Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1318 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1318 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 5811, the Electronic Message Preservation Act. The resolution, as you know, provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule makes no amendments in order because no amendments were submitted for consideration.

H.R. 5811 is an important bill introduced by Chairman Waxman that modernizes the requirements of the Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Act to ensure that vital government records are preserved for historical posterity.

The Electronic Message Preservation Act will make certain that we retain important Presidential records by directing the Archivist to establish standards for the capture, management, and preservation of White House and Federal agency e-mails. The Archivist of the U.S. will set new standards for tracking Federal e-mail records and annually will certify whether the records management controls put in place by the President meet those standards and comply with the act.

The bill will protect American history so that we will not lose important records in an antiquated record system that exists now, but it will also guide and enforce document retention policies within the executive branch.

The bill is very necessary. Through its investigations, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee discovered that in one instance the current White House had lost hundreds of days of e-mail, and in other instances allowed numerous White House officials, including Senior Advisor Karl Rove, to use Republican National Committee e-mail accounts for government business--improper, obviously. E-mails sent by White House officials over these RNC accounts related to official government business, and potentially hundreds of thousands of these e-mails have been destroyed.

In addition, the White House did grossly mismanage its own e-mail records and ignored concerns that were raised not by Congress, but by the National Archives, about the way it was storing e-mails.

Further, the current print-and-file record retention systems are both unreliable and not in step with modern advances in technology. For example, when President Bush came into office, the White House had an automated system in place for archiving e-mails, but in 2002, the White House decided to abandon this archiving system and replace it with an ad hoc manual system, doing so in an electronic age. White House officials were warned by the technical staff of their own White House staff and by National Archives that this ad hoc manual system for managing e-mails presented an obvious threat and serious threat of losing records. And the White House's own technical expert said the system was, to use the word of that expert, ``primitive'' and carried a high risk that ``data would be lost.'' Yet, despite these warnings, the White House has still not put into place a reliable, up-to-date system for preserving e-mails.

This bill will change that. It will require the Archivist to establish specific standards for the management and preservation of electronic messages, including the capability to retrieve messages through electronic searches. These standards will help prevent a situation like what is happening under this administration. H.R. 5811 directs e-mail records to be stored electronically and removes ambiguity in the current law that was established before we even had e- mail.

The bill and the manager's amendment were approved by voice vote in the committee because it is timely and it's necessary. I urge the passage and a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I'm going to approach the podium to use some charts.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about the preservation of electronic records. The debate has turned into a discussion of our energy policy. And there are two reasons why we would be discussing energy instead of the substance of the actual bill. One is that our friends on the other side don't have anything to say about the importance of the preservation of electronic records. Two is they want to use the opportunity of floor time to make a case, their case, about energy. I intend to respond to both of those issues.

First of all, I want to go back to what this legislation is about. It's about the preservation of the historical record for the American people. It's also about the preservation of the records of the administration so that in the future when any Congress wants to hold any President accountable, there will be documentation of what has happened in that administration.

It is extraordinarily important that this Congress restore its constitutional function of insisting on accountability for the American people. We have three branches of government, and one of them has been asleep for the 6 years going into the year 2006, and that was Congress, the legislative representative of the people of this country, who demand and are entitled to accountability. If you do not have the preservation of the records of their government--these are not records belonging to the President. They're not records that belong to the executive branch. It's not for them to decide ``yes'' or ``no'' that we will preserve these records. This is a right of the American people. It's their property. And what this electronic records preservation does is say that you cannot use the paper system that doesn't work in an electronic age in effect to conceal from the American people what you did. It is overdue. And to take this debate and inject into it another topic, as important as energy is, is to trivialize the fundamentally important responsibility that this Congress has to the American people to restore oversight and accountability.

This government has make enormous mistakes and justified them by concealing information from the American people. What do you need to know more than what happened in the pathway to the war in Iraq? If the truth had been out there for the American people and for many in this body to know what the President knew and when the President knew it, what the administration knew and when they knew it, we would not be in this catastrophe for the American people called the war in Iraq.

So this legislation that says that e-mail records are going to be restored and retained electronically is of profound constitutional importance to the continuation of Congress in its role as the overseer and protector of the American record and the American taxpayer. So on its merits, this legislation should be considered as of absolute

vital importance to the people of this country. And we have heard no objections, and, indeed, this legislation was passed by voice vote.

Now, since the issue was raised, since the debate on this profoundly important question of constitutional oversight has been hijacked to turn it into an energy debate where it really doesn't belong, I am nevertheless going to respond to the arguments.

