Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the question isn't whether we should do something. The question is, what should we do when we have this stimulus package in front of us? And why is that important? Well, Newsweek magazine says it all. The cover says: ``We Are All Socialists Now.'' And inside they say, referring to the debate that is taking place on the floor, ``big government is back big-time.''

They go on to tell us that in many ways, our economy already resembles a European one. And they then project we will soon become even more French. I don't know about you, but I didn't believe that the people voted in the last election to become more French. And when I look at the stimulus package and learn that it has $30 million to protect the San Francisco marsh mice, I have to ask, is that becoming more French, or is that just becoming more absurd?

Would the gentleman yield? It is a salt marsh mouse, a salt marsh mouse from San Francisco.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa.

Let me make several points. First of all, as we look at this stimulus package, the American people are asking us what's in it. It's difficult for us to tell because we haven't seen it. But we do know it's premised on the proposition that if excessive bad spending got us into this problem, excessive bad spending is going to get us out. And I would just suggest this to the gentleman from Iowa.

Did not we learn our lesson from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

There were a small number of us on the floor just a couple of years ago who tried to apply the brakes to a runaway situation. But we were overwhelmed by the sentiment that, you know, the taxpayers can pay and pay and pay, or stand behind and stand behind or go into debt interminably. We can promise more than we can perform. We can do it for all good intentions, and it will never, the day will never come when we have to actually deal with the consequences. That should be an object lesson for us now. How long ago was that? That's just a couple of years ago. And yet, here we are now dealing with that same situation.

The second point I would make is this: As we understand in this plan, they have put the Davis-Bacon provisions in, with respect to the stimulus infrastructure projects. Let me just say this: That cuts down on the number of jobs that will be created. Don't worry about a fight with the unions. That's not the point. The point is, when you impose those stringent standards on the States and localities for their infrastructure projects, you will have fewer jobs created.

The third point I would like to make is this: How are we going to pay for it? We're going to pay for it out of public debt. We're going to have this nearly $800 billion stimulus. In another 2 weeks, we're going to be on this floor, and we're going to be talking about a $410 billion omnibus spending bill, followed by an additional $100 billion supplemental.

How are we going to pay for that?

We're going to have to go to the market. We will, in fact, have to go to the market. The Bureau of the Public Debt will attempt to borrow $2.1 trillion in a single year. This is 4 times the amount of debt we have ever tried to put on the market in a single year. You don't think this is going to have consequences? It is.

I am the proud father of three. I have three grandchildren. I have two step-grandchildren. My youngest grandchild is 1 year of age. What we do tomorrow will affect him far more than it will affect me or any of my constituents of an older age, because he is going to have to pay. When we say, ``you don't have to worry about that,'' just think back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It not only helped destroy the housing industry, but it had a corrupting influence on the banking industry, and it has cascaded into the entire economy. Maybe we ought to think about that before we vote tomorrow.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, in light of the announcement of the Treasury Secretary of a new version of the financial rescue package, I wish to consider a broader context, historical context, perhaps, to gain a better understanding of how we may best serve our efforts to stabilize our banking system and unlock credit for our path to economic recovery.

In a recent report by the IMF, there have been a number of financial crises in the postwar era indicated. However, two examples stand out as relevant to our own difficulties. During the past decade, Japan and Sweden suffered financial and economic trauma that involved substantial similarities to the current challenges facing us. However, it is the nature of the very distinct responses of these two nations which warrant our attention.

Charles Kindleberger, in his classic work ``Manias, Panics, and Crashes,'' explains the situation confronting Japan in the early 1990s. The bubble in Japan reached its crescendo in 1989. Real estate prices had been skyrocketing, and the banks even developed new financial instruments like the 100-year, three-generation mortgage. In a story that sounds all too familiar, when the bubble burst, Japanese bank loans slowed, and as the availability of credit declined, distressed sales caused real estate prices to decline. By 1991, stock prices had fallen by 60 percent, and it was not until 2003 that the stock prices in Japan returned to the level that they had been 20 years earlier.

