Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, the ``Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act'' is a bill whose time has come, and I am pleased to rise in strong support of this important legislation.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in the past ten years, CEO pay has more than doubled, and the ratio of median CEO pay to worker pay has risen to 179 to 1. The escalation in executive pay raises significant issues, including the equity of widening income disparities and the potential that such extraordinary CEO salaries may be a result of inefficient labor markets. The bill before the House today provides a balanced, pro-market approach to this addressing issue. Specifically, the nonbinding advisory vote mandated in this bill will give shareholders a mechanism for supporting or opposing their company's executive compensation practices without diminishing the board's legal authority. Such a vote will signal to the board, without tying its hands, that the individuals who actually own the firm will hold the board accountable for CEO pay packages, which should give board members some pause before approving excessive compensation plans.

H.R. 1257 does not cap, limit or change any CEO's pay. Rather, it simply requires that shareholders have a ``nonbinding'' say on their company's salary decisions. Moreover, the SEC already requires companies to disclose compensation. The SEC's recent executive compensation disclosure rules already require that companies disclose their compensation packages in their annual proxy. The annual vote requirement simply requires that companies add a line to that disclosure permitting shareholders to approve or disapprove the compensation packages and also tally the votes. Shareholders are the owners of our Nation's public companies. They should have the right to vote on the compensation packages for companies' senior officers.

The cost to businesses complying with the bill's provisions would be minimal. In fact, CBO estimated that costs from the annual vote would fall well below the annual threshold for private sector mandates--that is, below $131 million in 2007 for the entire country. This is a tiny, and worthwhile, cost that is more than offset by the significant benefit it provides shareholders by enabling them to have their voices heard in the board room. Additionally, businesses are provided more than enough time to make the logistical arrangements necessary for the nonbinding advisory vote, as it would not be required until the 2009 proxy season.

The nonbinding vote has been used successfully in other countries. For example, the nonbinding advisory vote approach has been used in the United Kingdom since 2003 and is now used in Australia, without impeding economic activity in any way. To the contrary, the policy change is credited with improving management-shareholder dialogue on executive compensation matters and increasing the use of long-term performance targets in incentive compensation. In the United States, the nonbinding advisory vote on CEO pay recently was adopted voluntarily by Aflac, and is currently pending before numerous U.S. public companies.

I commend my colleague from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee for bringing this important bill to the Floor today and urge an ``aye'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1677, the ``Taxpayer Protection Act of 2007.''

I would like to focus my remarks on Section 8 of this bill, which clarifies the intent of the Congress that the existing legal prohibitions on the misuse of Department of the Treasury names and symbols also extend to misuse over the Internet. I support this provision, which addresses a very real problem that currently exists with potentially misleading commercial websites that taxpayers may mistakenly believe to be affiliated with the IRS.

In February, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, which I chair, became aware of three commercial websites operating under domain names which may confuse the public into believing them to be official IRS websites: IRS.com, IRS.net and IRS.org. In response to this situation, I wrote to the Federal Trade Commission Chairman Majoras, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson, and Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Everson to express my concerns that consumers who visited these sites might provide the operators with personally identifiable information and tax return information, enabling the operators to either market or sell this information to others, or to sell and market all manner of products and services to these taxpayers.

A consumer survey and study presented to the IRS and FTC in early January of this year by the Computer and Communications Industry Association suggested that a significant proportion of consumers misinterpreted these three non-governmental Websites as being sites hosted by the IRS. The survey showed, for example, that before viewing the website IRS.com, 47 percent of those surveyed believed the site represented the Internet address of the Internal Revenue Service. Even after viewing the site, \1/3\ of those surveyed still believed the site was the IRS website.

Now, the IRS.com website bears a remarkable resemblance to the official IRS.gov site. Both websites have the same color blue banner at the very top, a grey search bar right below, and a white background with various links and search features covering the bulk of the page. Back in February, the IRS.com site even had an actual image of the U.S. Treasury headquarters building on the top of the

page. At the time, there was only a fine-print disclaimer at the bottom of these sites stating that that it was a non-governmental site. This disclaimer was so far down on the webpage that few consumers were likely to view it.

I continue to be concerned about the potential for unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with these commercial websites, and I believe that we need to do more to ensure that the public does not continue to be exposed to these potentially misleading or confusing websites. There is no relationship between a citizen and our government more sensitive, nor information more private, than that involving individual taxes and the annual voluntary compliance obligation. The federal government has a duty to protect taxpayers from predatory behaviors as they seek to meet their obligation to pay taxes.

I am hopeful that, by clarifying the intent of the Congress that the existing legal prohibitions on misuse of Treasury Department and IRS names and symbols are and should be applied to commercial activity on the Internet, this bill will better protect the public from this kind of operation in the future.

I urge adoption of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1677, the ``Taxpayer Protection Act of 2007.''

I would like to focus my remarks on Section 8 of this bill, which clarifies the intent of the Congress that the existing legal prohibitions on the misuse of Department of Treasury names and symbols extend to misuse over the Internet. I support this provision, which addresses a very real problem that currently exists with potentially misleading commercial Web sites that taxpayers may mistakenly believe to be affiliated with the IRS.

In February, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, which I chair, became aware of three commercial Web sites operating under domain names which may confuse the public into believing them to be official IRS Web sites: IRS.com, IRS.net, and IRS.org. In response to this situation, I wrote to the Federal Trade Commission Chairman Majoras, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson, and Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Everson to express my concerns that consumers who visited these sites might provide the operators with personally identifiable information and tax return information, enabling the operators to either market or sell this information to others, or to sell and market all manner of products and services to these taxpayers. Since the taxpayers who provide personal information to these sites might be doing so under the misimpression that they were dealing with an official government Web site subject to applicable federal privacy protections, I felt there was a serious potential for consumer confusion, deception, and abuse.

In fact, a consumer survey and study presented to the IRS and FTC in early January of this year by the Computer and Communications Industry Association suggested that a significant proportion of consumers misinterpreted these three nongovernmental Web sites as being sites hosted by the IRS. The survey showed, for example, that before viewing the Web site IRS.com, 47 percent of those surveyed believed the site represented the Internet address of the Internal Revenue Service. Even after viewing the site, one third of those surveyed still believed the site was the IRS Web site.

Now, the IRS.com Web site bears a remarkable resemblance to the official IRS.gov site. Both Web sites have the same color blue banner at the very top, a grey search bar right below, and a white background with various links and search features covering the bulk of the page. Back in February, the IRS.com site even had an actual image of the U.S. Treasury headquarters building on the top of the page. At the time, there was only a fine-print disclaimer at the bottom of this site stating that it was a non-governmental site. This disclaimer was so far down on the Web page that few consumers were likely to view it.

I asked the FTC, the Treasury, and the IRS to look into the issues raised by this Web site, as well as the IRS.org and IRS.net sites. The IRS and the Treasury Department have never formally responded to my inquiry. However, the IRS has issued a press statement warning taxpayers about these potentially misleading sites. The FTC did respond to my letter, but in that response merely noted that in response to the concerns I had raised, the operator had ``made a number of changes to distinguish it from the official IRS Web site, and to better highlight the disclaimers included on the Web site.''