You start by this proposition. Implicit in many of the arguments that my friends on the other side made was that those of us on the Democratic side somehow don't understand the pain that the American consumer is experiencing with these record high gas prices.

I have got to just speak about Vermont. What I hear about from Vermonters is fear. I've never heard this. And gas prices are tough. They are trying to figure out how to get from here to there and pay for it. They've got cars that they don't get great mileage. They are doubling up. They are doing what they can. But, bottom line, the thing they are terrified about and they have real anxiety is how are they going to heat their homes next year.

We have to heat our homes there. And, folks, when they see that gas delivery truck show up, and last year it was like $2.50 a gallon, it's going to be $5 a gallon next year, and these families don't have the money to pay $1,000, $1,500, $2,000 to fill up a tank. They don't know what they're going to do. And we are going to see Vermonters who are doubling up. Generations are going to be living together because they don't know how they are going to pay that bill.

So, believe me, there's not a single Member in this House, Republican or Democrat, who doesn't profoundly understand the impact that this is having on everyday people, on our small businesses, on our economy.

So we can go back and forth with the accusations and we can go back and forth with the slogans, or we can acknowledge the obvious. The obvious is we have to do everything that we can in the short term to try to bring relief at the pump, to try to bring pressure off the small business and the consumer. Anything in the short-term that we can do, we should do, and we should do it together. But we also have to move to a long-term energy policy that no longer allows oil to have an iron grip on our future. That is what Americans know.

Short-term, what are some of the things we can do? We have done them. We stopped filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It will reduce demand by 70,000 to 90,000 barrels a day. Second, we are considering legislation for the oil companies to use the leases they have, or lose them.

There's this debate about bringing production online. Obviously, supply is an issue here. In the world, we pump about 86 billion barrels a day. We consume about 87 billion barrels a day. But the fact is that the slogans that I am hearing about just opening up other offshore areas in ANWR totally ignores the current reality, and that is that the oil companies, that are very good at what they do, have leases, existing leases that they pay good money on, on 68 million acres of land. That land, their leases, their leases exceed by 2\1/2\ times the area of the State of Ohio, the Minority Leader Boehner's district; 2 times the State of Illinois; 2\1/2\ times the size of Pennsylvania. These are leases on Federal lands, onshore and offshore.

What are the oil companies doing? Not much. They are producing oil on a fraction of the leaseholds that they have.

No, I won't.

In reality, if there was full production on all the areas under lease, it could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil a day.

I am going to take my time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil a day. Yet the oil companies are not drilling where they have leases to do so. Instead, we are turning this argument into the prospect that we may be able to drill in the future on other places where there aren't leases, waiving away what will be the long-term problems of trying to make that come online, and the fact that it would probably save about a penny and a half a gallon in 10 to 20 years. That is not fair, direct honesty in the debate for the American people.

I thank the gentleman, but I intend to finish. I control the time.

So what do we have? We have a situation where the oil companies are not drilling where they can, and we are saying to them, Drill where you can. We also have a situation where the oil companies, the longer they wait, the more they make. If you're sitting on leases and oil in the ground, under the sea was $35 a barrel when you bid that lease, then it went to $75, then it went to $100, and now it's $140 a barrel, you're making money just having that in the bank. So the oil companies, the longer they wait, the more they make.

We know that oil company profits are exploding.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The oil companies have made $125 billion. Record profits again this year. How are they spending that money? Are they investing in refineries, are they investing it in renewable energy, are they investing in drilling rigs or offshore facilities to drill in those areas? No. They are buying back their stock.

The oil companies, energy producers, should be part of the solution, and they should be using the technical ability that they have, the extraordinary skills that they have and the extraordinary profits that they have to help us find a way to an energy independent future, and it's not happening.

We know that, bottom line, everything we can do short-term, we can do, but the idea that we can do instantly something is a stretch. But what we can do, we should do.

On speculation, we are considering legislation now, and as we speak, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Peterson, is conducting 3 days of hearings to try to squeeze the speculator instead of having the speculators squeeze us; on not filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and topping it off.

I am demanding of the oil companies that they start producing oil in those 68 million acres where they actually have leases and the right to be producing that oil. They could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil a day. Do you know what we produce domestically right now? Five million barrels of oil a day. It could lead to a doubling of the production.

So the fact is there are things that can be done that we are promoting that they be done aggressively. We are insisting that the oil companies be accountable to use and produce on the leases that they have, yet they refuse to do it. And we have been consistently and aggressively moving for a new energy policy that is going to create green jobs, that is going to give us much greater independence in foreign affairs, and is going to help us clean up our environment.