To put this into perspective, it will be remembered that seven out of 10 of the world's largest banks were Japanese at the beginning of the 1990s. Before the decade was over, these financial giants were insolvent. They remained in business only because of an understanding that the Japanese government would keep them afloat.

One of the reasons the comparison of the Japanese and Swedish financial bubbles is helpful to us is that it reflects the role of an increasingly intertwined global economy. As Kindleberger points out, the bubble in Sweden was largely affected by the offshore branches of banks headquartered in Tokyo and Osaka. The surge in the flow of loans from these banks led to the increase in real estate and stocks in Sweden. Before all was said and done, the price of real estate in Sweden was to rise even faster than it did in Japan.

In a presentation of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, Sweden's former Central Bank chairman, Urban Backstrom, pointed to a number of factors which led to the Swedish bubble--

an expansionary monetary policy similar to pre-bubble Japan, a tax policy that favored borrowing, sizable current account deficits, and an explosion of Swedish debt.

Within 5 years, the rate of debt to the gross domestic product rose from 85 percent to 135 percent. This credit boom led to a resulting boom in real estate prices. The speculative bubble had been created, and the Swedish economy became vulnerable to an implosion.

In seeking to rectify policies that had led to high inflation and high nominal interest rates, asset prices began to fall and economic activity headed south. Between the summers of 1990 and 1993, Swedish GDP dropped by 6 percent, unemployment rose to 12 percent, and the banking sector had loan losses of 12 percent of the gross domestic product. What is perhaps most instructive is for us to consider how differently these two nations responded.

The response of the Japanese government was largely predicated on the ``understanding'' that it would keep the banks afloat. The absence of any systematic overarching policy framework led to what could be best characterized as an ad hoc approach. And as a consequence, the Japanese financial system consisted of a large number of ``zombie banks'' which had the effect of undermining the confidence in the banking system. Furthermore, this unwillingness to address the reality of insolvent institutions rendered the banking system as a whole insolvent.

The response of the Swedish government to its financial collapse contains noteworthy contrast. This was explained by Swedish Central Bank Chairman Urban Backstrom. Due to the serious nature of the Swedish financial crisis, efforts were made to maintain the bank system's liquidity. Significant emphasis was given to the need for transparency and a realistic disclosure of expected loan losses. Banks applying for support had their assets valued by the Bank Support Authority using uniform criteria. In order to minimize the problem of moral hazard, the bank guarantee provided protection from losses for all creditors except shareholders. A separate authority was set up to administer the bank guarantee and to manage the bank that faced solvency problems.

The clear distinction between the Swedish model and the Japanese model was an overarching set of rules rather than a series of ad hoc responses. In contrast to their Japanese counterparts, the Swedish government quickly wrote down the value of bad assets and did not prolong the agony for the economy. Sweden, unlike the Japanese government, did not have an understanding that insolvent banks would be forever protected. We ought to look at the Swedish model.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because it does not recognize that occasionally Congress does something right. I remember being on this floor some 20 years ago and debating with then the distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Peter Rodino, about reform of the Bankruptcy Code and specifically chapter 11.

The question at that time was whether or not we are going to adapt the Bankruptcy Code so that chapter 11 would allow companies large and small to restructure themselves so that they could go on as enterprising entities, but now we are told that somehow there is something special about the Big Three auto manufacturers in Detroit that will not allow them to go through the process that we had Delta Airlines go through, that we have had very, very many companies go through. Somehow, it has been asserted that chapter 11 means death and destruction. Chapter 11 doesn't mean death and destruction, it means restructuring and rebirth.

What happens is, when you go into bankruptcy court, everything is on the table. What we have heard discussed around here, and what's being presented to us is bankruptcy-lite. It's like bankruptcy, but we are not going to require it to be bankruptcy. Why? Because, somehow, that doesn't work.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it does work. And it doesn't put the American people, the taxpayers, behind promises that can't be kept. Because in a bankruptcy court, the judge requires everybody to put their cards on the table, and then a decision is made as to what is the best interest of the entity so that they may continue to operate.

