Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1419 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, my friend, Mr. Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend remarks on House Resolution 1419.

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

H. Res. 1419 provides for the consideration of H.R. 3667, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources, makes in order three amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Representative Grijalva, Ranking Members Young and Bishop for helping to bring this bill to the floor today. And I would like to thank the staff of the Natural Resources Committee for their very hard work on a bill that is of great importance to my State of Vermont.

The Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are two of the most beautiful rivers in the most beautiful State in the Nation, and that, with all due respect to the man from Washington, I claim to be the State of Vermont. These rivers are bordered by the largest and perhaps the highest quality silver maple floodplain forest remaining in our State of Vermont. They are also home to diverse animal life, including brook trout, rare freshwater mussels, and spiny soft shell turtles. It's a favorite walking, hiking, fishing area for many people in northern Vermont and, indeed, from Upstate New York and all around Vermont.

Additionally, the Missisquoi River is part of this extraordinary 740- mile northern forest canoe trail, which is home to some of the best flat-water canoeing in Vermont and in the Northeast. Both of these rivers are highly valued by the surrounding towns and the communities. It has great recreational areas, swimming pools, and boating. Vermont parents that grew up swimming in these rivers take their kids back there, and it's a place in Vermont of just extraordinary scenic and natural beauty.

The bill, as these study bills all do, provides for a study of the two rivers, and it represents a first step toward protecting Abenaki Indian archeological sites along the flood plains, protecting scenic waterfalls and gorges, and a way of life that has been in these communities surrounding the two rivers for generations.

Passage of the rule will allow the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act to be considered on the floor by the full body, and I urge support of this rule and the underlying bill.

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

I am the last speaker on our side, so I will reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that my friend from Washington would question my assertions about the beauty of Vermont, and I will invite the Member from Washington to come to Vermont so I can let you firsthand experience the evidence that I have had so much opportunity to observe myself.

By the way, I have been to Washington. I climbed Mt. Rainier three times and was out on the San Juan Islands.

For bragging about Washington, yes, I will.

Thank you, my friend from Washington. We better get back to the focus at hand, because now Vermont quality beer has been challenged as well as the beauty of Vermont rivers. So we will just call this part of the debate a draw and proceed.

Two things in response to comments made by my friend from Washington. Number one, it appears that there are no reservations or no stated objections to the study itself that is, frankly, quite important to Vermont. This is a very special part of our State that has the opportunity with the benefit of this study to be preserved for generations ahead, just as it has been cared for and enjoyed by generations in the past. So it is a very, very serious issue to the folks in Vermont. It is just a very special place.

The gentleman has not raised any specific objections. His objections are more in the nature of spending time on this instead of spending time on something else. So I would urge the Members to take that into account when they are voting on the previous question.

Second, I will address the energy arguments. This has been the refrain on the part of our friends on the other side as a response to every piece of business that we are doing on behalf of the American people. I think it has become apparent that this has become much more of a political debate than it has been an effort substantively to solve a very, very serious problem. Let me give a little commentary about that.

Number one, my friends on the other side have been in control of this institution and had the Presidency and the control of Congress for the past 12 years, until this Congress, and had an opportunity to enact comprehensive energy legislation when it was quite apparent to the American people that the problem of our excessive dependence on oil was a real and urgent problem.

They did nothing. In fact, the energy act they passed quite astonishingly provided taxpayer incentives, tax deductions, tax credits, to oil companies that were enjoying record profits. It is a mature industry, it is a profitable industry, yet the energy policy that was pursued and failed by our friends on the other side during the 12 years they were in charge basically was to give oil companies more taxpayer money.

It made no sense. There was no effort to use the power they had of the majority to bring to the floor legislation that would promote alternative energy. There was no effort to take the power that they had and provide tax incentives for the alternative energy industries that we know we must support if we are going to reduce and ultimately eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

I won't yield. My intention, my friend from Washington, is to respond and bring this to a close, thank you.

So, number one, we are hearing objections from people who when they had the power to do the things they

claim they want to do, didn't use the power they had to accomplish those objectives.

Number two, when we have brought forward legislation and passed it, it has been with their objection. And what they claim they want to do are many things that we did over their objection. I will give a few examples.

To deal with the short-term price pressure at the pump and with home heating oil, this House of Representatives passed legislation that I sponsored to stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and take off some of the demand on oil. That has contributed to helping bring down the price of gas at the pump by 5 to 25 cents a gallon.

Secondly, this House of Representatives has gotten tough on speculators. The evidence is overwhelming that part of the runup in the price of gasoline when it was heading up to $150 a barrel was because of the speculative control and influence of hedge funds in foreign trading operations. We brought to this floor legislation, and just the fact that we did it finally, when it was ignored and accepted and mollified by our friends who were in control for 12 years, has helped bring down that speculative premium.

There is no justification for any one of our constituents when they pay for a gallon of gasoline or a gallon of home heating oil or a cubic gallon of natural gas to have included in their price a speculation premium for profiteers, and this Congress passed legislation to challenge that, against the opposition of our friends on the other side. So we have taken very specific actions to try to do what we reasonably can do to bring down the price pressure that is ripping off the American consuming public.

Second, we have passed energy legislation that is comprehensive, again over the opposition of our friends on the other side. One of the things we did was provided for tax credits for the alternative energy industry. We have to do that. That is of urgent, vital economic and environmental concern to this country.