A confident nation is one that faces directly the problems that it has. And when it comes to the question of energy, what symbolized for me the energy policy that this country has had was a front page picture of the President of the United States, hand-in-hand with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as they were about to go into a meeting. In the custom of the Arab States, they walked into that holding

hands. The purpose of that meeting was for the President of the United States, the greatest country on Earth, to implore the King to increase production of oil.

You know what? A confident nation, a nation that takes on the challenge of solving its own problems, does not go hat in hand to others and ask them, who are not our friends, incidentally, to solve our problems. We take that challenge on ourselves. We take it on because it's our responsibility. We also take it on because we know that in the doing of it, we are going to create jobs, clean our environment, and give us much more latitude in foreign policy.

So this debate on energy, misplaced as it is in this matter of electronic records and restoring the responsibility of Congress to the American people to conduct oversight and to preserve a historical record, important as that is, the argument on energy, the question of energy is the profound question that this country faces economically for the next generation, and the challenge will be whether we are willing to face that squarely and take it upon ourselves to solve our problems, or we are going to continue to be dependent on oil companies that have not played on behalf of the American people and on foreign countries that are not our friends; Venezuela, Middle East States, Russia. We have to take on this challenge ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I will just close by saying, going back to this bill, that it's an extraordinarily important bill, not just so that we can preserve records, but that we in Congress can restore confidence to the American people that we are a cop on the beat.

This bill makes significant and long overdue changes to document retention systems that were outdated and inefficient. The vast amount of government business that is currently conducted over e-mail requires that we update the law regulating record retention. Government e-mails should not be deleted or destroyed, as they are as important in revealing to the public and historians as paper documents, and we all know that.

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

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1318 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart Of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. 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. 2208) to provide for a

standby loan program for certain coal-to-liquid projects. All

points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall

be considered as read. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one

hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy

and Commerce, and the chairman and ranking member of the

Committee on Science and Technology; and (2) an amendment in

the nature of a substitute if offered by Representative

Dingell of Michigan 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.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as has been said, there's a number of causes for the high price in gasoline: a weak dollar, increasing demand from around the world, the failure of leadership to move into alternative energy policies. We have to focus on all of them.

But one of the reasons is rampant speculation, and the question is, will we try to squeeze the speculator or will we allow speculation to continue to squeeze the consumer?

This is a first step, where we're telling the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to do its job, determine the facts, make specific recommendations and actions on how to protect us, and incidentally, many innocent Americans have pension fund investments that are pouring into the speculative market.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1297 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1297 provides for consideration of H.R. 6275, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means.

As Americans know, the alternative minimum tax was enacted in 1969 with a very legitimate intent: to ensure fairness in our tax system by avoiding the situation where very wealthy individuals don't pay taxes and to close loopholes. It is in the same spirit of fairness that we consider legislation today that will keep the middle class out of being hit by the alternative minimum tax when it was never intended that they would be caught up in its web and who have been because of inflation and because of no adjustments in the Tax Code.

The Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 will provide, one, 25 million Americans with over $61 billion in tax relief. Two, it offers property tax relief to homeowners and expands the child and adoption credits to parents. Nearly 50,000 families in my own State of Vermont, Mr. Speaker, will see tax relief from this legislation.

However, in order for the tax relief to be fair, we have to ensure that the cost of the tax relief is not simply passed on, the credit card debt, to our children, and we have already saddled the next generation with $9 trillion in debt, costing us $1 billion a day in interest payments, money that could be spent on other, much more productive things. Enacting an AMT patch today when we don't pay for it would simply shift that $62 billion burden from the middle class on to their children and their grandchildren. What we fail to pay today they will be forced to pay tomorrow with interest.

Furthermore, we do pay for this tax relief by improving the Tax Code. With the bill's offsets, we are closing two very large tax loopholes, one that has benefited very wealthy hedge fund managers at the expense of middle class taxpayers, and let me talk about that first.

The ``carried-interest'' loophole. It is a preferential rate of capital gains tax, a 15 percent rate that gets applied to income earned by many people who do financial work.

Right now, under current law, the income earned by many investment fund managers at a private equity firm, and hedge funds, are taxed at the lower capital gains tax rate. So you have this very unjustified situation where some of these folks who are making, in some cases, billions of dollars, pay a tax rate lower than the secretaries who work in their firms, and they do this when they don't actually put their capital at risk but manage the capital of others.