So you have to ask yourself, why do people not want to go through bankruptcy? Perhaps it's so that they don't have to do those things that would be required to make them enterprising entities. Now we have a circumstance where we are going to create a car czar, or czarina, to tell the manufacturers how they ought to operate their businesses, the ultimate irony, Congress telling somebody else how they ought to operate their businesses in an economic fashion.

Madam Speaker, in a former life as Attorney General of California, I was required to sign off on any of the debt instruments that went to market to make sure that they followed the laws and the Constitution of the State of California. Never did we have difficulty floating short-term loans in California in anticipation of the income revenues that would be coming in.

However, just last night the governor of the State of California wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury indicating that California may very well have difficulty floating $7 billion in short- term loans to cover expenses. I can't recall when that ever happened before. The reason is the squeeze on the credit market. That ought to bring us some pause here.

But more importantly, over the last 2 days I was home in my district and I talked with people involved with hospitals, banks, automobile dealers, simple folks, my 91-year-old mother whose entire future is wrapped up in the investments my dad left her. She has no pension. She has what my dad left her. When you see the volatility of the market and the uncertainty out there, that spreads fear among our folks back home.

This is not a perfect bill. Certainly I don't ever argue this is a perfect bill, but it is the best we have right now. I would ask my colleagues to please support this bill.

Those of you talking about the additional cost on the Senate side, the largest additional cost is fixing the AMT. It is the first time I have heard some of the people on my side of the aisle refer to that as a cost. That is giving taxpayers the kind of relief they deserve and preventing them from being put into higher tax brackets unnecessarily.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

Years ago when I was much younger, I was a lifeguard. And I recall one of the first lessons you learn as a lifeguard is that if you know there is a dangerous undertow, you get the people back on the beach and out of the water.

Maybe we can reflect and say we didn't see the undertows coming and we didn't get the people out of the water and onto the beach. But the other thing that I learned when I was a lifeguard was that if you found someone that was in the undertow, you attempted to rescue them. You didn't stand there and curse Mother Nature. You didn't say, Why didn't they do something yesterday? Or, Why didn't we do something an hour ago? Or, Why didn't we blow the alarm 10 minutes ago? You went and you tried to rescue the individual or individuals who were in distress.

That's where we find ourselves today. We are in distress. I am not an expert on the international financial markets, but when bank after bank after bank appears to be going down in Europe, when we have bank failures here, when it appears to be a consensus of this House and the Senate and the executive branch that we have a difficult time, someone called it crisis, some would say that we are on the verge of a cataclysmic event, that we ought to take note and do something about it.

So I would say to my conservative friends, if we want to protect the taxpayer, we ought to try to get the best deal we possibly can under the circumstances. Under these circumstances, as we stand here today, I believe this is the best possible solution we can get.

Would I prefer something else, yes. I voted against the previous question because I wanted the Republican alternative, but we don't have the votes for that. So we need to do something to protect the taxpayer. But more importantly, let's bring this down to the very basic level. This is a question of jobs. It is a question about whether people in our districts are going to have jobs supplied by small businesses, medium-sized businesses. Can they go to the bank to get the credit so they can put out the payroll.

Now, here is the problem. The chairman of the committee mentioned this awhile ago. We don't have the catastrophe right yet. If we prevent the catastrophe, will anybody notice? But it again reminds me of the time when I was a lifeguard. There were a lot of people who didn't get in trouble because I ran a pretty good pool.

I didn't allow small children who didn't know how to swim to jump into the pool. I didn't allow people to dive into the pool where I knew it was too shallow and they could break their necks. I didn't get credit for saving them after they dove in the pool and broke their necks. I didn't get credit for saving a little child from jumping in the water and nobody noticing that child and having that child drown. But I know. I did my job, and I prevented some possible tragedies.