We passed legislation that took away the tax breaks that are going to oil companies. There is no basis whatsoever to ask the taxpayer to pad the profits of a mature and profitable industry. They don't need it. They are doing quite well without additional taxpayer money to their bottom line.

But the new industries, the alternative energies that my friend from Washington mentioned, wind and solar, geothermal and biomass, they do need a boost, and historically when we have been at our best is when we have had the wisdom to use tax policy in a targeted and focused way to give a boost to these emerging industries and technologies that are good for the American economy and good for our environment, and that is what we need to do.

We have passed this in the House several times. Our friends on the other side opposed it. Our friends in the Senate won't move on it. We are prepared to do it again. But the suggestion that has been made repetitively, over and over again, that the leadership of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives is standing in the way of energy policy is flat out wrong. It is flat out false. Why is it being offered? It is being offered for political purposes, I would suggest.

Now, let me tell you this: That although we have passed comprehensive energy legislation several times in this House, although each time we have done it we have had to overcome the opposition of our friends on the other side, and although every time we bring up a legitimate piece of legislation that is part of the public business that this Congress must conduct, whether it is a study on the Missisquoi River, an energy bill or any other bill, every time we do our friends try to cease the debate and distort what has happened, we are prepared, as the gentleman from Washington knows, we in the Democratic Party, our leadership is prepared to bring up yet another comprehensive energy bill that does include all of the above.

The fact is, on our side we have passed all of the above time and time again, against the opposition of our friends on the other side, and then it has run into a brick wall in the other body or the steadfast opposition of the President of the United States. But the gentleman from Washington is aware that the leadership is prepared to bring up yet another bill to give us another opportunity to do the right thing.

Let me say this: I actually think it would be great to work together with the other side. I come from a State where we shift majorities back and forth. Sometimes the Democrats were in control, sometimes the Republican were in control. I was the senate president and I was the minority leader. I learned that in order for us ever to get anything done, we had to ultimately work together. I also came to understand that neither side had an absolute claim that they were the only people who had a good point of view, who had an iron grip on truth.

I believe that it would be best for all of us if there was some willingness to try to work on the substance, rather than just use this as a political football, and my observation is that for whatever reason, it is tough to get to that point here in the House of Representatives in Washington.

I wouldn't yield, my friend, because I will be bringing this to a close.

I want to take the opportunity, as I must, when the assertions are made, falsely in my view, that the Democratic leadership is standing in the way of energy policy change, that is just flat-out wrong. The energy for energy reform has come from the leadership on the Democratic side. Frankly, it has come from the American people, who are tired of a Congress that passed off as an energy policy giving more money to the oil companies.

We have to make a fundamental decision in this hyper-political atmosphere of a presidential election whether we want to continue politics as usual, which in my view is a dead end, or we want to work together to achieve what we know is important for the American people, that is, short-term relief for prices at the pump, and it is a long- term energy policy that frees us from the dependence on oil from foreign countries.

So, Mr. Speaker, having said that, let me just close by coming back to this very important bill. It is a study. It is not necessarily important for many other parts of the country. But one of the things that makes this Congress and this country great is mutual respect. When there is a disaster in the Gulf Coast, all States pull together to help out. When there is flooding in the Midwest, all States pull together. When there is an opportunity for a small State like Vermont to take a step with Wild and Scenic River study that will help us and help our citizens enjoy the beauty of our land, I seek the help of my colleagues to let us accomplish that goal.

It is my request and my urging that all Members vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1419 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

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

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6566) to bring down

energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production,

encouraging the development of alternative and renewable

energy, and promoting conservation. All points of order

against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without

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

equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority

leader, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if

offered by the majority leader or his designee, which shall

be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for

40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is it is my opportunity now to yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to entertain motions to suspend the rules relating to House Resolution 1420 on the legislative day of Thursday, September 11, 2008.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate the excellent work you did and your eloquent description of a beautiful river. If I have any say about it, we're going to make you an honorary Vermonter and bring you down that river and make you paddle your way from one end to the other and have you see for yourself how beautiful what you described really is. Thank you.

I want to respond to some of the comments.

Mr. Chairman, my opinion is that one of the greatest Presidents of the United States was Theodore Roosevelt. He came to the Presidency when his predecessor was assassinated. It was a time of great turmoil, social and labor unrest, a need for corporate reform, trust busting. President Roosevelt had his hands full taking on those economic challenges.

He was a war President. The skirmish in Cuba and the Philippines were still very much alive, and he had to deal with that as President. Very serious issues with the Supreme Court. And in the midst of all of that he still found time to be a peacemaker and was the winner of the Nobel Prize for the work that he did in bringing together the Soviet and Japanese conflict and helping those folks resolve the end of that war.

But Theodore Roosevelt was also a person who respected and did more, perhaps, than anyone else to protect our environment. And amidst his responsibilities, where he had to simultaneously deal with enormous economic anxiety in this country, when he had to deal with foreign affairs that involved making America a strong country and bringing together peace in other countries, he would never, ever, busy as he was, urgent as his demands were, belittle the work of the House of Representatives when they were taking up what is now being characterized as a ``waste-of-time bill'' because it involves two rivers in the State of Vermont. He wouldn't do it. He's a bigger man than that.

