Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for allotting me this time. I just want to bring us back to basics, for one thing. Whether it's the Kiwanis or the Cub Scouts or the PTA, ordinarily you talk about the issue that is at hand. And the issue that is at hand, ladies and gentlemen, and to my friends on the other side of the aisle, is we are talking about the Missisquoi and the Trout Rivers, the Wild and Scenic Rivers.

I want to thank my friend, Mr. Welch, for bringing this matter before the House of Representatives as to trying to maintain wild and scenic streams in Vermont. That is what is being debated. That is the bill on the floor, although our friends would like to completely change the subject.

Whether it's the Kiwanis or the PTA or the boardroom or the Cub Scouts, you try to have a relevant conversation. But they decided that is not the issue. They must love this bill. They would rather talk about something else. So let's talk about the something else, which is energy.

Now my friends on the other side of the aisle, the GOP, the Republicans, in 2005 passed what they said was a landmark energy bill. I want to quote the former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, on July 28, 2005:

``Americans need this (GOP energy) legislation to lower their energy costs, to drive economic growth and job creation, and to promote greater energy independence.''

The minority whip, Mr. Blunt, said on that same day:

``This (GOP energy) plan relies on simple economics. If we create a larger market for a greater amount of gasoline, we'll help drive prices down. This proposal moves the country one step closer to lowering the sky-high price of gas for consumers.''

The President, a few days later, said, ``I am confident that one day Americans will look back on this (GOP energy) plan as a vital step toward a more secure and more prosperous Nation that is less dependent on foreign sources of energy.''

Well, ladies and gentlemen, that energy plan that was promoted by the Republicans and supported by the President back in 2005 I think now turns out to be a really bad joke on the American people. We have had our prices of oil and gas going up by almost double, sometimes during this summer they almost tripled after that plan was implemented by a Republican Congress and a Republican President.

But that shouldn't surprise us. With two oilmen in the White House, what did you expect? This is exactly what we have gotten. Skyrocketing energy prices.

Now what we have got to do, and I can't believe that my friend from Utah, when he says that what we need to be doing is drilling here, and drilling now, really wants to drill in the middle of Salt Lake City or in any of the glorious places in Utah. This is something where it has got to be sensible energy policy. It's a comprehensive energy policy, which includes oil and gas.

It includes oil and gas, it includes coal, it includes nuclear, it includes renewable energy, and it includes overall energy efficiency, because a barrel of oil saved is a barrel of oil earned. A Btu saved is a Btu earned.

We need a comprehensive plan. And to pull a bad joke on the American public of drilling here, drilling now, drill, baby drill, is simply a sham, and we cannot go forward with that alone. We need a comprehensive energy plan, and that is what the Democrats are going to provide.

If the gentleman would yield, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding, because as to the very point you just raised, until March 27, 2003, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said this. You were talking about Iraq paying for its own reconstruction and the costs attendant to this war, which is running us anywhere between $2.5 and $3 billion a week, which we could use in any myriad of ways.

He said back on that date, ``There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' And Don Rumsfeld said that ``relatively soon'' could be 6 days, 6 weeks, he doubted 6 months.

Well, we have been there now more than 5 years, longer than it took for us to win World War II. And what we have, and I would like to point out the chart that is next to me, is we have a problem that has been created by the Bush administration, and Senator McCain would like to perpetuate.

So we have the Bush-McCain policies, the Bush-McCain policies being let's stay in Iraq. They don't have to pay for anything. Senator McCain said it might have to be 100 years. And at the same time, cutting our revenues to this government, so we run up the highest deficits on record. Under Ronald Reagan, under the first George Bush, we had big deficits, a surplus under Bill Clinton and the fiscal policies of the Democrats, and then a gigantic deficit under George Bush II.

What we need, ladies and gentlemen, what I say to my friends, both the Democrats and to the Republicans, is we have to have a change. We cannot have these same old, tired policies. If we have the same old, tired policies with respect to our foreign affairs, such as we are not going to charge the Iraqis for their reconstruction or we are never going to let them take their own destiny into their hands, we are going to have these same old costs and same old losses of life to Americans who have been in Iraq now for more than 5 years.