I continue to be concerned about the potential for unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with these commercial Web sites, and I believe that we need to do more to ensure that the public does not continue to be exposed to these potentially misleading or confusing Web sites. There is no relationship between a citizen and our government more sensitive, nor information more private, than that involving individual taxes and the annual voluntary compliance obligation. The federal government has a duty to protect taxpayers from predatory behaviors as they seek to meet their obligation to pay taxes. I am hopeful that by clarifying the intent of the Congress that the existing legal prohibitions on misuse of Treasury Department and IRS names and symbols is and should be applied to commercial activity on the Internet, that this bill will better protect the public from this kind of operation in the future.

I urge adoption of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that on April 29, 2007, my alma mater Malden Catholic High School will celebrate 75 years of Xaverian Brothers education in my hometown of Malden, Massachusetts.

Since 1932, Malden Catholic has graduated over 8,000 alumni. Currently, 700 young men from over 45 Massachusetts cities and towns are educated at Malden Catholic.

Malden Catholic has created a community of faith that promotes the dignity of all. The high school is dedicated to the spiritual, intellectual, creative, social, and physical development of its students.

In 2006, Malden Catholic was named ``One of America's Top 50 Catholic High Schools'' by the Catholic High School Honor Roll.

Malden Catholic was honored in 1999 when it was named ``One of America's Outstanding High Schools'' by US News & World Report.

The Malden Catholic Community embraces the challenge put forward in its mission, ``Plus Ultra,'' which means ``More Beyond.'' The Community as a whole works diligently to ensure that a Malden Catholic education continues to be available to a variety of deserving young men from a variety of social and economic backgrounds.

Madam Speaker, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Malden Catholic High School as the school celebrates 75 years of excellence. I thank the faculty, alumni, students, and parents who make Malden Catholic one of the greatest high schools in America.

Madam Speaker, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming met on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 and approved by voice vote and without amendment the following rules to govern the activities of the Select Committee during the 110th Congress.

Rules for The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global

Warming, 110th Congress

Rule 1. General Provisions. The Rules 0f the House are the

rules of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and

Global Warming (hereinafter ``Committee'') so far as they are

applicable.

Rule 2. Time and Place of Meetings.

(a) Regular Meeting Days. The Committee shall meet on the

first Tuesday of each month at 10 a.m., for the consideration

of any pending business, if the House is in session on that

day. If the House is not in session on that day and the

Committee has not met during such month, the Committee shall

meet at the earliest practicable opportunity when the House

is again in session. The Chairman may, at his discretion,

cancel, delay, or defer any meeting required under this

section, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.

(b) Additional Meetings. The Chairman may call and convene,

as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the

Committee for the consideration of Committee business. The

Committee shall meet for such purposes pursuant to that call

of the Chairman.

(c) Vice Chairman; Presiding Member. The Chairman shall

designate a member of the majority party to serve as Vice

Chairman of the Committee. The Vice Chairman shall preside at

any meeting or hearing during the temporary absence of the

Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice Chairman are not present

at any meeting or hearing, the most senior present member of

the majority party shall preside at the meeting or hearing.

(d) Open Meetings and Hearings. Each meeting and hearing of

the Committee for the transaction of business shall be open

to the public, including to radio, television and still

photography coverage, consistent with the provisions of Rule

XI of the Rules of the House.

Rule 3. Agenda. The agenda for each Committee meeting other

than a hearing, setting out The date, time, place, and all

items of business to be considered, shall be provided to each

member of the Committee at least 24 hours in advance of such

meeting.

Rule 4. Procedure.

(a) Hearings. The date, time, place, and subject matter of

any hearing of the Committee shall be announced at least one

week in advance of the commencement of such hearing, unless

the Chairman, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority

Member, determines in accordance with clause 2(g)(3) of Rule

XI of the Rules of the House, that there is good cause to

begin the hearing sooner. In such cases, the Chairman shall

make the announcement at the earliest possible date.

(b) Meetings. The date, time, place, and subject matter of

any meeting (other than a hearing) scheduled on a Tuesday,

Wednesday, or Thursday when the House is scheduled to be in

session shall be announced at least 24 hours (exclusive of

Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, except when the House

is in session on such days) in advance of the commencement of

such meeting.

(c) Motions. Pursuant to clause 1(a)(2) of rule XI of the

Rules of the House, privileged motions to recess from day to

day, or recess subject to the call of the Chair (within 24

hours), shall be decided without debate.

(d)(1) Requirements for Testimony. Each witness who is to

appear before the Committee shall file with the clerk of the

Committee, at least two working days in advance of his or her

appearance, sufficient copies, as determined by the Chairman,

of a written statement of his or her proposed testimony to

provide to members and staff of the Committee, the news

media, and the general public. Each witness shall, to the

greatest extent practicable, also provide a copy of such

written testimony in an electronic format prescribed by the

Chairman. Each witness shall limit his or her oral

presentation to a brief summary of the testimony. The

Chairman, or the presiding member, may waive the requirements

of this paragraph or any part thereof.

(2) Additional Requirements for Testimony. To the greatest

extent practicable, the written testimony of each witness

appearing in a non-governmental capacity shall include a

curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source

(by agency and program) of any federal grant (or subgrant

thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during

the current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal

years by the witness or by an entity represented by the

witness.

(A) Questioning Witnesses. The right to question witnesses

before the Committee shall alternate between majority and

minority members. Each member shall be limited to 5 minutes

in the interrogation of witnesses until such time as each

member who so desires has had an opportunity to question

witnesses. No member shall be recognized for a second period

of 5 minutes to interrogate a witness until each member of

the Committee present has been recognized once for that

purpose. While the Committee is operating under the 5-minute

rule for the interrogation of witnesses, the Chairman shall

recognize, in order of appearance, members who were not

present when the meeting was called to order after all

members who were present when the meeting was called to order

have been recognized in the order of seniority on the

Committee.

(B) Questions for the Record. Subject to the Rules of the

House, each member may submit to the Chairman additional

questions for the record, to be answered by the witnesses who

have appeared. Each member shall provide a copy of the

questions in an electronic format to the clerk of the

Committee no later than ten business days following a

hearing. The Chairman shall transmit all questions received

from members of the Committee to the appropriate witness and

include the transmittal letter and the responses from the

witnesses in the hearing record.

(C) Opening Statements. (1) All written opening statements

at hearings conducted by the Committee shall be made part of

the permanent hearing record.

(2) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member (or their

respective designees) are entitled to deliver a 5 minute

opening statement prior to the recognition of the first

witness for testimony. Opening statements by other members of

the Committee are subject to the discretion of the

Chairman.

Rule 5. Waiver of Agenda, Notice, and Opening Statement

Requirements. Requirements of rules 3, 4(a)(1), 4(a)(2), and

4(d) may be waived for good cause by the Chairman, with the

concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member.

Rule 6. Quorum. Testimony may be taken and evidence

received at any hearing at which there are present not fewer

than two members of the Committee. A majority of the members

of the Committee shall constitute a quorum when otherwise

required by the Rules of the House. For the purposes of

taking any action other than those specified in the preceding

sentences, one third of the members of the Committee shall

constitute a quorum.