So I would ask Members on my side of the aisle, think about it. If you truly believe we have the possibility of this economic breakdown, at least attempt to save the people in the pool. It isn't what I would desire. It is not what I would have brought to the floor had I had the unique chance to do it, but it is the best opportunity we have. Let's not miss it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I feel like I am intruding on a legislative committee lovefest here, but I understand the camaraderie that surrounds your committee, and I appreciate the work that you are doing on this issue, particularly making sure that the Deepwater program works and works well.

I would just like to take a moment to comment on the portion of the legislation referred to earlier relating to the semi-submersible vessels. Language addressing this issue has passed this House on two occasions, in connection with the Coast Guard authorization, as well as a freestanding bill on suspension.

Congressman Ted Poe of Texas and I sought to enact criminal penalties for the use of these stateless vessels which, as you examine them, have no legitimate use other than to transport illegal vessels and perhaps other threats to our national security.

The only substantive difference in the language before us today is that it also includes a Senate provision which would provide the option of civil penalties of up to $1 million, which would give the Federal prosecutors additional flexibility to end this illicit commerce.

Let's understand what we're talking about. Self-propelled submersibles and semi-submersibles are watercraft of unorthodox construction capable of putting much of their bulk under the surface of the water, which makes them very difficult to detect. The self- propelled submersible and semi-submersible vessels are typically less than 100 feet in length, usually carry between five and six tons of illicit cargo. Now, we found that they carry drugs, guns and people, but we also should be concerned that they could potentially be vessels to carry weapons of mass destruction.

The range of these vessels is astonishing; it's sufficient to reach the southeastern United States from the north coast of South America without refueling. According to recent press reports, in order to cover even longer distances, some of these vessels have been caught while being towed by larger ships with the idea that they would be released for the final approach to the shores of California or off the northeast coast of the United States. In the last 2 weeks alone, the Coast Guard has seized two of these vessels carrying over 14 tons of cocaine. Now, to put that in perspective, the value of one of these loads was nearly $200 million.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to shut down these new seaborne threats to our Nation's communities and to our overall national security. And I would urge support of this bill for many reasons, but particularly for this as well.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which Congressman Poe and I have worked on to address a serious problem relating to the use of submersible and semi-submersible vessels to transport drugs, people and potentially weapons of mass destruction which pose a threat to our communities and our cities. The drug dealers are always ingenious in their activities to try and inject into the veins of our children the terrible illicit drugs that are there. With respect to those who are in Central and South America, because of the various efforts made by good men and women working in law enforcement in this country, as well as those in our military organizations, they have been forced, that is, the drug dealers, have been forced to find new ways to try and bring this poison to our shores.

That is what we're dealing with here today. The language in the bill before us reflects the hard work of Senator Lautenberg, and it is also similar to legislation which was introduced by Senator Biden. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Chairman Conyers who has played a critical role in the development of this legislation. And I add that without the hard work of his counsel and the hours put into this important bill by Carolyn Lynch on our staff, we would not be here today.

Let me point out that it is probably not an exaggeration to suggest that this is noncontroversial legislation. I don't know why anybody, a single vote, would be against it. It has, in slightly different iterations, already passed this body on two prior occasions. It passed this body by a vote of 408-1 as an amendment to the Coast Guard authorization, and it passed on suspension this past July 29 by a voice vote.

What are these things? Well you're going to hear it, and you're going to see some pictures presented to you by Congressman Ted Poe from Texas. Let me just try to describe what it is that we are talking about.

Semi-submersibles add a new dimension to the notion of ``submarine warfare.''

These vessels are watercraft of unorthodox construction capable of putting much of their bulk under the surface of the water. Therefore, they are extremely difficult to spot when they are out there in the vastness of the ocean. They are built for stealth, designed to be rapidly scuttled, typically less than 100 feet in length, and usually carrying

5 to 6 tons of illicit cargo. They are stateless, that is, they carry the flag of no country, and they have no legitimate use.