He reflects the leadership that we can provide to the American people where we simultaneously take on the challenges, as President Roosevelt did, but also pay attention to the posterity that is our responsibility to leave behind.

I just want to say as a Vermonter, I want to say as a Member of the House of Representatives that if we can't find time to do those things that are going to allow us in Utah, in Arkansas, in Arizona and in Vermont to save our rivers and to do what is going to preserve our country and leave behind legacies like President Teddy Roosevelt did with the National Park Service that we revere and enjoy, then we don't deserve the vote of confidence that we get from the folks who send us here. We can do both.

Now my friend from Utah has essentially made an argument that there is more important business to be done, as if that suggests we don't have time to do other important business about protecting and preserving our environment and having mutual respect for the particular concerns, in this case, of Vermont.

But it's that same comity that has allowed us to come forward and step up as Vermonters and Arizonans to help the folks in the Midwest from their flood and to respond to the gulf coast with the damage that they sustained. It's political. That's what we know.

The reality is our friends on the other side had 12 years in control here and their energy policy was one thing: give tax breaks to oil companies. You can't make that up. Oil companies are doing well. I don't begrudge them their profits. But why do you reach into the taxpayers' pocket and ask taxpayers to give the most profitable corporations in the world, running a mature industry, doing well, why do we ask the taxpayers to give them $13 billion? When you reveal that fact, they don't even know how to respond because you can't make that kind of stuff up.

So this House of Representatives, under the leadership that now is being castigated for a failure of leadership, has repeatedly passed legislation against the objections, almost unanimous, of our friends on the other side, to stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to squeeze out the speculative premium in the price of a gallon of gas at the pump. That can provide some short-term relief. We did that. We passed comprehensive energy reform, again, against the objections of our friends on the other side. We took away the tax breaks from the oil companies, not because oil companies are a target. They're doing important work. They know how to do their work and they know how to do it well. But why in the world would our friends on the other side want to give $13 billion in tax breaks to a mature and profitable industry when that money comes directly out of the pockets of American consumers who need that money in their pocket to pay the price at the pump? They've resisted that. They opposed it.

Our friends on the other side are also aware that even though we have passed legislation against their objection, it has gotten stalled in the other body, threatened with veto by the President, we're ready to do it again. Our motto is

try again, try again, and keep going because, bottom line, we want to address that problem. And we have actually been doing things in our 2 years on the watch despite their resistance when they had 12 years to get the job done and essentially caved into the interests of the oil companies.

So, Mr. Chairman, as a Vermonter and the sponsor of this bill, I want to object to what is really a rhetorical and political device, and that is ridiculing the importance of these two rivers to the people of my State for a partisan political argument. Energy is incredibly important and we have delivered. We've put substantive proposals on the floor. They have been debated and they have been passed. They've been stalled in the Senate or threatened with veto by the President. We're prepared to do it again. We're also prepared to reach out to the other side because we all know that in the end if we are going to be successful, we do have to work together, particularly where we have divided government. But it takes two sides, two bodies, and a President to be willing to do that, and it has not been forthcoming.

So I want to go back to a very simple fact. This legislation is about allowing Vermonters to have a study for scenic status on two rivers that are very precious to us, places where moms and dads have taken they are kids, taught them how to hunt, taught them how to fish, taught them how to be families, taught them responsibility. And there is a place for us and a time for us to do that as well as face these large issues like energy, like the war in Iraq, like redefining our foreign policy. So this is a very important piece of legislation to us, and I, as one Member of Congress, object to having it be held hostage to what is essentially a political game that's been going on far too long.

And I want to thank the chairman for the tremendous work that he's done. And, Vermonters, thank you as well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 3667, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

I thank my friend, Representative Sutton. This evening gives us an opportunity to take account, to look at the record, and reveal it to the American people. We are in a season close to an election, where the American people are going to have to make a decision, and it's going to be an extraordinarily consequential decision. In the fog of a campaign, there's an awful lot of rhetoric back and forth, where those who have not done much try to conceal it with claims that they did, and try to shoot down the progress that has been made.

Now we all know that when we get going, and we are going to solve our problems, it's going to have to be working together. We have been doing our best to do that. But what we have to do tonight is lay out what the record has been.

What I want to talk about briefly are two areas; one is deficit, to continue what my friend, Representative Sutton was talking about, and the other is on Iraq. The reason I want to talk about them specifically is because it is important for the American people to know what they can expect from our friends on the other side who have a clear record, and it is one that they are accountable for, but it has to be one that Americans are aware of.

On deficits, taking up on what you said, let me just read some quotes from

members of the administration to remind the American people of what was promised, and then lay out some facts about what actually was done.

``Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term.'' George Bush, in January of 2003. ``We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits even if the economy softens. Projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative.'' George Bush, March 27, 2001.

``We are holding down government spending and reforming government, and the good news is the deficit is coming down.'' OMB Director Jim Nussle, June 22, 2006. ``I don't like deficits, I don't want deficits, and I won't pretend deficits don't matter.'' OMB Director Jim Nussle, March 12, 2003.

``Today's announcement by President Bush confirms that the pro-growth economic policies put in place by Republicans are working as planned to spur economic growth and reduce the deficit. Republicans are meeting our commitments to the American taxpayers by exercising fiscal restraint in promoting economic policies this create jobs, all efforts which have produced a strong economy that is working to drive down and eventually eliminate our deficit.'' John Boehner, October 11, 2006.