If we have the same old economic policies, which is what Senator McCain would like to have, it is just more Bush-McCain policies. We are going to run the deficit to levels we have never seen before, which then have resulted in foreclosures and a whole variety of things, foreclosures, job losses, et cetera.

We have to have a change. That change will come in this election on November 4th. We started this change in 2006 with the election of a Democratic Congress. We have been able to provide minimum wage increases to people. We have changed, for instance, the cost of student loans, so that more people can take advantage of our higher education system. Democrats took on the pharmaceuticals, so that more people can have lower priced pharmaceuticals. We have increased veterans benefits more in the last year than at any other time in the 70-plus year history of the Veterans Administration. This has happened under Democrats.

It is not the same old, failed policies that the Bush administration has had for the last 8 years or that the McCain campaign wants to perpetuate. We need a change, and that change will come with the election of a new President, and that President is going to be Senator Barack Obama, and it is going to continue by the Democrats maintaining a majority in this House. We cannot have more of the same.

There is real opportunity out there for this country. And we heard a little bit today from the Republicans about drill here, drill now. They want to go with the same old, tired energy policy, which just is only oil and gas and just drilling here and drilling now. I don't know exactly what they mean by drill here and drill now.

We had a very interesting story about an ethics scandal within the Interior Department, where some members of the Bush administration's Interior Department, who are supposed to be the watchdogs over the oil and gas companies who are supposed to pay royalties to this country for all of the minerals that they extract from the country. It said, ``Investigators from the Interior Department's Inspector General's Office,'' this is in the Washington Post today, it said, ``More than a dozen employees, including the former director of the Oil Royalty Program, accepted gifts, including ski trips, sports tickets and golf outings.'' The report alleges that the former director netted more than $30,000.

There was also the fact, they said, ``the government officials accepted lavish gifts, steered contracts to favored firms, and engaged in illicit sex with employees of the oil companies, Federal investigators reported today.''

So that is the same old thing. We are so hooked on just one commodity, which is oil, which obviously is going to be part of our energy package no matter what. We are going to drill. We are drilling. We are trying to extract this. But we have to have a comprehensive energy plan, which is what the Democrats are proposing and we will propose within the next couple of

weeks, which includes renewable energy, it includes coal, it includes energy efficiency.

Those are the kinds of things that will provide thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs in Colorado and in the manufacturing areas of Ohio. That is the kind of forward looking, innovative approach that we have to take. That is what Barack Obama is going to do. We are not going to have the same old, tired policies exemplified by the Bush administration that John McCain wants to keep going.

The gentleman would certainly yield to my friend from Connecticut.

Would the gentleman from Vermont just yield for 30 seconds?

In your litany of things where they made promises, made promises, made promises, none of them turned out to be accurate or true.

One of them that just still boggles my mind is, just a few weeks after the invasion into Iraq, George Bush was on that aircraft carrier, saying, ``Mission accomplished.'' John McCain was saying, ``Mission accomplished.'' All of these guys were saying, ``Mission accomplished.'' We are now 5-years plus since that time.

Now, our men and our women have been doing an unbelievable job. Initially, their equipment was not proper. Their vehicles weren't built in a way that was safe. We've changed that. We've helped them because they've done a job that has been above and beyond the call of duty, but it's the Commander in Chief and the judgment of the Commander in Chief who is in place today that we have to question, his judgment and the judgment of whom we want to be Commander in Chief.

Who has the right judgment? Who can really take our reputation from what's now down in the gutter internationally and raise it back up? Who has the judgment to get this country working again? Who has the judgment and the energy and the ability to renew the strength of this country, to call on all of us to make the sacrifices and to meet the challenges that we've got ahead of us that we know will lead us back to the great Nation that we are and to the great people that we are?