Rule 7. Journal. The proceedings of the Committee shall be

recorded in a journal which shall, among other things, show

those present at each meeting and hearing, and shall include

a record of the votes on any question on which a record vote

is demanded, a description of the motion, order, or other

proposition voted, and the name of each member voting for and

each member voting against such motion, order, or

proposition, and the names of those members voting present. A

copy of the journal shall be furnished to the Ranking

Minority Member and made available to the public in a timely

fashion.

Rule 8. Committee Professional and Clerical Staff.

(a) Committee staff members are subject to the provisions

of clause 9 of Rule X, as well as any written personnel

policies the Committee may from time to time adopt. The

Chairman shall determine the remuneration of legislative and

administrative employees of the Committee.

(b) The Chairman shall appoint, and may remove, the

legislative and administrative employees of the Committee not

assigned to the minority.

(c) Minority Professional Staff. Professional staff members

appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of the House of

Representatives, who are assigned to the Ranking Minority

Member, and not to the Chairman, shall be assigned to such

Committee business as the Ranking Minority Member considers

advisable.

(d) Additional Staff Appointments. In addition to the

professional staff appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X

of the House of Representatives, the Chairman shall be

entitled to make such appointments to the clerical staff of

the Committee as may be provided within the budget approved

for such purposes by the Committee. Such appointees

shall be assigned to such business of the Committee as the

Chairman considers advisable.

Rule 9. Supervision, Duties of Staff.

(a) Committee staff members are subject to the provisions

of clause 9(b) of Rule X.

(b) Supervision of Majority Staff. The professional and

clerical staff of the Committee not assigned to the minority

shall be under the supervision and direction of the Chairman,

who shall establish and assign the duties and

responsibilities of such staff members and delegate such

authority as he determines appropriate.

(c) Supervision of Minority Staff. The professional and

clerical staff assigned to the minority shall be under the

supervision and direction of the Ranking Minority Member, who

shall establish and assign the duties and responsibilities of

such staff members and delegate such authority as he

determines appropriate.

Rule 10. Committee Expenditures. Copies of each monthly

report (prepared by the Chairman of the Committee on House

Administration and showing expenditures made during the

reporting period and cumulative for the year by the

Committee), anticipated expenditures for the projected

Committee program, and detailed information on travel, shall

be available to each member.

Rule 11. Broadcasting of Committee Hearings. Any meeting or

hearing that is open to the public may be covered in whole or

in part by radio or television or still photography, subject

to the requirements of clause 4 of Rule XI of the Rules of

the House. The coverage of any hearing or other proceeding of

the Committee by television, radio, or still photography

shall be under the direct supervision of the Chairman and may

be terminated in accordance with the Rules of the House.

Rule 12. Subpoenas. The Committee may authorize and issue a

subpoena under clause 2(m) of Rule XI of the House.

Rule 13. Travel of Members and Staff.

(a) Approval of Travel. Consistent with the primary expense

resolution and such additional expense resolutions as may

have been approved, travel to be reimbursed from funds set

aside for the Committee for any member or any staff member

shall be paid only upon the prior authorization of the

Chairman. Travel may be authorized by the Chairman for any

member and any staff member in connection with the attendance

of hearings conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee

thereof and meetings, conferences, and investigations which

involve activities or subject matter under the general

jurisdiction of the Committee. Before such authorization is

given there shall be submitted to the Chairman, in writing,

the following: (1) the purpose of the travel; (2) the dates

during which the travel is to be made and the date or dates

of the event for which the travel is being made; (3) the

location of the event for which the travel is to be made; and

(4) the names of members and staff seeking authorization.

(b) Approval of Travel by Minority Members and Staff. In

the case of travel by minority party members and minority

party professional staff for the purpose set out in paragraph

(a), the prior approval, not only of the Chairman but also of

the Ranking Minority Member, shall be required. Such prior

authorization shall be given by the Chairman only upon the

representation by the Ranking Minority Member, in writing,

setting forth those items enumerated in (1), (2), (3), and

(4) of paragraph (a).

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for producing bipartisan legislation to address the security weaknesses in our rail and mass transit systems and to ensure that strong whistleblower protections are provided to our front-line rail and mass transit security workers.

One area that has been largely overlooked since September 11th is the security associated with shipments of extremely hazardous materials on the roads and railways of our country.

Every day tank cars pass through our urban centers carrying enough chlorine to kill 100,000 people in half an hour. Some of these shipments must travel the routes they are currently using. But others could easily be safely re-routed to avoid population centers and other sensitive areas.

We already know that these chemicals are attractive terrorist targets. Just a few weeks ago, several deadly attacks in Iraq involved improvised explosive devices that included canisters of deadly chlorine gas, and a planned attack involving a truck full of chlorine was foiled this past weekend.

The risk is not just an overseas risk either. Several years ago, an Ohio-based al Qaeda operative was arrested and pled guilty for plotting to collapse a bridge in New York City or derail a train in DC.

Earlier this year, reporter Carl Prine at the Pittsburgh Tribune wrote a scathing expose on the state of rail insecurity in our country. He was able to walk right into rail yards with tanker cars containing some of the deadliest chemicals on earth. No one stopped him--he had no problem getting his hands on these deadly chemical tanks.

We're lucky that--this time--it was a journalist and not a jihadist who penetrated these rail yards.

Whether it's an accident or an al Qaeda attack, we need to make the shipments of deadly chemicals more secure.

The language in this bill that I authored and that was agreed to on a bipartisan basis builds upon the recent Notices of Proposed Rulemaking issued by the Department of Transportation and the TSA.

It requires rail carriers to analyze the routes and storage facilities for security sensitive materials as part of the security plans that they must submit for approval to the Department of Homeland Security. Then it requires the rail carriers to select the route and storage facilities that best reduce the risk and consequences of a terrorist attack on a shipment of these materials as they travel through or near high threat urban areas and other areas that DHS thinks need special security protections.

The language in this bill doesn't apply to all hazardous materials-- just the ones that pose the greatest threat, such as chlorine or propane. Most assessments put this at less than 1 percent of all shipments.

This bill also doesn't require re-routing to occur if there is no practical alternative route. Rail carriers will only be required to re- route when a more secure route is available.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this bi-partisan effort. Now is the time to upgrade the security for these toxic shipments so none of our constituents are ever exposed to a catastrophic chemical release simply because we failed to take these simple steps.

Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is a disaster. We are engaged in a war that should never have been fought and that was presented to the American people and this Congress over 4 years ago wrapped in falsehoods and mendacity. Our military is being drained of personnel and materiel in an occupation that, we were told, would never occur because we would be greeted as liberators.

To say that the President's prosecution of this war has been mismanaged misses the much more important point that President Bush exercised extraordinarily poor judgment in initiating an unnecessary war of choice. Our soldiers, their families, and indeed the entire country, now bears the legacy of the President's headstrong rush into this quagmire.

The President, with the Iraq War supplemental appropriations request, has again asked the Congress to give him a blank check to continue an endless and bottomless war. But that is not what the President will get with this bill. Instead of a blank check, the Congress is providing a much needed check and balance to the Executive Branch.

The bill before us today requires the President to certify to the Congress that certain tough benchmarks have been met. If he cannot so certify, an immediate redeployment of U.S. forces must commence. Under the bill, by July 1, 2007, the President must certify that Iraq has met political and military benchmarks, including the implementation of a program to disarm the militias. By October 1, 2007, the President must make another certification of Iraq's progress, including that militia control of local security has been eliminated. And even if the President is able to make both certifications to Congress, this bill requires that U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by March 1, 2008 and complete that withdrawal no later than by the end of August 2008.