Although semi-submersibles are being used to evade detection and prosecution for drug traffic, my own interest in this issue is a much broader one. The potential that someone might seek to import a weapon of mass destruction into the United States is perhaps of the greatest concern for us and why we need an aggressive response to alter the calculus of deterrence with respect to the use of these vehicles.

It is absolutely critical that our prosecutors be equipped with the tools necessary to adapt to this new challenge facing law enforcement authorities. As was the case in previous House versions of the bill approved by this body, the proposal before us provides for criminal fines and up to 15 years imprisonment. Furthermore, a new title of the bill added in the Senate provides prosecutors with the additional option of seeking civil penalties of up to $1 million for violations of the new law.

Since we last visited this legislation on July 29, we have further evidence of why it is so necessary. In the last 2 weeks alone, the Coast Guard has seized two semi-submersible vehicles containing a total of 14 tons of cocaine. Ominously, they found the vessels seized on September 13th to be the most sophisticated of their type ever detected, with electronic propulsion and steering, and exhaust systems more advanced than earlier models. In terms of the larger picture, we have witnessed 62 such seizures this year.

Why do we need this legislation? Why did the Coast Guard ask us for it? Simply put, it is this: These are made to be scuttled easily. In other words, when they are detected by the Coast Guard and the United States Navy, sometimes hundreds of miles offshore, when they are identified, when they are seen, they are scuttled, meaning that they intentionally attempt to sink their own vehicles. Why? Because then we can't have the evidence of the illicit cargo that they hold. And as they do that, the two, three, four or five people aboard, the personnel aboard these crafts jump into the water, and then we have to rescue them. So our law enforcement and our Navy then is in the position of rescuing the very people who are attempting to bring this poison into our country, and we obviously do that, but then we can't prosecute them.

This law would simply make it illegal to operate one of these vessels if it is unflagged, because there is no other purpose for it than to try and put a dagger to the hearts of our young people in this country by bringing this illicit drug trade here.

Additionally, those concerned about illegal aliens entering this country, this is also a means of doing that. But, most importantly and most directly, I would say, think of the consequences of someone introducing a weapon of mass destruction into this country. This is a readily available vehicle to do that.

We need this legislation. I would hope that we would have a unanimous vote for it.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for allowing me this time, and I hope everybody understands how important and how timely this is.

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

Mr. Speaker, it's wonderful to be on the floor here this Saturday evening with you and with my colleague on the full committee. And this is one of several bills that we are bringing to the floor to finish up the work of the Homeland Security Committee for this Congress.

I rise in support of S. 2816, this bill to provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with the authority to appoint the Chief Human Capital Officer at the Department of Homeland Security. The bill was introduced by Senators Voinovich and Akaka, and it repeals a provision in the Homeland Security Act that includes this official among DHS officials to be appointed by the President.

This bill will provide uniformity by allowing DHS to operate under the same guidelines as other Federal agencies, where the head of the agency has the authority to designate the director of human resources.

The Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight has held a number of hearings on personnel issues at DHS, and we understand, all of us on the full committee, just how important this bill is.

DHS Undersecretary for Management, Ms. Elaine Duke, has informed Congress about the need for this legislation. Under Elaine Duke's effective leadership and guidance, a number of significant improvements have been made at DHS. She is now overseeing the transition of DHS to the next administration, which is critical to the continued operations of the Department and the security of our Nation.

As everyone in this Chamber knows, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was the greatest reorganization of the Federal Government since the creation of the Defense Department. And it's had its ups and downs, but I think now it is generally moving in the right direction, and I believe the current Secretary of DHS is to be commended for the tremendous work that he has done.

The Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008 included a number of provisions to strengthen personnel programs and systems at DHS. We in the House passed that bill last year, but the Senate did not. Unfortunately, the House did not act on a DHS authorization bill in 2008. I would hope this would be a priority for the 111th Congress early next year. Until then, I would urge passage of the bill before us today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1429, the resolution commemorating the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11; also promoting the month of September as National Preparedness Month, and commending the employees of the Department of Homeland Security and our Nation's emergency response providers and law enforcement agents.

This September, as we know, marks the fifth annual National Preparedness Month and the seventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11. H. Res. 1429 is a bipartisan resolution commemorating this important anniversary in our Nation's history and reminding all Americans of the importance of emergency preparedness.

While there has not been a terrorist attack on our U.S. soil since September 11, 2001, it is important to remember that terrorists continue to plan attacks against this Nation, its interests, and its allies abroad. It is not by accident that we have not had such a tragedy. It is, in fact, the result of tremendous work by men and women in uniform, in our agencies, first responders, the coordination that's taken place since then, the cooperation we've had with our allies in many, many other countries.

But we must remain vigilant and ensure that all levels of government, nonprofit organizations, the private sector, individuals, and communities continue to prepare for terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or other emergencies.

Each September, various Department of Homeland Security components, along with other Federal, State and local agencies, nonprofit organizations and the private sector take part in events to increase public awareness and encourage individuals to prepare themselves, their families, their businesses and their communities for emergencies.

The Ready Campaign, which is within the Office of Public Affairs at the Department, along with the Citizen Corps Program within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, helps educate individuals, families and communities on the steps that they can take to protect their loves ones in an emergency. For instance, individuals are encouraged to get an emergency supply kit, make a family emergency plan, and be informed about different types of emergencies and the appropriate responses thereto.

Since the Ready Campaign and National Preparedness Month were initiated in 2004, the effort has received over $703 million in donated media support. The www.ready.gov Web site has received over 2 billion hits, with almost 30 million unique visitors to the site. And the national 1-800 number has received 345,000 calls.

In addition, Ready has partnered with Scholastic to provide emergency preparedness materials for the classroom to 400,000 teachers, and recently launched a partnership with Sesame Street to help educate preschool-age children and their parents on the need to prepare for emergencies.

This resolution also commends the hard work and dedication of the Federal, State and local government employees, first responders, the private sector, and citizens across the country for their efforts to enhance the Nation's ability to prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism and other emergencies.

Working together, we can continue to protect this country from terrorists wishing us harm. I urge all Members to join in supporting this resolution.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I would urge support for this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Department of Defense:

Feature Size Yield Enhancement DMEA's Advanced Reconfigurable Manufacturing for Semiconductors (ARMS) Foundry.

Funding will allow the ARMS fabrication technology to develop methods to produce microcircuits with increased functional density of components. ($2,000,000).

Technikon, LLC--Renewable Energy Testing Center.

The Renewable Energy Testing Center (RETC) objective is to provide the State of California and Department of Defense with an independent ``Underwriters Laboratory'' resource for evaluating the performance of renewable energy and renewable fuel production technologies. RETC will provide metrics on robustness, safety, energy efficiency, environmental effectiveness, and other key parameters of these technologies needed for successful commercialization. ($1,600,000)

Jadoo--Fuel Cell Power System--USSOCOM.

In order to expedite fielding of the IFS-24, Jadoo requests funding to progress the development of the IFS-24 to a TRL-8 and deliver 50 qualification units for field qualification testing by the US Armed Forces by December 2009. ($800,000)

American Burn Association--Military Burn Trauma Research Program.

The program is intended to foster collaboration between military and civilian burn surgeons and researchers and to identify best practices to ensure better treatment and outcomes for military burn patients, specifically improved clinical outcomes for combat burn casualties. ($4,000,000)

Department of Homeland Security:

Rio Vista Disaster Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Upgrade

The program is intended to provide phone lines, computer connections, and up to date audio-visual terminals in order to facilitate communication with regional, State and Federal entities in disaster emergencies. ($150,000)

Mr. Speaker, this bill might be called the death penalty for power and energy. Why do I say that?