It's not the same old administration. It's not the same old people. It's not the Karl Roves of the world. We're going to have to finish this change because we can do much better than we've done.

So, with that, I'll yield to my friend from Wisconsin.

I thank my friend from Wisconsin. I'm going to take a step back from the health care, talk about the GSEs, the Government Sponsored Entities, the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, which were, in effect, taken over, placed into conservatorship.

And sometimes I charge my friends on the Republican side of the aisle with not doing what needed to be done. But in this instance they did, back in 2005, pass legislation that would have prevented, or at least somehow dealt with these GSE problems, this takeover that we had to have in the last few days.

And it was Mr. Oxley who was the chairman of the committee at the time. There was a piece of legislation passed. He was an Ohio Republican who headed the House Financial Services, this is from the Financial Times of yesterday, until his retirement at the mid term elections last year. Blames the mess, meaning the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, on ideologues within the White House, as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve. He says, he fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. All the hand wringing and bed wetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this. He continues, ``What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.''

He finishes, ``We missed a golden opportunity, we, being the United States of America missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of problems we're facing now if we hadn't had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the FED.''

We now have had to take over these entities that have supplied money to help us all buy houses for decades and decades and decades, and it's as a result of a White House that didn't believe in any kind of regulation. We talked about it just a few minutes ago, with these guys over at the Minerals

Management Service and the frat house that they ran where they were getting gifts and they were getting sexual favors and all of that kind of stuff.

This administration could have cared less about regulation, and this country has been damaged because of it. We can't have these same old policies anymore, ladies and gentlemen. We can't afford it. This country can't afford it. We're too great a Nation. We're too great a people. Our neighbors, our friends, our families sacrifice too much to have this kind of approach by people, whether it's not regulating big government entities or sleeping with the people you're supposed to regulate. We can't have that anymore. We can't have more of the same.

We need a change. We need a new direction. That new direction is going to be Barack Obama, it's going to be the Democrats. We've got to finish the change that was begun in 2006 with the election of a new White House with new policies that are going to renew this Nation. And we can do that. And I know that, by all of us working together, there really is hope for this Nation, and we're going to take the action that brings about jobs and health care and, really, a return to what we know is great about this Nation.

And so I'd like to turn it back to the President of our class, the Honorable Betty Sutton from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize two members of one of my Colorado offices, Hannah Warfield and Jenny Barringer.

These two are world-class athletes, from my alma mater, the University of Colorado, who recently competed in the U.S. Olympic track and field trials in Eugene, Oregon.

I want to start off by saying a few words about Hannah, a native of Sydney, Montana who competed in the Women's javelin competition.

Her work ethic is extraordinary.

Despite the rigors of a working a full time job, and recently graduating from the University of Colorado, she maintained a training schedule that would begin at 5 a.m. in the morning and would humble even the most dedicated among us.

This work ethic propelled her to become the 2007 NCAA Women's Big Twelve Champion in the Javelin event.

A distinction not achieved by a University of Colorado athlete in 20 years.

She is one of the most pleasant, organized and courteous individuals I have ever had the opportunity to meet.

Although, Hannah came just short of making it to Beijing, words cannot express the amount of pride and inspiration she brought to our office and our community with her dedication to the pursuit of her dreams.

Hannah's positive attitude and tenacity should serve as inspiration to all of us.

Next, I would like to take a moment to speak about Jenny Barringer, from Oviedo, Florida, who competed in the women's 3,000m steeplechase event.

Jenny is a true pioneer in the sport, which is making its inaugural appearance at the 2008 games.

She recently shattered the American record in the women's steeplechase with a time of 9:22.73.

If that were not enough, she maintains a 3.7 GPA, serves as a sign language interpreter, volunteers with the Ronald McDonald House, Habitat for Humanity, and the local adopt-a-road program.

I can attest that Coloradans will be watching with immense pride in the coming weeks as Jenny goes for the gold in the Beijing.

What impresses me most about Hannah and Jenny is that for as great as their athletic ability, they're ever better people.