These limitations on the President are important, as they will pave the way for the United States to finally withdraw from Iraq.

This bill also prohibits permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, which is an essential precondition for the reestablishment of public trust in the United States within the Middle East and especially Iraq.

Particularly significant to me is a prohibition included in this bill which bars the use of funds from this supplemental in contravention of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I have had to fight to include this provision in previous appropriations bills under the Republican Congress and I would like to thank and commend Chairman Murtha for his leadership and courage on this issue. In this bill, my restriction on the use of funds for torture also includes a specific ban on the use of funds to carry out renditions, which the President has used to transfer detainees for interrogation or other purposes to countries known for the use of torture.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to see the war continue another day. I want our troops home immediately, and I am frustrated beyond words by the President's continued intransigence in the face of overwhelming evidence and opinion. The bill that this House is debating today will take us closer to the moment when every American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine in Iraq can be brought home.

I urge adoption of the bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to say that the gentleman from Maryland is like Socrates up here lecturing to the Members and to the country on this incredibly important issue. And I would just like to take note that you do it day after day, and you are relentless.

There is no question that, still, there is this denial with regard to the amount of oil that the United States has in terms of reserves compared to OPEC, compared to Russia, compared to other countries in the world.

And the gentleman from Maryland on a consistent basis comes here to the House floor. I know you do it in other places to bring this message. And if I may, just for 10 seconds because I know the gentleman shares my view on this, I think we both drive hybrids. I think the gentleman is the Chair of the Hybrid Caucus, as a matter of fact. And we both know that the technology exists if we make a commitment as a nation. So here is just one little statistic I would like to put out there:

In 1970, the United States imported 20 percent of its oil; 80 percent we produced. By 1977, just 7 years later, we imported 47 percent of our oil. We went from 20 percent imports to 47 percent imports. But then the Congress and Gerald Ford, President Ford, passed legislation which mandated a doubling of the fuel economy standards for the United States of America. By 1985, 1986, we had dropped back down to 27 percent imports. So we went from 20 percent to 46 back down to 27 percent because we improved our technology. We doubled the fuel economy from 13 miles per gallon to 27 miles per gallon. We did it technologically.

Today, unbelievably, the United States imports 60 percent of its oil. So from 1986 to 2006, we went from 27 percent of our oil that we imported to 60 percent of our oil that we imported. And as the gentleman graphically, in eye-watering detail, continues to present out here on the House floor, the places from which we import this oil is not healthy for the United States of America. It is an unhealthy relationship with countries that we should not be dependent upon. Three hundred billion dollars worth of oil imports last year. Three hundred billion dollars. And we know that much of that money is spent on things that are completely adverse to the overall national security interests of the United States of America even as we emit more greenhouse gases out into the atmosphere that we would not be emitting if our fuel economy standard was much higher.

So I saw you out here again like a preacher, and I thought that I would just let you know that I am out here in the congregation listening to you, and I know that there are many, many other people who are very much in debt to you for having the resolute commitment to getting this message into the minds of the American people.

So I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

Why do you think it is so hard to convince people that we don't have the oil reserves that would allow us to have a healthy relationship with the rest of the world that does have the oil reserves that ultimately we are going to need to import if we don't change our habits? Why do you think our country doesn't come to grips with that? Where is the gap in communicating with the American people on this issue?

Will the gentleman yield?

You tell your wife that in Massachusetts the messenger's name was Paul Revere and we actually built statues to him up in Massachusetts for telling us the Red Coats were coming, the British were coming, the regulars were coming. And that is what you are telling us right now, that at 60, 61 percent dependence upon imported oil, we are heading inexorably towards a very, very dangerous foreign policy, national security crisis in our country because we are averaging about 1\1/2\ percent per year increase in our dependency. So in order to move from 27 percent back in 1985, 1986 to 60, 61 percent today, it just has to go up that much. So if we come back here in 67 years and we haven't done anything, we will be over 70 percent, 75 percent dependent upon imported oil, all unnecessary if we looked at the facts and looked at the facts today and began to change our national habits.

So tell your wife that Paul Revere is more likely the analogy that applies to you rather than the messenger that they shot.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce, for the third time, legislation to prohibit the outsourcing of torture by the United States government. I am hopeful that this Congress the House will finally take up legislation on this matter.

I know that policy battles can drag on for seemingly endless lengths of time. I remember that Senator Proxmire spent nearly 20 years arguing that the United States needed to ratify the Convention Against Genocide before finally succeeding to rally the Senate to action. But I know too that we cannot delay any longer in addressing the Administration's practice of transferring detainees for interrogation or other purposes to countries where there are substantial grounds for believing that the transferred individuals could face torture. I feel a rising optimism that we can end this repugnant and counterproductive practice of so- called extraordinary rendition soon, and certainly within the timeframe of this Congress.

There is no doubt that the United States is greatly challenged by violent extremists, and the terrible attacks of September 11 were not so much attacks upon our country as upon the values of liberalism, openness and democracy that we champion throughout the world. But there is a right way and a wrong way to conduct ourselves as we defend the United States from murderous criminals and terrorists.

The wrong way is to lower our standards of conduct further and further for the sake of expediency. The wrong way is to compromise our core values of human rights and dignity for all people in the face of an enemy who disdains such ideals. The wrong way is to undermine and destroy international treaties guaranteeing all people security from cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment; especially when these treaties are the last line of defense for our soldiers and personnel overseas unfortunate enough to be captured on the battlefield.

The right way is to proudly and publicly hold the United States to the highest standards and prove again that our nation is founded upon the rule of law.

The practice of extraordinary rendition is a travesty, and it is illegal under any reasonable reading of U.S. and international law. The Convention Against Torture, ratified by the Senate in 1986, provides that the United States may not ``expel, return, or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'' And in 1998, this Congress passed the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA), which states that ``it shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise affect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.''

Both the Convention Against Torture and FARRA prohibit the transfer of an individual to a state where there are ``substantial grounds for believing'' that the individual will face torture. How has the Administration gotten around this prohibition when sending detainees to countries like Syria, Jordan, Uzbekistan, and Egypt; countries which our own State Department reports are habitual abusers of human rights? The Administration has received, and accepted, so-called ``diplomatic assurances'' from these torturing countries that they will not abuse transferred detainees. It is shocking that the Bush Administration has repeatedly and cynically accepted the word of known torturers without any mechanism to ensure that these promises were not broken.

The Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act will require that the Secretary of State compile an annual list of all countries in the world known to use torture; it will be illegal to transfer individuals to the countries on this list, regardless of the citizenship or physical location of the individuals. Furthermore, the Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act will close the loophole of ``diplomatic assurances'' which the Administration has exploited to outsource the torture of prisoners to countries such as Syria.

The Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act provides waiver authority over the prohibition to the Secretary of State when it is certified to the appropriate Congressional committees that the country in question no longer practices torture and there is a verifiable mechanism in place to assure that the person transferred will not face torture.

The Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act does not inhibit treaty-based extraditions in any way. In those cases, current law already provides that an individual facing extradition may challenge the extradition in the courts with an assertion of their rights under the Convention Against Torture.

Madam Speaker, it is past time for the Congress to end the practice of extraordinary rendition. I urge adoption of this important legislation.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, and I commend Chairman George Miller for his herculean efforts to move this bill forward and bring it to the House floor today.

This bill is an important step towards providing Americans with fundamental workplace protections that are long overdue. When workers have the freedom to join together and bargain collectively, they have the opportunity to secure affordable health care, adequate vacation time and other benefits as part of good faith negotiations with their employers.

Americans are working harder and more efficiently than ever before. But while productivity has increased, many middle class families continue to struggle to make ends meet, pay the mortgage, afford college for their children, and access affordable health care.

These hardworking families are everyday heroes, but even heroes need help.

The Employee Free Choice Act will help ensure that workers who seek a better future for themselves and their families through union representation are not coerced, intimidated or threatened by employers trying to prevent them from exercising their legal rights.

The bill we are considering today would enable employees to choose-- they can choose to go through the current NLRB election process, or they can choose a card-check process designed to insulate them from intimidation. If a majority of employees choose to sign cards in support of union representation, the employer must abide by that decision and certify the union if the NLRB validates their majority.

While the card-check route to union representation is permitted under current law, employers have the choice to reject the results.

In other words, under current law, it's the employer's choice. Under the Employee Free Choice Act, it's the employee's choice.

This bill is urgently needed because some employers choose to fight unionization by intimidating workers, threatening to fire pro-union employees or close the plant. Making union certification mandatory when a majority of employees sign union cards would prevent illegal tactics intended to crush workers' efforts to bargain collectively.

James Madison famously wrote that ``If men were angels, no government would be necessary.'' Madam Chairman, if all companies were angels, this bill would not be necessary.

Unfortunately, while some enlightened companies currently recognize the legitimacy of a union when a majority of their employees sign union cards, many do not.

Now is the time to give Americans the power they need to improve conditions in the workplace.

President Roosevelt told us: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.''

The Employee Free Choice Act is consistent with the American ideal that everyone--not just the privileged few--deserves the opportunity to improve their condition in life and build a bright, optimistic future for their children.

I urge an ``aye'' vote and commend Chairman Miller for his work on this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 556, the National Security FIRST Act, introduced by the Gentlelady from New York, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney.

A year ago, a secretive committee at the Treasury Department that most Americans had never heard of approved a transaction to give a company owned by the United Arab Emirates control over terminal operations at 6 major U.S. ports.

The decision by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--or CFIUS--to approve this purchase by Dubai Ports World shined a bright light on an obscure committee and the process it uses to make decisions that can have important consequences for the security of our country.

Clearly, the Dubai Ports World transaction did not receive the scrutiny it deserved. The 9/11 Commission had identified the government of the UAE--the same entity that would own the terminals at major U.S. ports--as a ``persistent counterterrorism problem''. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE. The 9/11 Commission concluded that the UAE banking system was used as a conduit for funds for the September 11th attacks.

Moreover, the UAE was a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya. The UAE was one of only three nations to recognize the legitimacy of the Taliban government and still does not recognize the State of Israel.

Despite all of these warning signs, the proposed port deal did not even lead the Bush Administration to conduct a 45-day investigation, which is provided in current law and should have been interpreted as being mandatory when foreign governments--whether involving the UAE, the UK, the Ukraine or any other nation--seek mergers, acquisitions or similar transactions that could affect U.S. national security.

Public outrage ultimately sunk the Dubai deal. Last March, Dubai Ports World agreed to divest itself of the U.S. port operations involved in the transaction, and AIG purchased these assets earlier this month.

I commend Congresswoman Maloney for crafting this strong legislation. It closes the loopholes that had, unbelievably, allowed commerce to trump commonsense. Specifically, this bill requires that a transaction involving foreign governments receive extra scrutiny by mandating that the chairman and vice-chairman of CFIUS certify that the transaction poses no national security threat or the transaction must be subjected to a second-stage 45-day national security investigation; ensures that senior level officials are held accountable for CFIUS decisions by requiring that the chairman and vice chairman of CFIUS approve all transactions where CFIUS consideration is completed within the 30-day review period and mandating that the president approve all transactions that have been subjected to the second-stage 45-day national security investigation; and provides for much-needed congressional oversight by requiring CFIUS to report to the congressional committees of jurisdiction within five days after the final action on a CFIUS investigation. CFIUS also must file semi-annual reports to Congress that contain information on transactions handled by the committee during the previous six months.

Passage of this bill is an important step towards making our country safer. As we continue to learn the lessons of the Dubai Ports World transaction, we also must push forward with efforts to require that all shipping containers are scanned for nuclear bombs before they leave foreign countries bound for our shores and sealed to prevent tampering en route.

The 100 percent scanning mandate was included in the 9/11 Commission recommendations bill that passed the House last month on a bi-partisan basis. As the other body considers its version of the bill, this vital provision should be retained. In New York Times columnist Frank Rich's piece last Sunday, he reported that the former head of the C.I.A. bin

Laden unit, Michael Scheuer has stated that the Taliban and Al Qaeda, having regrouped in Afghanistan and Pakistan, are ``going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States.''

Mr. Scheuer is not alone in making this assessment. Harvard University arms control expert Graham Allison has said that ``more likely than not'' there will be a terrorist attack using a nuclear bomb in our country. He has described the detonation of a nuclear explosive device in a cargo container in one of our ports as a nightmare scenario for our nation.

Port security expert and former Coast Guard officer Stephen Flynn has written about the ``catastrophic consequences of terror in a box'' that would result if a nuclear device hidden in a cargo container were donated in our country. Admiral James Loy, the former Coast Guard commandant and former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, has said that there is evidence that al Qaeda terrorists are already involved in the maritime trades.

Through the Secure Freight Initiative, the Bush Administration has begun the process of establishing pilot programs overseas to test the feasibility and effectiveness of scanning all U.S.-bound containers before they are loaded onto container ships headed to our country.

The provision in the 9/11 Recommendations bill that Congressman Nadler and I authored would require that lessons learned during the Secure Freight Initiative are incorporated into a comprehensive 100 percent scanning and sealing policy for every container headed to our country. Our provision contains a sensible time frame--3 years for large overseas ports and 5 years for smaller ones--to implement the 100 percent scanning mandate.

Dubai Ports World--the same company that triggered the reform process that led us to consideration of the legislation before us today--is planning to incorporate the capability to perform 100 percent scanning at its operations overseas.

We have the technology. We know the risks. We need to take action to require 100 percent scanning and sealing of all U.S. bound cargo containers OVERSEAS, before they arrive at our shores. If we detect a nuclear bomb in a container once it arrives at a U.S. port, it's too late. Once again, I commend the gentlelady from New York for her leadership on this important issue, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Swift Approval, Full Evaluation, SAFE, Drug Act. This bill is designed to ensure that the FDA can balance the need to get important life-saving drugs to the market quickly while ensuring the drugs get the full evaluation they need to ensure the safety of those products.

