congress are working for solutions and are casting aside the politics of the past, and for the first time in a decade, they are setting the right priorities for American families. See, American families are caught in this very unfortunate Bush economy that is squeezing them, whether it's health care, the rising cost of housing, and, of course, gas prices.

This New Direction Congress, led by Democrats, is on the side of middle class families, and we are responding to their call for change in the direction of this country. But, Madam Speaker, it has not been easy. It has not been easy in these final years of the Bush administration. A number of times we have stood up to the administration to repeal the massive subsidies to the big oil companies and instead take that money and invest it in new renewable energies and biofuel technologies because one of the most promising ways to end our dependence on foreign oil is in the creation of renewable energy sources. But we were blocked by the White House and Big Oil.

But we are not going to give up. If we had given up, the reformers in this Congress would not have been able to push through the first increase in fuel economy standards in over 30 years. The increase of 35 miles per gallon for each automobile will save American families $700 to $1,000 at the pump when fully implemented.

American families are clamoring for a bold, new direction in energy policy. It is vital to their family budgets, and we know now, as, unfortunately, the leaders of the country have had to traipse over to Saudi Arabia and ask for more oil, that this is vital to our national security. So the contrast between the policies of the past and our forward-looking efforts could not be more clear.

But, Madam Speaker, it is so easy to be frustrated by the misguided policies of this administration over the past 8 years and by their political gimmicks where they pretend that drilling for oil in new areas is the answer to high gas prices when their very own Energy Department dismisses the idea as untrue. After all, there are 68 million acres already open and currently leased to oil and gas companies. So why here at the end of this administration would we give Big Oil even more?

Madam Speaker, American families are counting on us. So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to back up your rhetoric with support for our bipartisan bills today, to provide American families with greater opportunities to use public transit by lowering fares and by increasing the frequency of buses and trains in their neighborhoods. Reject the oil drilling gimmick for what it is, and urge this President to address the oil speculators that are causing a run-up in high gas prices. My colleagues, stand up to the powerful interests, and end the practice of using energy policy as a way to support Big Oil. Instead, help our families; help our communities; enable researchers and innovators to lead us to a cleaner, safer, and more affordable future.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and of the underlying legislation. Chart a new direction for America on energy. 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. 1304 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5656) to repeal a

requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition

of alternative fuels. All points of order against the bill

are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

member of the Committee on House Oversight and Government

Reform; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if

offered by Representative Waxman, which shall be considered

as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

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

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 would like to thank my friend from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

With gas prices averaging over $4 a gallon, more and more Americans are using public transportation for their commuting needs. Reports from Metropolitan transit systems throughout the country are showing a significant increase in ridership, in some cases as much as 15 percent--and perhaps even higher--over last year's figures. At the same time, highway vehicle miles traveled declined by 2 percent.

Meeting this increased demand for public transportation is causing a burden on local transit agencies which, just like commuters, must pay record fuel prices to pay for buses and subway trains and light rail.

To help meet this increased demand for public transportation, the underlying legislation, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act, would provide $1.7 billion in funding to increase public transportation use across the United States. Transit agencies would be able to use those funds to reduce transit fares or expand transit services.

I think this funding is important for communities throughout the country, certainly the community I'm honored to represent. Recently, Miami-Dade County, the 12th largest public transit agency in the country, announced that bus routes would be cut and others adjusted due to the rising cost of fuel. So this at a time when more and more commuters are looking to use public transportation, but public transportation systems are definitely being affected by the rise in energy costs. So it is my hope that the $36 million this legislation would provide South Florida would help reestablish some of the routes that were cut and would expand others so that commuters would have a more reliable public transportation system.

To further promote the use of public transportation, the legislation establishes a nationwide Federal transit pass benefits program and requires all Federal agencies to offer transit passes to Federal employees working in urbanized areas with fixed route transit systems.

To help alleviate the reliance on gasoline to power our transit systems, the bill will increase the Federal share for clean and alternative fuel transit projects. This will also have the beneficial effect of reducing transportation-related emissions.

I would like to congratulate Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for working together to draft a bipartisan bill that both sides of the aisle can support. This legislation, the underlying legislation, will be a great benefit to transit systems throughout the country at a time when they are needing additional funding.

Madam Speaker, once again, the bipartisan spirit of the bill, the underlying legislation, never made it past the doors of the Rules Committee. Yesterday, the majority in the Rules Committee only allowed one minority amendment to be debated today, while allowing three amendments from the majority.

Before the new majority took control of the House in January of 2007, they published a document called ``A New Direction for America,'' which set out their promises to the American people. Page 24 of that document says, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternative, including a substitute.''

Yet here we are today with a process that, contrary to their promise to the American people, blocks a full and fair debate and allows only one minority amendment. Actually, this one minority amendment is the only one the majority has allowed the minority to offer all week. Four bills, one amendment.