What are the facts? That is the rhetoric. What are the facts? President Bush and congressional Republicans, his allies, have turned a projected 10-year, 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion into a projected 10-year deficit of $3.4 trillion. That is a swing of $9 trillion in one Presidency. When President Bush took office, there was a projected surplus of $710 billion for fiscal year 2009.

President Bush's budget will create a $407 billion deficit for fiscal year 2009. That is a swing of over $1 trillion.

Under the Bush administration, Republicans created the five largest-- one, two, three, four, five--five largest budget deficits in American history, $378 billion, $413 billion, $318 billion, $407 billion, and $438 billion now projected.

The first 42 Presidents, the first 42 American President's, borrowed a total of $1 trillion. That was during wars, by the way; World War I, World War II, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, combined. That is the total amount borrowed from foreign governments and financial institutions.

In the 7\1/2\ years of the Bush Presidency, President Bush has borrowed more than $1.6 trillion. He borrowed more in 7\1/2\ years than 42 Presidents did in over 100 years of our history.

When President Bush took office, we had a national debt that was $5.7 trillion. During his administration, that has nearly doubled, and will reach $10.3 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2009.

This administration has presided over a fiscal train wreck, and it is creating obviously a deep hole that we have to climb out of, the American people have to climb out of, and it's a record of rhetoric of rosy fiscal scenarios with reckless policies that have caused, in a short time, 7\1/2\ years, the greatest explosion in the debt of the United States government, which belongs to you and me and the generations that will come after us, that we are going to have to repay, and it will take generations to do.

I will yield back my time to the gentlelady from Ohio.

Well, I do have something to add. I just want to go back to the question of Foreign Affairs and the war in Iraq, and I want to do what I did the last time when I was talking about the debt, which is to lay out some of the explicit statements and promises that the administration made about this war and then lay out what the specific results have been. It's important. It's vitally important that the people of this country compare promises to results. This war, in my view, has been a catastrophe, but here is what top officials in the Bush administration said:

``It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months,'' Donald Rumsfeld, February 2003, a month before the war.

``There's 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're dealing

with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon,'' Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy Defense Secretary, March of 2003.

Of course, our friend from Florida has outlined the truth that the Iraqi money is in U.S. banks. Treasury money is going over to Iraq to finance things.

``My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators,'' Vice President Dick Cheney. How bright he was, yes. March 16, 2003.

``It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would to take to conduct the war, itself, and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to imagine,'' Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

``I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority,'' President George Bush, Commander in Chief, March 2002.

``If we're an arrogant Nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble Nation but strong, they'll welcome us [in Iraq],'' George Bush.

We know the facts. The war in Iraq has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II. Four thousand one hundred fifty-five Americans have been killed in Iraq, and more than 30,000 troops have been wounded as of September 7 of this year. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. That was the whole pretext that George Bush used to justify this war.

More than $600 billion has been spent, none of it on the books incidentally, all on the credit card. Some projections estimate that the war, when all of the expenses are paid, including what we have to pay to provide health care to our seriously injured soldiers, will exceed $3 trillion.

The Iraqi Government has now forced the Bush administration to accept something that many of us have been arguing for four years, a timetable. It took the President of Iraq to force the President of the United States to get real and to understand that what we can expect of the American taxpayer and what we can expect of the American soldier has its limits and that it's time to start asking the Iraqis to step up and to take on the burden of their own future.

America's military is stretched thin. There is just no dispute about this. It weakens our ability to respond to other threats. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, has stressed that the need for more troops in Afghanistan is great, but due to the war in Iraq, they're not available. The Bush administration has grossly neglected Afghanistan and has failed to acknowledge that that is a major threat.

These are promises, the cavalier disregard for the hidden consequences, the consequences beyond your control when you embark on a war, on a thoughtless war, and disregard the need to build up alliances like George Bush's father did in the first Gulf war, and you cavalierly go off with promises, reckless promises, irresponsible promises by people in positions of great trust. The greatest trust that they have is that they have a duty to use due deliberation in the protection of the lives of the American people and of the American soldiers. They have to use due deliberation, careful thought, responsible analysis in committing American power abroad and in committing the lives of our soldiers abroad. They cavalierly made predictions. Vice President Cheney will go down in history as just having been totally out of touch.

I will yield, yes.

Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay special tribute to Mr. Nick Donofrio who is retiring after more than 40 years in various leadership capacities at the IBM Corporation.

Nick Donofrio is an adopted son of the Green Mountain State. For many years, Nick led IBM's semiconductor development and manufacturing facility in Burlington and he and his wife, Anita, raised their two children, Nicole and Michael, in Vermont.

Nick joined IBM in 1967 and spent the early part of his career in integrated circuit and chip development, as a designer of logic and memory chips. He held numerous technical management positions and, later, executive positions in several of IBM's product divisions. He has led many of IBM's major development and manufacturing teams--from semiconductor and storage technologies, to microprocessors and personal computers, to IBM's entire family of servers.

Nick has always been a champion for innovation across IBM and its global ecosystem. He has been the leader of IBM's global technology strategy. In addition to his strategic business mission, Nick has led the development and retention of IBM's technical population and strives to enrich that community with a diversity of culture and thought.

Nick has been focused sharply on advancing education, employment and career opportunities for under represented minorities and women--all issues of great importance to me as well.