A second loophole that is closed in this bill stops major oil companies from receiving what is called a special domestic production subsidy through the Tax Code. As we all know, record gas prices, the record cost of a barrel of oil is resulting in oil company profits that are unparalleled in the history of this country, in some cases, as high as $11 billion in a single 3-month period. So it's clear that those companies are doing very well and that they do not need continued taxpayer assistance.

I commend Chairman Rangel and Chairman Neal and the Committee on Ways and Means for their excellent work on this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on our side. I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Texas has an opportunity to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas characterizes a bill that will provide tax relief to 25 million Americans as a tax increase, and it is just flat out wrong. There are 25 million Americans. These are folks who earn between $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year, who, if we do not pass this legislation, will find themselves essentially being the target of legislation that was intended in 1969 to have millionaires pay their fair share.

We are talking about soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who get a job as a police officer or as a carpenter. We are talking about some our school teachers all across the country. We are talking about sanitation workers who are struggling hard on $40,000 or $50,000 a year, oftentimes with two people in that family who are working, raising three or four kids. We are saying in this legislation that we are going to protect you, because we know you need to have that money to pay your bills.

We also have to level with the American people. This is going to be $61 billion in tax relief for those incredibly hard-working Americans who are getting clobbered by these $4-plus gas prices. They can't fill up their tank. They have got cars or SUVs or trucks that they have to drive, and they don't have the money to get something that is a little bit more fuel efficient. A lot of them have long commutes. This legislation is going to give them the opportunity to keep a little bit more money in their pocket so they can make it from one end of the week to the other and can pay their bills.

Now, the question is for this Congress, do we pay for it, or do we put it on the credit card? As to what my friend from Texas is characterizing as a tax increase, let me go through it, because I think Americans have a commitment to fairness, and I think Americans know a very commonsense proposition, and that is we have all got to bear the burden. We all have to pay our share of the load.

There are two very glaring situations in the Tax Code, and attention should be paid to them, and it is overdue. One is this hedge fund exemption, where folks who make an awful lot of money pay at a capital gains rate. What is unfair about it? If you are a financial advisor, if you or I ask someone to help us figure how to invest our money, we pay them a fee, and of whatever earnings they get, they pay a regular tax rate just like any other American. Whatever that rate is--15, 20, 35 percent--that is what they pay.

If you are a hedge fund executive and you make billions, because of this provision in the Tax Code, which I am calling a loophole, they get to pay at a 15 percent rate. That is costing the treasury billions of dollars, and it is also a glaring unfairness, because you literally have a situation where the hedge fund manager who is doing the same work as another financial advisor down the street pays one rate, 15 percent, while the other person doing the same work, working just as hard but who is perhaps making less money, pays 35 percent.

You also have this bizarre situation where the person making this immense amount of money pays a much lower tax rate than the secretary, than the back office help in that very same firm. I think most Americans see a basic fairness, and let's have the income tax rate apply to earned income. That is what this provision does.

The second question is on the oil company exemption, and I am using the word ``loophole.'' What is a ``loophole''? I think, commonly, you know it when you see it. What a ``loophole'' is in this case is giving taxpayer benefit to very successful companies that do very well in what they do--explore for oil, sell it. We are taking money from the taxpayers of America to give it to major American and foreign oil companies. These are mature industries that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, and they don't need taxpayer help.

So this legislation provides 25 million Americans with tax relief, and it is the folks who need it. It asks other Americans, the hedge fund executives, to pay at the income tax rate, and it has oil companies foregoing what has been an incredibly good deal--tax credits that they get at the expense of the American taxpayer.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1692, a bill to grant a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association.

Just a few short years after World War II, our government again called on hundreds of thousands of Americans to serve their country in a distant conflict. Over 1,700,000 American soldiers were sent halfway around the world to fight a Communist threat in Korea. Over 40,000 would never return--giving their lives on the battlefield or going missing to this day. Another 100,000 were wounded. Today, my state of Vermont alone is home to almost 10,000 Korean War veterans.

The Korean War Veterans Association exists to remember those lost, to honor the service of the thousands of living veterans, and to support Korean freedom. For over six years, the organization has fought for Federal recognition. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, and the Vietnam Veterans of America have received a Federal charter, but up until this point veterans of the Korean War could not claim this honor. H.R. 1692 finally remedies this.

Under the charter provided in this bill, the Korean War Veterans Association will provide assistance to veterans of the Korean War and to all those who have subsequently served there, including helping those men and women receive the veterans benefits they have earned. The organization will also preserve the camaraderie forged between those who served, and honor the memory of those fallen. It is my great pleasure to support this well-deserved charter.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Guam.