Actually, it is more like six bills, one amendment, because this rule will allow the House to debate two additional bills under suspension of the rules, one against speculation in the oil market, and we have to speculate on what it says because we haven't seen it. And the majority's bringing those bills to floor without allowing the minority to offer any amendments or a motion to recommit.

So, at a time when gas prices are hitting almost daily records, the majority should be offering a ``full and fair debate'' on this critical issue, a debate that considers ideas from both sides of the aisle, of all Members of this House, to help reduce gasoline prices.

Polls across the country are consistent with a recent poll that I saw that said 71 percent want their elected leaders in Washington to focus on ``increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the cost of gasoline and electricity.'' But instead, the majority is offering no-new-energy legislation, obstructing debate, and impeding solutions to the energy crisis, contrary to what the American people wish.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule, which continues to block the minority from offering more than one amendment and blocks a thorough debate on the critical energy situation facing the Nation.

At this time, I reserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Nunes).

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

It is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished lady from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).

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

I thank again my distinguished friend for having yielded me the time this morning, and I thank all of those who have come to debate on this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, the problem is, when the process by which legislation is brought to the floor is unfair, especially when the issue being dealt with by the legislation is as important as is the issue today, many Members' ideas are shut out, oftentimes ideas on which they have worked for months or years, and in this instance, they are ideas and proposals to bring down the cost of energy and the cost of gasoline. That's why process, something that may sound often theoretical, can have a significant impact on policy. In this instance, an unfair process is denying Members the opportunity to bring concrete ideas to the floor, for debate, to lower the price of energy. That's one of the reasons we are so disturbed, why we think it's so unfortunate that the process on an issue as important as this that the majority has chosen to utilize to bring this legislation to the floor is so unfair.

On almost a daily basis, Madam Speaker, the cost of gasoline is breaking new records. Americans are now paying over $4 a gallon for gasoline. Yet the majority fails to bring legislation to the floor that will actually lower gas prices or decrease our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

We believe it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices at the pump and for addressing the skyrocketing cost of gasoline. So, today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to rising energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 5656, which would repeal the ban on acquiring advanced alternatives fuels, introduced by Mr. Hensarling of Texas. This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid technology.

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

Madam Speaker, by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and in favor of debating legislation to actually deal with that crisis. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this previous question.

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

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

I thank my colleague from Florida, and I admire her leadership on energy issues, among many other issues.

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak about two things. One is an amendment that I offered to this bill that's been incorporated into the manager's amendment.

This bill recognizes that one of the steps that we have to take, long overdue, is to build up our public transportation system. It's going to provide relief to commuters; it's going to help our environment; it's going to create jobs.

The amendment that I offered and that Mr. Oberstar incorporated into the manager's amendment would allow funds to be used by local transportation authorities, like the Chittenden County Transportation Authority, to retrofit their equipment and facilities in order to improve energy efficiency and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Those would be specific purposes for which authorized funds may be used.

Specifically, it means that an organization like the Chittenden County Transit Authority in the Burlington area could retrofit their buses and be more fuel efficient. They've been trying to do that. A shortage of funds has kept them from achieving all of their goals. It would also allow the transportation authority in that State and in other States to build a natural gas pump station locally. This, we believe, is a very important part of the legislation presented to you.

Second, we're having, in the process of this debate, an ongoing discussion about energy. The fact is--and I think we all know this--in the past when we've had crises around energy, it has never produced a lasting and durable response. There has been an immediate response but nothing lasting, whether it was after the OPEC organization in the early '70s, after the Gulf war or after Katrina. Usually, a crisis does produce a response. It hasn't. We know the time has passed as to when we can look the other way.

What accounts for the high cost of energy? The reality is there are a number of factors. The weak dollar is one, because of our current account deficit. Speculation is another. There has been a massive increase in speculation in the commodities markets in general, in oil in particular, where it's gone from folks who are delivering the product or who are receiving the product, to financial speculators who see that there is money in playing that game.

There has also been an increased demand with globalization. China and India are building their economies. They're using more energy. But there has also been a significant failure of leadership to move us away from an oil-dependent economy. The reality is, what we need to be doing here in Congress is addressing both the short-term

steps that we can take as well as the long-term need for a new energy policy.

So what are the specific things that we can do in the short term? One, we can stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and diminish demand. We've done that. That will have a positive impact in reducing demand. Second, we can limit speculation. We should be putting limits on how much the speculative players can influence price, not only because there is significant expert testimony that that is adding a premium to the cost of a gallon of gas or to a gallon of home heating fuel, but that it also is creating a potential bubble where innocent participants and pension funds may see the value of their assets suddenly diminish when the market goes south. So we will be considering later anti-speculation legislation that will be helpful as well.