He served for many years on the Board of Directors for the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME). He has served on the Board of Directors for INROADS, a non-profit organization focused on the training and development of talented minority youth for professional careers in business and industry, and he is co-chair of the New York Hall of Science. A fellow Italian-American, Nick was awarded the prestigious 2007 National Education and Leadership Award from the Sons of Italy Foundation.

He is the holder of seven technology patents and is a member of numerous technical and science honor societies. In 2002, Nick was recognized by Europe's Institution of Electrical Engineers with the Mensforth International Gold Medal for outstanding contributions to the advancement of manufacturing engineering. In 2003, he was named Industry Week magazine's Technology Leader of the Year, the University of Arizona's Technical Executive of the Year, and was presented with the Rodney D. Chipp Memorial Award by the Society of Women Engineers for his outstanding contributions to the advancement of women in the engineering field. In 2005, Nick was elected a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, he was presented with Syracuse University's highest alumni honor--the George Arents Pioneer Medal, and he was honored by CNBC with its Overall Technology Leadership Award.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Nick Donofrio, as he begins a new exciting chapter in his life.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the dedicated efforts of Carbon Shredders, a grassroots environmental group based in the Mad River Valley of Vermont. Formed in the fall of 2007 by three local environmentalists, Carbon Shredders dedicates its time to curbing local energy consumption, helping Vermonters lower their energy costs, and working towards a clean energy future. The group challenges participants to alter their lifestyles in ways consistent with the goal of reducing energy consumption.

In March, three Vermont towns passed resolutions introduced by Carbon Shredders that call on residents and businesses to reduce their carbon footprint by 10 percent by 2010. In addition to the obvious environmental advantages, participating households will save $700 each year. Carbon Shredders' membership has grown considerably in Vermont since its founding, and this group is doing tremendous work in Vermont to lead us to a carbon-free economy.

Madam Chairman, I salute you for the work you have been doing on this issue and the issue of equality for women and the issue of equality for all people, and I salute Chairman Miller for his work in Congress, for being on the verge of passing this legislation.

You know, it is truly shocking that we have a situation where there is a difference in pay depending on whether you are a man or a woman. You have heard the statistics. But what is even more shocking is we had a Supreme Court that probably when history is written, its most shameful decision will be denying relief to a woman on the basis of a claim that she did not know existed. The Supreme Court said that when this person had been discriminated against for years and didn't know about it, it was the burden on her to know about something that was actively being hidden from her by her employer. It is a shocking decision by our United States Supreme Court, and this Congress has an opportunity to overturn that.

H.R. 1338 is going to address that loophole. The wage gap that strikes women immediately upon entering the workforce is bad, and it gets worse. Ten years after college, women earn only 69 percent of what men do. The wage gap adds up quickly over the course of a career, $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime. This discrimination can cost women security and retirement. Older women are less likely than older men to receive pension income, and when they do, they only receive about one-half the benefits that men do. It can cost a woman half their pension that would be comparable for a man.

Because of the wage gap, more women than men experience poverty or teeter on the edge of poverty. Seventy percent of older Americans living in poverty are women, and that is directly as a result of wage discrimination.

The hope of the American Dream is that people who work hard will get ahead regardless of their gender, regardless of their race, regardless of their national origin, and it is the challenge of this Congress being met by the promise of this legislation to make that American dream of equality of opportunity available to all people and to absolutely prohibit discrimination in wages solely on the basis of the gender of the person doing the work.

H.R. 1338 has 230 cosponsors. It is also supported by major women's and workers' rights advocates, including the National Committee on Pay Equity and the National Women's Law Center. I ask for a ``yes'' vote and unanimous passage by the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in celebration of the 90th birthday of a well-known Vermont establishment, the Wayside Restaurant and Bakery.

Located on the town line of Berlin and the city of Montpelier, the Wayside was built and opened in the summer of 1918 by the Ballou family. Located on Route 302, the Wayside has offered a convenient stopping place for travelers and locals alike for generations.

When the Wayside was first opened, it did not offer a dine-in service, but rather functioned as a take-out restaurant. The size of the Wayside has grown considerably since 1918, and the restaurant now boasts a 160-seat dining room and a kitchen of equal size.

Nearly all of the Wayside's food--including its renowned breads and desserts--are homemade, and produce from local farms is frequently used. The menu features traditional Vermont dishes like salt pork and chicken pie, and a wide-range of other country favorites.

Serving an average of 1,000 customers each day, the Wayside caters to a diverse clientele. Primarily a place for local Vermonters to enjoy good company and food at affordable prices, the Wayside also attracts legislators, state employees, and tourists. The parking lot is always full, and for weekend brunch, the line runs out the door. Yet despite its incredible popularity, the restaurant maintains a relaxed and authentic atmosphere.

Though recognized nationally by publications such as the New York Times and Gourmet Magazine, the Wayside remains a locally-oriented restaurant, embracing the surrounding community. When the Red Sox won the 2004 World Series, the Wayside's current owners, Karen and Brian Zecchinelli, joined in the local celebration by hosting a rally and rolling back prices to 1918. More than 3,000 customers visited the Wayside for the festivities. It is a true fixture in Central Vermont.