Active in their communities, great students combined with a desire to go above and beyond what is expected, they serve as a positive example of what can be achieved with hard work and a positive attitude.

As a father of three extraordinary women myself, all of whom are athletes, I can attest Hannah and Jenny represent the pride that every parent who drops their kids off at an athletic practice or attends one of their competitions feels.

It is an amazing honor to see two of our own in Colorado rise to this level, especially knowing it could not have happened to two better people.

Hannah Warfield and Jenny Barringer embody the best our country could hope for in the next generation of Americans.

I am privileged for the opportunity to have come to know these two remarkable individuals.

I would like to close by saying go USA, and go Jenny in the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire whether the gentleman from Texas would be willing to engage in a colloquy with me.

I thank the gentleman.

Simply put, dirt needs to be turned on the replacement Veterans Medical Center in Aurora, Colorado. This facility is the centerpiece of the VA's capital construction plan under the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services, the CARES project, which began in 1999.

Eight years are gone, millions of dollars in additional costs have been incurred, and three VA secretaries later, it is safe to say the time for action for Colorado and the Rocky Mountain veterans is now. They've waited far too long, and our taxpayers will pay far more the longer this project is dragged out. We have to get this project done.

It is for these reasons I understand and identify with the frustration many in our veterans' community feel in being shut out of the design process as they continue to see the construction of this important undertaking pushed back year after year.

Achieving consensus and moving forward with the construction of this facility has and will continue to be one of my top priorities in Congress. Simply put, it is not fair or right to punish our veterans by the repeated delays resulting each time a new Secretary of Veterans Affairs is appointed.

I believe our veterans deserve better than they've been treated through this process, and to quote the Denver Post, ``Changing plans midstream without bringing in the people who would use the facility or those who put their political capital to work to get money for the project is an affront.'' And the editorial concludes with, ``We hope the VA reconsiders its decision and honors the commitment made to veterans in the Colorado region. The long-anticipated standalone facility is sorely needed and further delay is unacceptable.'' And I couldn't agree more.

That is why I feel it is vital to provide the funding necessary for the Veterans Administration to move forward with the construction of the central utility substation, the parking garage,

and the surface parking lots of the proposed facility. These are all projects for which money has already been appropriated and is in the bank, and they're ready to go. In all likelihood, this is going to take more than the $20 million that the administration is currently calling for.

But with that, I would like to yield to the gentleman to ask if he's willing to continue to work with me to secure the funding required to build a facility our veterans can be proud of as soon as possible.

I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to his visit to Aurora, Colorado, at the end of August.

I yield back.

Offered By: Mr. Perlmutter

Amendment No. 13: Page 36, line 5, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $42,000,000)''.

Page 38, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $42,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, good morning.

Tomorrow, several of my Republican colleagues are coming to Golden, Colorado, which is my home, to visit the National Renewable Energy Lab, and I want to welcome them, and I want to thank them for coming out to take a look at that laboratory. It's the finest laboratory in the world to come up with energy efficiency and renewable energy alternatives.

In this day and age with gas at $4 a gallon, we have to look forward. We cannot remain hooked and addicted to oil and dependent on the Middle East. And so by them coming out to Colorado--they've never really favored renewable energy and energy efficiency--but it's time that we stop this addiction that we face.

And so we all know, and I'm beginning to hear my friends on the Republican side of the aisle recognize the need for renewable energy and energy efficiency because it's good for national security, it's good for the climate, and it is good for jobs; and I welcome them to my home in Golden, Colorado, and I look forward to them looking and visiting the National Renewable Energy Lab.

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

Well, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Illinois, who has assisted me on what we call the Green Energy Act in the Financial Services Committee. And that really is an act--which we will hear in that committee in a week or 10 days--designed to improve energy efficiency and renewable energy in various housing across the United States. Because he recognizes, as do I, as do millions and millions of Americans, that if we save a Btu, if we save a gallon of gas, it's earned; a gallon of gas saved is a gallon of gas earned, a Btu saved is a Btu earned. We can do much better, Mr. Speaker, than we've been doing when it comes to energy efficiency and adding renewable energy sources. And that's what the Green Energy Act is all about. And it applies to Native American housing, as does the motion to instruct, so that all Federal housing that's underwritten, supported by the Federal Government will be improved to energy efficient standards.