Earlier this week the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce held its very first oversight hearing of the 110th Congress on drug safety. At the hearing several FDA whistleblowers testified

about the truly frightening problems at the FDA including: 1. a culture of suppression and intimidation, 2. a lack of transparency into the review process, 3. the inaction of FDA management in response to serious drug risks, 4. a lack of scientific freedom and the inability of FDA reviewers to have their concerns heard by senior management, FDA advisory committees, and the public.

Their powerful testimonies add to the concerns raised in the Institute of Medicine report, the GAO Report, and the Inspector General of HHS report that the FDA's system to ensure that postmarketing studies are conducted and completed is broken and the FDA has not made reform a priority.

It is clear from the whistleblowers' testimonies and these three major reports that the FDA is a deeply troubled agency that has failed time and time again to act in the best interest of the public. The failures of the FDA to protect the public have been widely reported by the media and the public is losing confidence in the FDA's ability to keep us safe.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal Online/Harris Interactive poll, 80 percent of adults say they are concerned about the FDA's ability to make independent decisions that will ensure that patients have access to safe and effective medicines.

We need the FDA to be a watchdog for public health, not a lapdog for the industry. We need to bring back transparency, accountability and scientific integrity to the FDA.

That is why today I am reintroducing the Swift Approval, Full Evaluation, SAFE, Drug Act to provide greater transparency into the approval process and a stronger postmarket safety system.

The SAFE Drug Act will:

1. Increase FDA authority with respect to postmarket safety, including giving the FDA the ability to mandate labeling and require postmarket studies.

2. Provide FDA greater authority with respect to the Accelerated Approval process, by ensuring postmarket study plans are reviewed prior to approval; requiring proper labeling until drugs are fully approved; and restricting advertising for accelerated approved drugs or biologics until full approval.

3. Provide enhanced whistleblower protections to FDA employees.

4. Preserve scientific integrity at FDA by prohibiting FDA employees from directing other FDA employees to censor or suppress scientific research, analysis, opinions or recommendations or directing employees to disseminate scientific information that is known to be false or misleading.

5. Require the FDA to provide Advisory Committees with complete information.

6. Ensure scientific freedom at FDA, by guaranteeing FDA and FDA- sponsored authors the right to publish or present their work.

7. Increase FDA transparency, by requiring a biennial report to Congress on noninferiority studies and a biannual report to Congress on postmarket studies system.

The time to act is now. I look forward to working with my colleagues to stop the erosion of public confidence in the FDA, provide greater transparency into the approval process, reform the system of postmarketing studies, and ensure that FDA balances the desire to speed drugs to market with its critical role as the watchdog of public health.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, this debate marks the beginning of the end of the ill- conceived, mismanaged and ultimately failed war in Iraq. The war in Iraq was launched on the basis of false and misleading intelligence about a nonexistent nuclear weapons program. When the inspectors looked for nuclear weapons in all the most likely places, there was nothing there. When they looked in all the unlikely places, there was nothing there. When this was reported to the world, the world said ``don't invade.'' But when this was reported to the President of the United States, he chose to invade Iraq. In other words, the President did the opposite of what the evidence would dictate.

Here we are, 4 years after the invasion. The American people looked at the facts on the ground in Iraq and voted in November to de- escalate. The generals looked at the situation and said de-escalate. The Iraq Study Group analyzed our options and said we should de- escalate.

So what has the President of the United States decided? After all the evidence, he has chosen to escalate the war. Once again, our President is doing the opposite of what the evidence and common sense dictates.

Our troops continue to fight heroically to prevent Iraq from sliding into anarchy, but they are losing ground to a deep emotional cycle of religious strife and revenge that goes back 14 centuries. Our soldiers cannot be beaten on the military battlefield, but neither should they be faulted for failing to drain a political swamp.

The American people are now speaking out with one clear voice, in frustration and in anger, demanding change, demanding a new direction in Iraq. But the President isn't giving us a new direction. All he has to offer is more of the same, an escalation of our troop presence in Iraq. And this escalation ignores the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which said that all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq by the beginning of 2008.

This week, we have a choice: We can say no to the President's failed war in Iraq, we can say no to the President's escalation, and we can say no to the unnecessary loss of another American soldier, marine or airman; or we can once again vote to stay the course and to continue on with this failed policy.

Many Americans have expressed frustration that the resolution we vote on this week is a nonbinding resolution, and I understand that frustration. On January 9, Senator Kennedy and I introduced companion bills in the Senate and House to block President Bush's new plan to escalate troop levels in Iraq. Our legislation would prevent the obligation or expenditure of a single dollar to increase the number of troops in Iraq unless Congress affirmatively voted to do so.

But I would not dismiss this resolution's importance simply because it is nonbinding. Twenty-four years ago, this House took up another nonbinding resolution when it first debated my nuclear freeze resolution. We passed the nuclear freeze on the floor of the House. It was nonbinding and it never passed the Senate. But it nevertheless changed the course of this Nation's nuclear weapons policy. It did so because of the pressure it put on the White House to change, and it was followed by binding legislation that halted tests of anti-satellite weapons, cut funding for Star Wars and cut in half the plan size of the MX missile force.

That is why I fully understand why some Republican Members have simultaneously denounced this resolution as silly and unserious, and, at the same time, have tried to prevent its passage. Why are they afraid of a nonbinding resolution? Because this resolution exposes the lack of support in the Congress for the President's escalation scheme.

The administration's failed strategy has already ended any chance of a successful short-term outcome. The just-released, deeply pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq simply confirms this situation.

We are in the middle of a sectarian religious civil war in Iraq, and the presence of our troops is preventing the Iraqi people from taking responsibility for their own security and for their own political solution that must follow.

This war should never have been fought, period. It was a mistake, the American people know it was a mistake, our military leaders know it was a mistake and a bipartisan majority in the United States Congress know it was a mistake.

Let's pass this resolution and send a strong signal to the Bush administration that it is time to stop the escalation, bring this war to an end, and bring our troops home. I urge adoption of this resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank him for his eloquent statement. I thank him for the eulogy which he delivered on behalf of Father Drinan at St. Ignatius Church in Massachusetts on this past Saturday. You captured the essence of Father Drinan in that eulogy, and I thank you for doing that on behalf of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives mourns the passing of Father Robert Drinan, Society of Jesus, Member of Congress. His death is a blow to those of us who revered his wit and wisdom, and a great loss for those who continue to struggle for human rights and life's basic necessities. Yet, tonight we also celebrate Father Drinan's life and know well that the life he brought to the issues of our time will continue to shine on in the efforts of those he touched and those whom he exhorted to do more.

I had the privilege of having Father Drinan as my dean at Boston College Law School. I met him in August of 1968 as the school year at Boston College Law School was about to commence. But the truth is that I had set my goal to attend Boston College Law School 6 years before when I was a sophomore in high school because it became my goal to go to Boston College Law School so that I could have Father Drinan as my dean; and, to be honest with you, I didn't even know if you had to go to college in order to go to law school, such was my desire to go and to be in this school that was training lawyers to help humanity.

At Boston College Law School in the late 1960s, Father Drinan used his power as the dean of that school to actively recruit minorities, to actively recruit women to come to Boston College Law School. He did so using the greatest power that a dean of a law school has, and that is admissions and full scholarships. He wanted Boston College Law School to be at the cutting edge of the change which was taking place in our society, and he wanted to ensure that those who had been excluded from our society would be given access to the law school education that they would need in order to effect the laws in our society. And today, all of those who were exposed to him during the years that he was dean at Boston College Law School continue to have a debt to him, not only those to whom he brought in, in order to ensure that they were not excluded, but all of the rest of us who were then exposed to these injustices and the remedies to them that Father Drinan ensured that that law school embodied.