I would like to thank Karen and Brian Zecchinelli for continuing to provide the Vermont community with exceptional food, service, and atmosphere. The Wayside is a wonderful Vermont institution. Congratulations to the Wayside on its 90th birthday. May it continue to serve our community for another 90 years.

Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to Mr. Nick Donofrio who is retiring after 40 years of serving the IBM Corporation.

Nick has led many of IBM's major development and manufacturing teams, semiconductor and storage technologies, microprocessors, and personal computer servers. He's led the semiconductor development and manufacturing facility in Burlington, where he and his wife, Anita, raised two children, Nicole and Michael.

Throughout his career, Nick has focused sharply on advancing education, employment, and career opportunities for underrepresented minorities and women.

He served on boards in Vermont. He's received national awards, well- deserved, for his leadership. The National Education and Leadership Award from the Sons of Italy Foundation; the Mensforth International Gold Medal; Industry Week magazine's Technology Leader of the Year; the University of

Arizona's Technical Executive of the Year; and the Rodney D. Chipp Memorial Award by the Society of Women Engineers for his outstanding contributions to the advancement of women in the engineering field. In 2005, Nick was elected a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Please join me in congratulating him on the beginning of his new career.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman, Mr. Peterson, and the ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte, for doing the usual bipartisan work to address a problem in a practical way.

The question that they faced is this: Will the futures market be one that is dedicated to price efficiency or will it be hijacked for speculative market manipulation? Will the futures markets serve the needs of those who need it--airliners, fuel dealers, truckers--or will it be in service of financial speculators who, moment to moment, are trying to take advantage of the volatility at the expense of the American consumer?

This legislation strikes a balance. It sends a clear message that the markets should be about price efficiency, not short-term momentary advantage when the consequence is inflicting damage on the American family, the American small business, the American economy.

There are practical steps in here--overseeing offshore trading, position limits, over-the-counter trading regulations. These are things that should be done and are being done.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1367 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1367 provides that it shall be in order on the legislative day of Thursday, July 24, 2008, for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules relating to energy.

Today, a barrel of oil costs $124. Last week it was $134. In June, it was over $140 a barrel. Congress is acting, and the market is reacting. Many factors, we know, contribute to the price of a barrel of oil: demand, supply, our economy, speculation, actions that Congress does or doesn't take. But make no mistake, the actions that this Congress has taken and will take are having an impact, a positive impact, to bring down the price of a barrel of oil.

To just remind my colleagues what this Congress did, on May 13, we passed H.R. 6022, a bill I sponsored, to halt shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That bill was signed into law by the President.

On June 26, we passed H.R. 6377 to squeeze speculation out of the market by directing that the CFTC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, utilize its authority to better regulate the energy markets.

On July 17, a strong majority of the House supported H.R. 6515, the DRILL Act. This bill would actually open up 22 million acres in Alaska for drilling and direct oil companies to either use the leases they have on the remaining 68 million acres, or lose them. They have the opportunity to increase production. We are asking them to do it.

Every time the price of oil declines, consumers and businesses save money. Let me just give one example. The airline industry alone, it costs them $430 million every time the price of a barrel of oil goes up $1. In the past 20 days, the price of oil has come down nearly $20. That is approximately an $860 million savings for the airline industry and our traveling public.

The energy crisis that we face is real, and it requires long-term action, but it also requires immediate action. And the actions that we can take to take the pressure off the price, we should take. Although the price has recently fallen, we have much more we can do, and we must today take this opportunity to provide the immediate relief that will occur by releasing 10 percent of the oil now in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve into the market. That would get relief to the American consuming public within 2 weeks.

Incidentally, this is not an unprecedented action by Congress. It is smart policy, it is nimble policy. It has been done in the past by Republican and by Democratic Presidents. A few examples: on January 16, 1991, the first President Bush released fuel from the SPR. That was in conjunction with the start of the Gulf War. President Bush said this will send an important message to the American people that their $20 million investment in an emergency supply of crude oil has produced a system that can respond rapidly.

A second time, September 22, 2000, President Clinton released 30 million barrels from the SPR into the market. President Clinton said, ``This is the right thing to do. It is good energy policy. It is good national security policy, and good family policy.'' The market responded immediately with prices dropping 18.7 percent.

Incidentally, when the first President Bush did it, the price went down 33 percent. Our own President Bush, August 31, 2005, he authorized a drawdown of crude oil from the SPR. This was after Hurricane Katrina. Prices dropped 9.1 percent.

So what we have within our grasp is the opportunity to take an action recently taken by three Presidents that immediately resulted in the reduction of the price of gasoline. In one case 9 percent, in another case 18 percent, and in a third case 33 percent. This is a time-tested action that will help Americans now address the crippling cost of fuel.

Many of my colleagues have joined together urging the President to use his authority to release fuel from the SPR. The President can do that with a stroke of the pen. But if the President refuses to act, Congress must act. We know, incidentally, Madam Speaker, that this bill will not solve our energy problems. It is going to take a long-term change in our energy policies to release ourselves from our addiction to oil. Releasing fuel from the SPR is not a substitute for a long-term policy, but it is a necessary action and a practical action to provide immediate relief now by using a resource that does belong to the American people.