It's probably appropriate that we're here saluting the American eagle because if there is anything that the American eagle represents, it's the spirit of American independence, American self-reliance, American strength.

In the debate we're having today about the resolution honoring the American eagle, I don't want to say the energy debate has hijacked it because in many ways, it's quite relevant. The fundamental question that this country must decide is whether we will pursue a path of energy independence or continue to go hat-in-hand to the oil-exporting countries to try to solve our problems.

Some of you may remember, which for me was the most vivid representation of the American energy policy, and that was a picture on the front page of the New York Times a couple of years ago, when the President of the United States went to Saudi Arabia, and hand-in-hand, as is the custom in many of the Middle East countries, President Bush and the Saudi prince walked in to have a private conversation about America's oil future. And what was going on there was not the spirit of American independence represented by the eagle. It was a spirit of capitulation where our President was imploring a foreign country to solve the problems that we face.

A confident country, an energetic country solves its own problems. It doesn't look to others to help solve those problems. It takes on the challenge. Energy is a big challenge. It takes on the challenge of solving those problems on its own.

And that's the question that this Congress faces: Will we have the self-confidence of a vigorous and strong Nation to chart a course of energy independence?

Now we're hearing arguments that the problem we face can be solved by drilling our way out of it, and of course, that's an argument that has been pursued vigorously since we discovered oil. But you know, there's enormous evidence that allows us to take a look at this proposition. Will more permits to drill, will more drilling reduce the cost of oil?

And I have here, Mr. Speaker, a chart. The first chart shows the number of wells. The number in red here, we've got the number of leases, and in this blue, we have the number of wells. Starting in 1994, there's been a steady increase of the number of leases and a steady increase in the wells drilled. And step by step by step, as leases and as drilling has increased, so has the price of a gallon of gas, from $1 up to about $4 a gallon today.

So reasonable people would step back and ponder the question, whether more drilling and more leases results in lower prices. History shows us, in nearly the past 20 years, that is simply not the case.

The other proposition is that the problem is the Federal Government is denying leases to the oil companies so that they can't do drilling, and the evidence is overwhelming that's simply not the case.

This chart, the second chart, shows on a pie chart, the whole circle there is the land that is available for leasing. And the green is all that's available, and the red here, or orange, is all that is open for leasing. Pardon me, I have it the opposite way around.

But of all of the land open and available for leasing, 79 percent is open and subject to exploitation and exploration by our oil companies. Only 21 percent is off limits. Yet, of this land where the oil companies have leases, 68 million acres where they can put metal to the ground is not under production, and there's no effort to put it under production.

My friends on the other side have argued that the oil companies have to go through certain environmental permits. I'm not sure you're right about that because much of that work has been done. Assuming that is the case, that's no different than what has been the requirement for the production of oil on federally-owned lands.

You know, there are many people who are asking the question as to whether the fix is in for the oil companies, and there's overwhelming evidence, in fact, that it is. Number one, the amount of speculation that now is core to the energy future trading markets is inflating the price at the pump, inflating the price of home heating fuel. How did that happen? Thanks to Congress.

In 2002, under the Tom DeLay Congress, the Enron loophole was passed at the request of that great company, Enron, that did so much for America's energy situation. Enron passed a loophole that took away any kind of regulatory oversight of the energy future trading market, and it led directly and immediately to an explosion in speculation. Hedge funds, private investors, folks who saw that they could make a lot of money on the misery of a lot of people rushed into the speculation in the oil energy markets. Now, that's wrong. There should be no speculative premium that comes at the expense of American consumers, folks trying to heat their home, small businesses trying to run a business.

This Congress has had an opportunity to get rid of that Enron loophole. House Democrats have passed legislation. It hasn't gotten through because of opposition on the other side, either

in the Senate or the consistent opposition of the President of the United States.

So what can we do if you want to be independent? One, we can get rid of the Enron loophole, wholly and completely. The second thing is that the energy companies, in fact, are hording leases, and that's a fact. There's an enormous push on this Congress to open up ANWR, and the argument is made and it has a surface appeal that if you open up ANWR, then it is going to mean a reduction in prices because the supply will go up and demand will go down.

A couple of problems with it. First and foremost, the oil companies have leases on 68 million acres. They're not exploiting them. Why? We don't know exactly why because they won't say. They will come in, raise their hand, take an oath, acknowledge that they're paying their executives 10s of millions of dollars, acknowledging that when one executive was retiring he was given a $400 million payday to say good- bye, but they won't tell us why they're not putting drill bits to earth to exploit the leases they have.