Just a few years after graduating from Boston College Law School, only 4 years later, I had the great honor of coming here as Father Drinan's colleague. I felt that there was no greater honor in fact in being elected to Congress than in knowing that I would be his colleague. It seemed somewhat asymmetrical that I would have the same vote that he had here on the House floor. And when he would consult me on which choice he should make, should he become the chairman of the criminal law subcommittee or the immigration subcommittee, it was an honor for me to be consulted by Father Drinan as a young man now, but his colleague in Congress, as to what was the best place. And his criteria of course was what was the best place where he could do the most good for those most in need in our society. And of course, the way he saw our society was not just the United States of America but the whole planet.

So I had that unique opportunity to see him in both of those settings, both in law school and here on the House floor. And I saw him play the role of the catalyst, of the idealist, of the man who continued to push others when they say they can go no further in trying to strive for excellence and to stand up for an ideal. And that is the role that Father Drinan played not just in law school and not just here in Congress, but for the last 26 years since he left this Chamber.

When we stand in this Chamber of Congress, when Members of Congress are coming here to cast their vote, all of our names are flashed up on a board over the head of the Speaker to vote ``aye'' or ``nay'' on the key issues of our time. During the years that Father Drinan was a Congressman, as the Members would look up to see how other Members of Congress voted, when they looked up at Father Drinan's name, they knew he was not casting a vote looking at the next election, but rather he was looking at the next generation on every vote. And that led to almost every one of his elections being as close as an election can be, because he was not factoring in his own electoral life but rather the life of every person in our society. His vote was true north, every vote that he cast here in Congress.

As a Jesuit, he clearly lived up to the Jesuitical ideal of being a contemplative in action. He worked tirelessly for both tolerance and for social justice. He took on each task in this institution, large and small, as he did others in life, and offered them Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, To the Greater Glory of God, which was a favorite phrase of St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit order.

He was unambiguous in his convictions that America could do better, could aspire to greater things for its people and the world. The direct and candid quality of Father Drinan's personality added to the moral force that Father Drinan brought to the quality of the debate in this Chamber. His personality animated these discussions in hearings and debates here on the floor. His eloquent, passionate, heartfelt speeches are greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, I think that one of the real ironies of Father Drinan's career is that at its very end here in Congress, in his very last term here that he served in this body, that he was unopposed. In other words, just at the point at which he had convinced those who lived in his district that in fact not only was he not outside the main stream, but his views were those that should be embraced by everyone who lived within that district, he was unopposed. He had fought Richard Nixon on Vietnam; he had called for Richard Nixon's impeachment because of the illegal bombing on Cambodia. He was someone who, by the time he had reached 1980, people looked up to with admiration that he had been unafraid during those fights during the early 1970s, one that had been able to now command the admiration of everyone in this body.

His defense of human rights was tireless, from the plight of Soviet Jewry to the victims of apartheid to the dislocated and the powerless in Central America. He risked his own life in going down to Central America after the assassination of Archbishop Romero. He was the first. His voice was the most powerful. He brought a moral dimension to the crimes that were being committed in Central America. He elevated that to a point where Congress had to deal with it. He mobilized the Jesuit community, the moral community not only here but around the world to focus on what was happening in Central America. It was Father Drinan. And he was literally risking his life when he went down there in those early years. There was no protection for him. That was the unwavering commitment of his life, that he would use it in order to advance the cause of those who were most powerless.

And at Trinity College, as Speaker Pelosi said, on the day before she was sworn in he delivered a sermon to each of us who was there on our responsibilities to help the children of Darfur, the children of Katrina, and every child in need of help around the planet. And he told us that it was our job here to make sure that those children were taken care of, that God's work was truly our own here in this great body.

Now, when Father Drinan was forced to choose between political life and his priestly life, it really wasn't a choice. On that day, I went up into his office and sat with him and I asked him how he felt. And he said, ``Eddie, it really isn't a difficult choice. I am a priest for life, not a politician. I will find other ways to serve God, and I will be able to accept this, although it is difficult.'' And that is just how he was. And for the next 26 years, it can be argued that he had the most productive part of his life, because during those 26 years he, then at Georgetown Law School, trained thousands of young lawyers to go out across this country and across this world in order to advocate on behalf of human rights.

So he showed us how we could pursue justice, seek continued incremental progress towards peace, towards a more

just distribution of society's assets, and towards a Nation which celebrated diversity and fostered tolerance.

In the final analysis, Father Robert Drinan was a gift to all of us. Here in the House of Representatives, the memory of this iconic and comprehensively decent man of our friend and our colleague will be long remembered and venerated. He will be sorely missed not just here in Washington and in Massachusetts, but all around the world.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of announcing to the House that one of our most beloved former Members, Father Robert Drinan, has passed away. He served five terms in the House of Representatives, from 1971 to 1981. Those of us who served with him and those who came to know him subsequently through his work as an educator and a moral leader admired his lifelong commitment to public service, loved him for his friendship and will miss his remarkable spirit. He was truly a great man.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House be made in order so that we may observe a moment of silence in memory of Father Robert Drinan.

Mr. Speaker, this bill today is a historic bill. What it is going to do is to reclaim billions of dollars, the GAO says upwards of $10 billion, which will then be moved over from unnecessary tax breaks and royalty relief for oil and gas companies, and moved over to a Strategic Renewable and Energy Efficiency Reserve so that we can change the direction of energy in our country by just taking back that which is undeserved in tax breaks and royalty relief.

So, what's the issue? Well, the issue is that back in 1998 and 1999 the oil industry received royalty breaks that didn't require them to pay any royalties back to the American people, the American taxpayer, as they drilled on the public lands of our country.

What this bill does is it gives a choice to the oil and gas industry: either renegotiate those leases or pay a fee going forward for the drilling on those lands. And that money will then go into a trust fund for renewables, for energy conservation, for ethanol, so that we can move in a new energy direction for the 21st century. It is a quite simple formula.

Now, the royalty relief, the change in how royalties are collected, it has already passed here on the House floor. But it was then blocked by the Bush administration. The $9 fee was the Pombo amendment. That has already passed on the House floor. So we are not talking about things that haven't already been debated. We are not talking about things that have already passed. What we are talking about are things that the Bush administration then blocked from becoming law. And what the Democrats are adding is just that it be put into a renewable and a conservation and ethanol trust fund so that we can move this country into a new energy direction.

I hope that this rule passes, and then I hope that we have an overwhelming vote, as we have had twice before in the past, by the way, on this royalty issue by all Members of the House, so that we can finally move in a new direction for the 21st century in energy policy.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that we will consider later today represents the important first step in charting a new direction for the Nation's energy policy. H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, which repeals the unnecessary and wasteful tax breaks and royalty-free drilling rights for big oil and gas companies, and instead creates a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve that would invest in clean, renewable energy sources and clean alternative fuels like ethanol, as well as energy efficiency and conservation.