That's what we need to be doing, looking at efficiency, looking at renewable energy types of approaches. Because as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said yesterday to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) when he asked the question, well, what do we need to do to improve our energy situation? The Chairman of the Federal Reserve said we have to be more efficient in the way we use our energy and we have to start with renewable energy sources.

But I agree with my friend from Illinois, it's a comprehensive approach. We need to have drilling in the 68 million acres that currently is under lease by the oil companies and is not being used. And we have the bill that comes up this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, called the DRILL Act, ``Drill Responsibly In Leased Lands,'' that will go forward this afternoon so that oil companies take advantage of all the acreage that they have. Sixty-eight million acres is the size of New England plus, I think, New Jersey added on. It's a huge piece of property both on land and in the Outer Continental Shelf. That land and that water is already available for drilling.

So part of it is drilling, in terms of what we have right now. And I would encourage all my friends on the Republican side of the aisle to support the DRILL Act this afternoon because what we want to make sure is that oil companies don't just hold the property, but they use it. So they use it or they lose the lease; and we get it on to somebody else who's willing to proceed with drilling. Because we know we need to have oil--that's really a transitional fuel for the next 10 years--but we need to then move to energy efficiency and renewable energy sources so we're not addicted to one commodity.

This country has to have other ways to power itself. And as the gentleman from Illinois remarked, tomorrow some of my friends from the Republican side of the aisle are going to discover Golden, Colorado. It's the finest place on this planet. That's my home, that's my neighborhood. And I would recommend that everybody come visit Golden, Colorado, but the reason they're coming is to visit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is the finest laboratory for alternative energy and sustainable development in energy efficiency in the world. And at that laboratory we are working on those next generation of energy and fuels and the way to power this Nation in solar, in wind, in biofuels, in hydrogen, in geothermal, and all sorts of other things. And I congratulate my friends for coming over to visit the National Renewable Energy Lab, which they really have never supported much until now.

But I do see some unanimity coming among both sides of the aisle and a consensus coming among all of us that we have to really work on all phases of an energy plan, whether it's drilling, renewable energy, or energy efficiency.

Now, I've sort of boiled it down to three things, and I call it the three P's: Produce what we've got. We haven't talked about this second part, which is punish the people who are hoarding and gouging and speculating. And the third P is promoting energy efficiency and alternative energy. We can do that. And this country will be better off because it will be good for national security, it will be good for the climate, and it will be good for jobs. Thousands and thousands and thousands of ``green energy'' jobs will be available through promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency.

One of the things that my friend from Illinois just talked about, which is drilling in ANWR, which is a reserve, a refuge, that's 10 years off. And the greatest projections are that that's 3 months' worth of United States supply of oil. So we're going to wait 10 years to drill for 3 months' worth of supply.

Now, one of my friends who I just saw on the floor, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), calculated that an average American family will spend $57,000 on fuel costs before the Republican plan to drill in ANWR would ever take effect. We've got to be working on other things before that. And the first one is to drill on the 68 million acres that are under lease and ready to go today. The second is to punish the people who continue to drive up the futures prices if, in fact, there is speculating or gouging going on. And the third is to promote alternative energy and energy efficiency.

But I support the bill that will come up before the House this morning, as does my friend from Illinois, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume for a couple of comments.

I want to respond to my friend from Illinois concerning the support of the National Renewable Energy Lab. We'll start with that one.

I would concur that there certainly has been some support, but the two things I would point out to my friend are one, last in 2007 was the first time, really, the budget had been increased to the National Renewable Energy Lab in years and years and years under a Democratic majority. My friends who are going to go visit the National Renewable Energy Lab all voted against that, number one.