Third, the ``Use It or Lose It'' legislation. Our friends on the other side have been making a big argument about the need to increase production. You know, there is not any disagreement here that part of our transition from an oil-based economy to a carbon-free economy has to include the continued production and use of carbon-based fuels, including oil. No question about it. The issue here is whether or not we need to increase lands that are available when we have 68 million acres already under lease, permitted, where all the oil companies need to do in order to produce more oil is to put metal to the Earth. This is 68 million acres, Madam Speaker, as you know, that is both onshore and offshore.

So the argument is that we need to be opening up a national park and starting to drill there or into other coastal areas when we have 68 million acres already available, but for reasons that only the oil companies--the leaseholders--are aware, those are not producing needed oil and natural gas for our citizens. It's estimated that the amount of oil that's available under those 68 million acres is 4.8 million barrels.

So what we need to do that also is a long-term energy policy is to increase mileage standards and take away the tax breaks that are going to the oil companies and steer them to alternative agency. Incidentally, ExxonMobil, which made $40 billion this year, spent $32 billion buying its stock back rather than producing oil on these leaseholds.

We also have to have a new energy policy so we can keep our money at home. We're sending $1 trillion to the oil-producing states like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, not particularly our friends. If we keep that money at home, we're going to strengthen our economy.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1291 recognizes the contributions of the American GI Forum on its 60th anniversary. Mr. Speaker, the work of the founder of the American GI Forum, Dr. Hector Garcia, is one that shows the determination of the American spirit.

Serving during World War II as an infantryman, as a combat engineer, and a medical doctor, he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal with six battle stars and achieved the rank of major. Upon his return from the war, he worked to encourage other Mexican Americans to educate themselves in the Democratic principles, and founded the American GI Forum in 1948 to fight for equal treatment for Mexican American veterans, including proper medical treatment and educational benefits.

In reviewing the current legislative priorities for the American GI Forum, it is evident their efforts have continued to instill in the Hispanic/Latino community the desire to achieve through liberty.

Mr. Speaker, there is one clarification that I think should be made regarding the resolution whereas clauses, and I will take these up in a moment here with the author of the bill. In particular, the whereas clause reads, ``Whereas, millions of veterans returning home from World War II look to the guarantee of educational, medical, housing, and other basic benefits by the GI Bill,'' and, ``Whereas, these benefits were denied in large part to Americans of Mexican descent and other Hispanics throughout the United States.''

By having these two statements like this in the whereas clause, this statement implies systematic denial of benefits as a matter of policy by the VA. Individual accounts of bigotry most likely did in fact occur, but I have great concerns with regard to the drafting of the bill. I was very disappointed that the chairman would not work with the minority on the drafting of this bill.

Those of us who wear and have worn the uniform, we embrace the ideals that veterans benefits are to be extended without regard to race, color, or creed. As I said, I will have some questions of Mr. Rodriguez regarding the clarification of his intent on the whereas clauses.

Mr. Speaker, the work of the veterans service organizations like the

American GI Forum advocates for veterans and assists those of us in Congress and particularly on the committee of Veterans' Affairs to formulate policy that will help guide our country in respect to veterans' affairs. I commend the American GI Forum's work these past 60 years.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions on my time. I would like to inquire of the gentleman regarding his intent on the drafting of the resolution. In particular, the first and second clauses of the resolution. The first clause, ``Whereas, millions of veterans returning home from World War II looked to the guarantee of educational, medical, housing, and other basic benefits provided by the GI Bill''; and, ``Whereas, these benefits were denied.''

As it's drafted, it basically says here are the benefits they looked forward to. And then we say, ``these benefits were denied'' and then ``in large part, to Americans of Mexican descent.''

So in the whereas clause we are saying that here are benefits that millions of veterans coming back from World War II looked forward to, then in the drafting it says, oh, by the way, ``Whereas, these benefits were denied, in large part to Americans of Mexican descent and other Hispanics throughout the United States.''

Now there are other individuals, other forms of odious discrimination of various kinds encountered by veterans, whether they be African American, whether they are women, individuals are Puerto Rican. There could have been many other forms of discrimination and bigotry in which people were subjected to in our country, not only back then but even probably of today.

What I was hoping we could do is that we are actually voting on a resolution on the floor, that this drafting is kind of awkward. I was hoping that we could try to correct that.

What I wanted to do is yield to the gentleman so he can tell us about his intent with regard to the legislation.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the chairman and I both have been to Harlingen, we have been in Deep South, Texas. We understand your challenges. We have also met with many of your comrades down there, who have tremendous enthusiasm for our country.

I appreciate your explanation with regard to the ``whereas'' clauses, that these were the foundation of the GI Forum. I just wanted to make sure that we did not have the implication as a policy record of discrimination by the VA. That in fact there were forms of discrimination by individuals, but our country, who was then run by Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, never would have in fact embraced any form of this policy.

Okay. I appreciate the gentleman clarifying the intent with regard to the ``whereas'' clauses.

With that, I urge my colleagues to adopt the resolution before the House, and I yield back the balance of my time.