Let's keep in mind that we do need a change in direction on our energy policy. Our country has 2 percent of the proven reserves of energy in the world. We are about 4 percent of the population, and we are consuming 25 percent of the world's energy. That is not sustainable. It is not good for our long-term security. We know we can do better by having a policy that includes higher mileage standards for our vehicles, higher energy efficiency standards, tax incentives for clean energy alternatives, better construction designs, and restoration of mass transit and rail. By doing that, we can create jobs, improve our environment, develop affordable energy, and strengthen our national security. But let's take the immediate short-term actions that are within our grasp to take that will provide immediate relief to our airline industry, to our businesses, and to our consumers and American families. Take the actions that we can take, and take them now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Mr. Markey.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, a member of the committee on Energy and Commerce and a leader on energy issues in Congress, Mr. Inslee.

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a man who serves on the select committee, Mr. Hall.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to, with permission, recognize the chairman again, Mr. Markey, but only if there is no objection.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is really a simple and straightforward opportunity for Congress to take an action taken by previous Presidents and Congresses to lower the price at the pump for the American consumer and for American businesses.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has over 700 million barrels of oil. That is an asset that was bought and paid for by the American taxpayer, it's an asset of the American taxpayer and citizen, and it's there to be used for the benefit of the American citizen and the American taxpayer.

This legislation would direct that 10 percent of that reserve--10 percent only; 70 million barrels--could be released. And what we've seen in history is that in the three most previous instances where, with a stroke of a pen, the President has used that authority to release this asset belonging to the American people, it's resulted in a reduction in the price at the pump of gasoline from 33 percent to 18 percent to 9 percent. So it's a proven action that Presidents have taken to benefit the American consumer.

It's also responsible. You know, 20 days ago, oil was over $140 a barrel. It's $124 a barrel today. And that means that when we are replenishing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it's going to cost less for the American taxpayer.

There is a reason why so many interested parties who are affected by the high price of oil strongly support this. The Air Transport Association, National Farmers Union, American Truck Association, League of Conservation Voters, many Republican Members of Congress: Zach Wamp, Rodney Alexander, Heather Wilson, Senator Collins, Senator Hutchison, Senator Isakson. And the reason is that whatever we are going to do in the long term to change our energy policy, why would we not take the immediate action in the short term that can provide immediate benefit to the American consumer and to American businesses?

It just stands to reason that a responsible Congress is going to take those actions that can provide direct and immediate relief to the American consumer. That's what the release of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will allow. Ten percent, not all of it. It's not robbing the savings bank. It's using an asset that belongs to the citizens of this country to provide help to the families of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Reyes and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for their great work on this bill and for agreeing to include my amendment in the Manager's amendment to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment recognizes that we have a responsibility to the Iraqis and Afghanis who have willingly put a target on their own backs by choosing to help our servicemen and women and our diplomats. These interpreters put themselves and their families in immense jeopardy every single day.

Unfortunately, Congress has been shamefully slow in ensuring their safety. Only now are we beginning to make progress in providing the opportunity of resettlement to those whose lives are at risk because of their work for us. This has come about largely because of the advocacy of our own troops, who have benefited day in and day out from the services of these interpreters and who have come to call them their brothers. They are asking us to stand up for the people who have stood up for them.

Meanwhile, our intelligence community faces a critical shortfall in linguists and cultural experts. Our national security is jeopardized daily by our inability to field the specialists necessary to translate and interpret valuable intelligence information.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple, it requires the Director of National Intelligence to

assess whether some of the critical language needs in the intelligence community can be met by these Iraqi and Afghan interpreters who have already proven their loyalty through their service to our government. In doing so, my hope is that we could meet this urgent need for translators and interpreters in the intelligence community while providing meaningful employment to individuals who have risked their lives in service of our country.

I thank Chairman Reyes and the Committee again for their support of my amendment, which is included in the Manager's amendment, and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to refer people to the photograph that was just on display when the gentleman from Oregon was speaking. It showed the President of the United States hand in hand with King Abdullah as they were about to go into a meeting to discuss oil. And the President of the United States had a mission, and it was to ask the leader of another country, not particularly a friendly country to us, to solve our problem by increasing production of oil in Saudi Arabia in order to get us out of the jamb we are in here in America.

The question that we face in this country is whether or not we are going to address in the manner of a confident country, of an ingenious country, of a country willing to take on its own problems, the challenge of changing our energy future.

The President's approach, as was described by Mr. DeFazio from Oregon, is to drill yesterday, to drill today, to drill tomorrow, and to drill forever. And the news is in. Oil is not in infinite supply. And if we need any better authority about the limitations of oil, think about Mr. T. Boone Pickens who made a very successful career as a Texas oilman, and he points out the obvious: if you have 87 million barrels of oil consumed today, you have production at 86 million, the proven reserves are limited, the capacity to actually get more out of the ground is somewhat limited, it can be expanded but not at infinite levels, it is time to begin yesterday to plan an alternative energy strategy.

Mr. Speaker, a self-confident country does not put its head in the sand and ignore the problems that it faces; it challenges them. It accepts the burden of responsibility. It has the confidence that we have the people, the talent, and the political will to make that transition to an alternative energy economy.

The American people have that figured out. They know if we are going to create jobs and strengthen our economy, we have to know that green jobs are good jobs and that taking on the challenge of filling up the gas tank in a way that uses alternative energy and creates jobs is the pathway to the future.