H.R. 6 will put an end to oil companies drilling for free on public land no matter how high oil prices climb. The Government Accountability Office has estimated that the American taxpayers stand to lose at least $10 billion from leases issued in the late '90s that do not suspend so- called royalty relief. H.R. 6 would correct this problem by barring companies from purchasing new leases unless they had either renegotiated their existing faulty leases or agreed to pay a fee on the production of oil and gas from those leases.

The House has already adopted the royalty relief fixes included in H.R. 6 by overwhelming, bipartisan votes. By a vote of 252-165, the House adopted the Markey-Hinchey amendment to the Interior appropriations bill to provide a strong incentive for these companies to renegotiate. The House also voted last year to impose a $9 per barrel fee on oil produced from these leases in a bill authored by former Resources Chairman Pombo. Both those provisions are in H.R. 6. So two times this House has said that we want to put real pressure to renegotiate on all the oil and gas companies holding those 1998-1999 leases.

However, the Bush administration has consistently opposed our efforts to bring every oil company holding one of these leases back to the negotiating table and it continues to oppose the provisions in H.R. 6 that would do so. Instead, the Bush administration has argued that we should allow oil companies to ``voluntarily'' renegotiate with the Minerals Management Service. However, of the 56 companies holding these leases, only 5 have voluntarily agreed to renegotiate. When billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake, that is simply not an acceptable rate of return. This bill says that it's time for the oil companies to stop playing Uncle Sam for Uncle Sucker.

Passage of H.R. 6 will allow us to begin to move in a new, clean direction on energy and put an end to the free ride that big oil has had under the Bush administration. H.R. 6 represents the beginning of a change in direction, away from subsidizing industries that don't need extra financial incentives, and towards the technologies that do need a helping hand and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his great work and for yielding, and I thank Mr. Hinchey, who has worked with me over the past 2 years to bring to the attention of the American people this issue of the fact that there is drilling going on off the shores of our public country on public lands where there are no royalties being paid, whether it is $30, $40, $50, $60, $70, or $80 a barrel.

Here is what President Bush said about that on April 19, 2005. ``I will tell you, with $55 oil, we don't need the incentives to oil and gas companies to explore,'' Bush said in a speech in April.

So what are we saying? We are saying keep your contracts. You don't have to change the contracts. Keep them. But if you want new contracts on new drilling sites, renegotiate the old contracts or pay a $9 fee. You can keep the sanctity of the old contracts, but you are not entitled to new contracts. Very simple.

Then, after the money is recollected, we are going to create a Renewable Energy Strategic Fund to change and put our country heading in a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are considering today represents the important first step in charting a new direction for the nation's energy policy. H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, repeals the unnecessary and I wasteful tax breaks and royalty-free drilling rights for big oil and gas companies, and instead creates a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve that would invest in clean, renewable energy sources and clean alternative fuels like ethanol, as well as energy efficiency and conservation.

At a time when they are making record profits and American consumers are being tipped upside down at the pump we should not be giving massive subsidies and tax breaks to big oil companies. Even President Bush conceded in an April 19, 2005 Washington Post article, ``I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. * * * There are plenty of incentives.'' Even George Bush admits that at $55 dollars, the price of oil is enough of an incentive for oil companies to drill and they don't need the additional taxpayer subsidies that were created under the Republican Congress. Today, with H.R. 6, we are simply going to repeal the most egregious of those unnecessary incentives and tax breaks to big oil.

In addition, H.R. 6 will put an end to oil companies drilling for free on public land when oil prices are high. The Government Accountability Office has estimated that the American taxpayers stand to lose at least $10 billion from leases issued in the late 90s that do not suspend so-called royalty relief. H.R. 6 would correct this problem by barring oil companies from purchasing new leases unless they had either renegotiated their existing faulty leases or agreed to pay a fee on the production of oil and gas from those leases.

Now, I have heard some Members on the other side of the aisle argue that if we were to pass the royalty relief fixes included in H.R. 6 and take back from big oil the $10 billion or more that rightfully belongs to the American people, it will violate the contracts that they are holding. That it will turn our country into Bolivia or Russia. But let me be clear--we have spoken to the top constitutional lawyers in the country and they all agree that we are on the firmest of constitutional ground.

The contracts that these oil companies are holding allow for the federal government to impose fees like the ones in this bill. Furthermore, the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service has said time and time again that including a condition in new oil and gas leases to exclude oil companies that have not renegotiated their faulty leases would not abrogate existing contracts or constitute a takings. All H.R. 6 does is give these big oil companies a choice-- they can continue producing royalty-free oil no matter how high the price of oil climbs, that's fine, but then they're not going to get any new leases from the Federal Government.

And more than that, this House has already adopted the royalty relief fixes included in H.R. 6 by overwhelming, bipartisan votes. Many of my Republican colleagues voted for both of those provisions. The House adopted the Markey-Hinchey amendment to the Interior appropriations bill to provide an incentive for these companies to renegotiate by suspending their ability to bid on new leases by a vote of 252-165. The House also voted last year to impose a $9 per barrel fee on oil produced from these leases in a bill authored by former Resources Chairman Pombo. That Pombo fee is this bill, and the Markey-Hinchey suspension on bidding for new leases is also there as an alternative. So, this is something that the House has already voted to do two times. Two times, this House has said that we want to put real pressure on all the oil and gas companies holding those 1998-1999 leases to renegotiate.

However, the Bush Administration has consistently opposed our efforts to bring every oil

company holding one of these leases back to the negotiating table and it continues to oppose the provisions in H.R. 6 that would do so. Instead, the Bush Administration has argued that we should allow oil companies to ``voluntarily'' renegotiate with the Minerals Management Service. However, of the 56 companies holding these leases, only 5 have voluntarily agreed to renegotiate. When billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake, that is simply not an acceptable rate of return. H.R. 6 says that it is time for the oil companies to stop playing Uncle Sam for Uncle Sucker.

According to an Interior Department's Inspector General's report that came out today, senior officials at the Minerals Management Service have known about these faulty leases for nearly three years, yet sat idly by and did absolutely nothing while big oil companies failed to pay nearly $1 billion in royalties that rightfully belonged to the American people. If the allegations in the IG's report are true, top Bush Administration officials have aided and abetted one of the greatest heists in history. We should not now leave those same officials in charge of getting oil companies to ``voluntarily'' renegotiate those same leases.

Finally today, as part of the first 100 hours, we are starting the comprehensive debate about our nation's energy policy that we should have been having over the last 6 years. Finally today, we are beginning to talk about how we can radically increase the amount of renewable fuels such as ethanol we consume in the country. Finally today, we are beginning to talk on the Floor of the People's House about how to make our appliances or our buildings or our vehicles more energy efficient so that we can reduce our consumption of foreign oil and our emissions of greenhouse gasses.

Adopting H.R. 6 will allow us to begin to move in a new, clean direction on energy and put an end to the free ride that big oil has had under the Bush Administration. This bill is a beginning. It is the beginning of a change in direction, away from subsidizing an industry that doesn't need extra financial incentives, and towards the technologies that do need a helping hand. Today, we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that we can tap to help American consumers in the event of another Middle East oil embargo or crisis. But with this bill we create a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve, that we can tap to ensure that America can move towards energy independence.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 6.