Number two, in the prior Republican Congress, there were cuts to the National Renewable Energy Lab where, in fact, scientists and engineers were going to be laid off. They were, in fact, laid off until the President went out to visit the National Renewable Energy Lab, and the department scrambled and reinstated those engineers and scientists who were going to be laid off in the face of the need for coming up with other ways to power this Nation. So I know that my friend from Illinois and I are in agreement that we need to change the way we power this Nation, and there is a transition to get there.

Then we need to be efficient in the way we use our energy, and we need to come up with other ways so we're not beholden to just one commodity. When we're beholden to one commodity, oil, we're beholden to eight oil countries, many of which don't like the United States, and to five oil companies. We have to change that picture or we're always going to face this problem. It's time for us to learn from our past.

The other thing I'd like to say in response to my friend from Illinois is that he talked about secret meetings. Well, the secret meeting that we really need to be talking about is the secret meeting held by Vice President Dick Cheney to create the energy policy that now has resulted in $4-a-gallon gasoline.

When the Bush administration took office, the price of oil per barrel was less than $30. Today, it's $150 or thereabouts. Maybe it has come down a little bit in the last few days, but is it any wonder that that happened with two oilmen running the White House? I don't think so.

With that, I'll yield 5 minutes, or such time as my friend may consume, to Congressman Yarmuth from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have?

I appreciate my friend from Texas yielding to me. If people knew what happened in this secret meeting, we might know today why oil is at $4.35 a gallon, why it has gone from under $30 a barrel to almost $150 a barrel. But the Vice President has refused to provide any information to the public or to the Congress about that meeting.

I yield myself such time as I might consume.

First, I would just like to say to my friend from Texas that with two of them in the White House and both Houses of the Congress in Republican hands up until 2006 when we started changing the direction of this nation, we saw that oil price going up and up and up and up. And it didn't change under them. If we always continue to drill and don't look at that as a transitional fuel and move to alternative energies, we're going to be in trouble. And we're going to have to learn this lesson over and over and over again.

With that, I will yield 4 minutes to my friend from Wisconsin.

I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to return the Chamber to what this bill is, which is Native American housing and the motion to instruct conferees, which we are all in agreement upon, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion to instruct.

We have gotten into a great debate over energy. And as I said earlier, the gentleman from Illinois and I and a number of people that sit on the Committee on Financial Services have worked on a bill which we call the GREEN Act. It is Green Renewable Energy Efficiency Neighborhoods. The purpose of that bill, similar to the motion to instruct with respect to Native American housing, is to provide energy efficiency incentives and renewable energy incentives with respect to housing across America. It creates a green mortgage market so there is a market to buy mortgages of homes that are energy efficient or have renewable energy features. It also helps to upgrade 50,000 of the 3 million units that the Housing and Urban Development either own or underwrite so that people in low to moderate-income housing have energy-efficient homes and lower utility rates.

One of the things that we and the gentleman from Illinois were talking about at the outset of this bill, was about trying to reduce utility costs in Native American housing, and that goes across the board for all low to moderate-income homeowners.

It has a number of other things involving residential energy development grants, as well as utilizing the services of the banks in particular areas, low-income housing areas to add energy efficient and renewable energy features to homes in various areas in cities and towns across the country.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion to instruct. I look forward to this bill going forward, and I look forward to having this conversation on the GREEN Act with my friend from Illinois in a couple of weeks when that bill comes for markup.

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

Mr. Speaker, Today we are going to take up the DRILL Act; Drill Responsibly In Leased Lands. We recognize, on the Democratic side of the aisle, that part of our energy portfolio is oil and gas. We have 68 million acres that the oil and gas companies have under lease today that they could drill that they are not drilling. That is 14 years worth of supply to the United States.

But what we have, instead, is we have an addiction to foreign oil. And we have a picture here of the President and the King of Saudi Arabia.