So this debate is really a fork in the road. It is between two very clear choices. The oilmen in the White House, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, believe that the fuel of the future is oil. They think that we can drill our way out of the situation we are in. Americans, I believe, have come to the conclusion that is wrong and will fail and that the pathway to the future is alternative energy.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1350 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Res. 1350 provides that it shall be in order on the legislative day of Thursday, July 17, 2008, for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules relating to a measure concerning the domestic production of oil and natural gas.

The energy crisis that we face is real. It requires immediate attention and short and long-term action. As a Nation, we have in our reserves less than 2 percent of the proven oil and gas reserves in the world. But with 4 percent of the population, we consume nearly 25 percent of the world's oil. That's not sustainable over the long term.

We must take this opportunity now to provide relief immediately to people paying over $4 at the pump, $5 for home heating oil, and we need a commitment to a new energy future focused on creating clear and clean domestic alternatives.

Under suspension of the House rules, this body will take up later the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands bill. The bill promotes the responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas on the 20 million acres that make up the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. That would provide an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil, a higher estimate than the consensus estimate of oil that is available in ANWR.

The DRILL Act, as it is called, will increase oil production and do it sooner than other alternative proposals. It will facilitate also the construction of existing pipelines within 5 miles of where they already are located. So its environmental footprint will be minimal, and engineering challenges also minimal. This will help move oil and natural gas to the market.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a brief remark.

The number of bills that were referred to by my friend from Texas, none of those, not a single one of those bills, will get supply out of the ground and into the gas tank in the foreseeable future. The legislation that we are going to be considering today is about getting supply as quickly as possible by taking advantage of something that's available and ready to be leased next to a pipeline.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to my colleague the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Congresswoman Sutton.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona, a leader in solar energy, alternative energy, Congresswoman Giffords.

I am always here to accommodate my friend from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield at this time 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, can you tell us the time allocation at this time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, a member of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. DeFazio.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas.

First of all, there is common agreement here. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this. People are suffering. They cannot afford spending more than $4 a gallon for gas, and folks in my part of the country, the cold weather region, are living with enormous anxiety about how they're going to pay $5 a gallon for home heating fuel. So the problem that we face is real and it is urgent.

I disagree with one of the authors of the energy policy that got us here, and that is the former senator from Texas, Phil Gramm, who is advising their Presidential candidate. And he recently announced that we really don't have a problem. He said, ``You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession.'' And he's saying that America is a nation of whiners.

You know what, people have a right to complain about an energy policy where they can't afford to fill up their gas tank. They're living in enormous anxiety when the fuel truck shows up to heat their home, and they have to make decisions between food and fuel, between medicine that they need and the fuel that's required to keep their home warm.

This is about rejecting the energy policy that has failed us and has brought us here.

You know, my friend from Texas made a statement that I agree with. He said the oil companies should be our

friends. That is right. Oil companies have been very good at what they do--exploring for oil, finding oil, refining oil, producing oil, and getting it to the market. But the policies that we've had in place since President Bush became the leader of this country have enriched the oil companies. But the oil companies, in turn, with over $500 billion in profits, have not reinvested that money into either producing where they can or moving to an alternative energy policy.

You know, one of the folks raised the question as to whether or not this is a ``fig leaf'' bill, whether there's rhetoric in this bill because we're talking about 20 million new acres that has a proven capacity of at least 10 billion barrels of oil. Is it a question of Congress not making lands available for drilling onshore and offshore when we know already there are 68 million acres onshore and offshore available, and this bill makes it clear we want to make 20 million acres more available? Is it a question of lands where there is oil available being denied access? Or is it a failure on the part of the oil companies to invest?

You know, ExxonMobil, in one quarter, made about $40 billion in profit; for 1 year, $40 billion in profit. Did they put that profit into new drilling technology, into exploiting some of the leases that they have, into getting oil out of the ground and into the market? No. They spent $32 billion buying back their own stock.

Basically what you're seeing is that the oil companies that have been doing extraordinarily well under this energy policy that's got us to this crisis have not been reinvesting their money, but they've put their capital on strike. They've been buying back shares and maintaining the value of their stock at the expense of exploiting the oil fields that they have immediate access to.

Well, I want to go through some of the arguments that my friend from Texas made. He accused the Democratic Congress of a mind-boggling refusal to increase production. That's just flat out wrong. You've got the 68 million acres where the oil companies right now have the legal right to go in and drill, and they haven't done it. That's not an act of Congress, that's a corporate decision made by the major oil companies.

Second, he said that the energy companies don't go there because they are ``dry holes.'' That's just flat out wrong. I mentioned earlier I actually do think the energy companies are good at what they do. They don't waste their money or their stockholder money. And when they decide to spend their money on purchasing a lease, it's because they've come to their own independent conclusion that it's worth that investment, that there is oil in the ground or under the sea.

So those oil companies have access to it. Why don't they drill? And also, why aren't there drills available, the drilling rigs for offshore drilling and drilling rigs on land? There's two reasons: one, the oil companies are doing great sitting on these leases; the longer that they wait, the more they make. If they bought a lease when oil was at $30 a barrel and then it goes to $75 a barrel and up to $130 or $140 a barrel, that's money in the bank. The longer they wait, the more they make.

A second reason is, they aren't willing to risk the profits in increasing production. As long as there is a shortage of supply, the price stays up. And their profits are exploding as we speak. So there is an enormous amount of responsibility that we have and expect from the oil companies.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the resolution.

I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.