If you look at how we utilize lethal injection in this country, the first injection actually sedates the individual. The second injection paralyzes the heart, thus killing the individual. What we have here is the first part of it is sedation. That's the bill today that claims it's for energy.

But the fact of the matter is, with the litigation explosion we have based on the extremists in the environmental movement, the coconspirators with the Democratic Party on this, they've basically paralyzed our efforts to get any energy. Every single lease that's been granted over the last 2 years has been sued against. As a matter of fact, there are two lawsuits now that are already in effect with anything that we will lease in the future. So who's kidding whom?

Let's break this conspiracy that exists between the extremists on the environmental side and the Democratic leadership. Let's give us real power. Let's reject this death penalty for power and energy that they're calling an energy bill. It's a fraud on the American people. We ought to understand that.

We need to do better. The American people need to do better. Let me tell you this: If the Democrats have run out of energy, there's plenty of energy on this side of the aisle to do the right thing.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate with much interest as I notice the anti-drillers on the other side of the aisle straining to prove that their bill actually includes real drilling.

So you listen to it, and it appears they are lip-synching their message while the special interests, environmental extremists and lawyers, are actually writing and singing their anti-energy lyrics. No, no, no, no, no, that's what we are hearing.

It just appears to me that the Democrats have brought us their 290- page bill, and they are trying to display it as their newest legislative Grammy winner. What it really is is nothing more than their newest version of Drilli Vanilli.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Speaker, 7 years ago, September 11, 2001, a day that will live in infamy, we suffered as a Nation the greatest attack on our shores since a similar day some six decades previous. That dastardly attack resulted in a unification of this country such as we had not seen before. Similarly, the attack some 7 years ago brought a unity to this Nation that we have been lacking for some period of time. In the ensuing days and years, we have seen remarkable selfless dedication to serve by men and women in uniform in our Armed Forces, and those who are serving us, even to this point, as our first responders.

So we have to ask, much as Lincoln asked at his famous address at Gettysburg, recognizing that we cannot consecrate the grounds that were attacked more than they have been consecrated by the sacrifices of our fellow citizens, what can we do to fulfill our obligation?

I would just say this. The best way we can maintain our commitment to those who sacrificed and those who have suffered, and still suffer, is to recognize the continuation of the threat against us, the urgency of the matter before us, and the fact that we cannot in any way lag in our responsibility to respond to that threat.

There's a great temptation because we have not been so attacked in the last 7 years to believe it just has happened. But we have been able to forestall attacks because of tremendous sacrifice by many men and women serving on behalf of this Nation, who continue to serve.

It would be the height of tragedy, Madam Speaker, if we were to fail to back up the commitment by those who have sacrificed thus far by accepting their sacrifice as something which is a matter-of-fact circumstance. No. The only way we can honor their lives and their sacrifice is by ensuring that we maintain vigilance daily.

We take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but we take an oath beyond that. We take an oath to uphold the greatness of our fellow citizens. I would hope that we would dedicate ourselves to understand, with all the other things we have to do as Members of Congress, that our first and foremost responsibility is to create the security within which American citizens can exercise their freedoms.

And so my plea and my prayer today is that we don't accept the successes of the last 7 years as inevitable, but we understand that they have been hard fought, and that we need to continue that fight.

I thank you for the time.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, I am informed that on our side of the aisle we have already signed up for the customary leadership hour a Member, and two individual Members for one- hour Special Orders, as well as a number of Members who intend to request 5-minute Special Orders, the subject of which will be the important issue facing the Nation today, energy.

My parliamentary inquiry is this: If the motion to adjourn, which is the second vote next in order, is adopted, is it my understanding that all business of the House will have to be curtailed, including the customarily accepted Special Orders, including that at the direction of the minority leadership?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

If, then, the motion to adjourn is adopted, does that mean then, again, the lights of this House will be dimmed and the microphones will be shut off?