We have to break that addiction. So we need to drill here in the United States. And under this particular bill, we require the oil companies to either use it or lose it. Drill on those 68 million acres. 68 million acres is the size of New England. Drilling locations, all across the United States and in the Outer Continental Shelf. Use it or lose it.

We cannot be tied to foreign oil forever. We have learned that lesson. It is time we have to have domestic drilling, and that is what the DRILL Act is. And even more so, it is time to switch to energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. If we are addicted to one commodity, we are going to be in trouble because we depend upon 8 oil countries and 5 oil companies and we are in real trouble.

Now, there is 68 million acres here is depicted. You can see, the size of New England, twice the size of Pennsylvania, bigger than Colorado. Huge amount of property.

Now, one of the things that we have done is there is another 23 million acres available in Alaska to drill, where there is a pipeline nearby.

The oil companies can drill there. Further, we can release some of the amount of oil we have in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And we have a chart here that shows that when we took oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1991, there was a 33 percent drop in the price of oil immediately; 2000, 18 percent, 2005, 9 percent That's what we're asking the President to do.

We need immediate relief, and then we have to switch and get off the addiction to oil by pursuing renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Good morning.

My friends on the Republican side of the aisle are complaining about gas prices, but with two oil men in the White House, is it any wonder that the price per barrel has gone from $30 at the beginning of the Bush administration to $150 or thereabouts.

The Republicans have taken the tack that we should drill, drill, drill. That's not the answer. We're not going to drill our way out of this problem. I would say it's the three P's: produce from the 68 million acres that we have under lease and are permitted today, punish the people who have been hoarding, gouging, and speculating in oil futures, and the third is promote efficiency and alternative forms of energy.

We've learned this lesson too many times. We need to come up with a new way to power this nation. If we do these three P's, produce from what we've got, punish those people who are gouging us, and third, promote energy efficiency and alternative energy, we will change the direction of this nation. And we need to do it right now.

Good morning, Madam Speaker. And you know, I have been listening to the complaints by the Republicans about gas prices, but with two oil men in the White House, is it any wonder that oil per barrel has gone from $30 dollars to almost $150 driving gas prices through the roof? The question is, what are we going to do about it? And I would say it's the three E's.

The first ``E'' is explore and extract from the 68 million acres that are under lease today in the United States. That's more oil than anything up in Alaska or in ANWR. So let's explore and extract.

The second ``E'' is to eliminate the gouging and the speculating and the hoarding that's going on in the marketplace.

And the third ``E,'' the most important ``E,'' is encourage alternatives and efficiency. We cannot be hooked to one commodity forever. We've learned our lesson. It's time to pursue alternatives. So this democratic Congress is doing just that, those three E's: exploring, eliminating, and encouraging alternatives.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of complaints by the Republican side of the aisle as to the increase in gas prices, but I would have to say: Is it any wonder that gas prices have increased with two oil men in the White House? The question is what is being done. I would say it is the three E's.

First, explore the 68 million acres that are under lease to the oil companies today. Let's extract the oil that we have under lease and not go explore ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf.

Two, eliminate the gouging and the hoarding and the speculating that is going on that is increasing the price of oil per barrel by $60 or $70 per barrel.

The third E, encourage alternatives. We can no longer be hooked on just one commodity. We have to have other approaches and other ways to power this Nation or we will have to learn this lesson over and over and over again. That is what the Democratic Congress is doing-- exploring what we have, eliminating the gouging and encouraging alternatives.

I thank Mr. Filner for this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2818, the Veterans' Epilepsy Treatment Act, which establishes a national epilepsy network within the Veterans Affairs health care system.

I introduced H.R. 2818 on June 21, 2007, and now, 1 year later, I'm pleased it was reported out of the VA Committee by a voice vote.

The measure has the support and sponsorship of 135 Members of Congress. And I want to thank Chairman Filner, Subcommittee Chairman Michaud, Ranking Member Buyer, Mr. Miller from Florida, and their staff for the work they do on behalf of our Nation's veterans and for their work on H.R. 2818.

I also want to thank Majority Leader Hoyer for the interest he has taken in this bill, and Rick Palacio from his office.

H.R. 2818, the Veterans' Epilepsy Treatment Act, will establish five epilepsy treatment centers called Epilepsy Centers of Excellence which are going to be co-located at the VA polytrauma centers in Palo Alto, Minneapolis, San Antonio, Richmond and Tampa. These centers will care for veterans experiencing seizures, and especially those we predict will develop epilepsy as a result of suffering traumatic brain injury while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, we have a moral obligation to our service men and women who are defending our country overseas to help them when they return home. Our veterans health care system is the best in the world, and H.R. 2818 will make our system even stronger.

Today estimates show some 89,000 veterans have epilepsy and 42 percent of that number is service connected.

Epilepsy is often defined as two or more seizures, and during Vietnam, a number of men and women returned home with head wounds and head injuries. Of those who came home with these types of injuries, some 53 percent developed epilepsy within 15 years thereafter; 15 percent of those who developed epilepsy did so 5 years or more after their combat injuries.

For these service-connected injuries, the relative risk for developing epilepsy is 25 times higher than in the population as a whole. These statistics indicate the number of veterans who will develop epilepsy due to the extended combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is only going to rise. And with the IED injuries that our men and women have suffered, we know that that's going to occur. That is why we need expert clinical and research staff to work together to diagnose, care for, and research the long-term effects of epilepsy.

This bill takes those steps by creating a National Epilepsy Program through the establishment of five sophisticated centers for epilepsy care. In addition, each Veterans Integrated Service Network, or VISN, will have an epilepsy referral clinic and the VA's telehealth capacity will be expanded to track the neurological diagnostic tests of our rural veterans. These centers will develop and administer treatments and possibly cures for our veterans, allowing them to live their lives to the fullest.

It establishes a National Coordinator For Epilepsy within the VA system, and it will provide educational materials throughout the country to assist people in dealing with epilepsy or those who may come into contact with people with epilepsy.

Moreover, the body of knowledge developed through the research conducted by the VA will help our society as a whole. And I will admit to having a child with epilepsy, and, quite frankly, if, in fact, the research that's developed by the VA assists her, I will be very thankful for that on a personal basis.

The bill authorizes expenditures of $5 million per year for the years 2009-2013. A small price to diagnose, treat, and research epilepsy for those who have served us so valiantly all around the globe.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2818, the Veterans Epilepsy Treatment Act. I want to thank the Epilepsy Foundation, the Brain Injury Association, the American Academy of Neurology, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Blinded Veterans, and the Vietnam Vets of America for their support of this bill. Again, I want to thank the VA Committee for supporting this bill and voting it out by a voice vote.

Madam Speaker, due to external circumstances, I was unable to promptly return to House Chambers and I missed the following vote on Thursday, June 19, 2008. I would have voted as follows: H.R. 2764, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, rollcall vote 431, Agreeing to Senate Amendment to House Amendment No.1: ``no.''

I would have voted ``no'' on this amendment which provides $165.4 billion in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because this amendment contained no benchmarks or timelines for redeploying our troops out of Iraq responsibly, safe, and soon.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 431, I missed this vote. Had I been present, on this amendment I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle and they ask, what's the Democrats' plan for energy? Well, with two oilmen in the White House, it's obvious what the Republicans' plan has been, and it has been a constant increase in the price of gas since the day George Bush and Dick Cheney took office.

There are 68 million acres under lease for oil production not being used, being hoarded, being kept out of the market. It's a red herring to say we need to drill more. It's available. What we really need to do is get off the addiction to oil.

We have learned this lesson before. We don't need to keep learning it. We need to have research and development in new ways to power this Nation.

At the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, with just tweaking the battery of a Prius, the lab reached 100 miles to the gallon. We can no longer be dependent on the Middle East for oil production. We have to change this Nation and its energy plans. To do so is good for national security, good for the climate and good for jobs.

We have to change the direction of this Nation.