But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what the motive may be. If they keep that lease and the oil or the natural gas sits in the ground and it goes from $28 to $48 to $68 to $134 a barrel, that's sound money for those companies, and it will fatten the already extraordinary profits, $125 billion in profits for the oil companies last year, the big five oil companies.

Second, oil companies push hard to bring online as much Federal land for leases as possible because the Big Oil companies have been extremely successful in crowding out some of our small, independent producers, and in fact, my view is that's a detriment and a reason why this 68 million acres aren't exploited. If you had smaller, more independent, hungry, energetic companies that had an opportunity to make good money at $134 a barrel, and they owned those leases, they'd be drilling.

So what you have is a situation where the oil companies are doing quite fine, they really are, and the status quo serves them very well. What may not serve them so well is the self-confident Congress, the self-confident President saying, you know what, we're not going to play that game anymore. There are other ways.

We're going to take away the tax breaks, about $13 billion that American taxpayers are turning over to our oil companies, and that, with all due respect, is just an astonishing public policy. Our folks are paying over $4 a gallon for gas. In my home State of Vermont, we're paying over $4.25, $4.40 for a gallon of home heating fuel, and taxpayers are paying the oil companies about $13 billion in tax breaks. That's your money and mine. It's hard to see how that's justified, but the oil companies are quite happy to take that taxpayer subsidy.

But what they won't like is what the House is pushing, and that's a policy of energy independence, where we take those tax breaks, we steer them, as America has frequently done when there's something important for the American people, and it's taken a push from our taxpayers to get us over that initial technological hump, and that's having those tax breaks go as incentives to alternative energy sources, wind and solar, biofuels.

You know, if we could step back a minute and take a look at some of our friends in Europe and the leadership they're taking because of self-interest, a recognition in Portugal that investing in alternative fuel is a way to strengthen the economy, or Germany, investing in solar, Germany has less sun than Vermont. And let me tell you, I'm here to tell you that Vermont doesn't have as much sun as we need and I want. They have less sun than we do, but they are leading in solar technology.

So, the bottom line question is really very simple. Do we want leadership, as best exemplified by President Bush when he was with the Saudi prince, imploring the Saudi prince to rescue us from ourselves, or do we want leadership where we say we will take care of our own future, that particularly in face of what I think are unfounded arguments, that we can drill our way out, that Congress or the American government is an impediment to drilling that is available immediately for our oil and natural gas companies, and that there isn't supply that we can achieve through efficiency and alternative energy.

I thank my friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee for yielding me 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, this is really a very simple question, and it is whether we're going to extend unemployment benefits to American workers who are suffering the largest 1-month surge in increased unemployment in 22 years.

And we can bring in all kinds of other arguments about what our energy policy should be, what the compensation should be, what the formulation of the benefits should be. But the bottom line is that we have Americans who have worked, and through no fault of their own, but because of economic forces completely and utterly beyond their control, they've lost their jobs.

And when we have discussions about micromanaging how these go out, in lump sums or weekly payments, and we're talking about trying to give an incentive, it is, in my view, Madam Chairman, very patronizing.

What is worse to an American than to lose his or her job?

Most Americans find their sense of satisfaction and self-worth in taking care of their family, in being providers, and by being a good, productive worker. All of us who've had the opportunity to have a good job know that there's nothing better than that. So there is a lot of built-in incentive for any American who's without a job to get a job.

But, in the meantime, $300 a week, that's about what the average benefit is, is barely enough to keep gas in the car, keep your home heated, to put groceries on the table. We know it's not even close to adequate. So there is plenty of incentive.

And the question for us is not behavioral psycho dynamics. The question for us, as a Congress, is whether, when there is this largest spike in unemployment in 22 years, we're going to ignore it or we're going to respond. And we have the tool that was started in 1935 to respond, where workers and others put money into a fund that is to be used at times of stress.

As the designee of Ms. Shea-Porter of New Hampshire, I call up an amendment made in order by the rule.

At this time I recognize the principal author of this amendment, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just briefly close.

Madam Chairman, there are two issues that have been debated during the course of this proposed amendment. One is what is the proper way to try to provide new supplies of oil.

There is a debate here, as Mr. McKeon has outlined it, and it has been carried on in many other bills relating to energy, about the possibility of the United States drilling and capturing more oil and natural gas here in our own territorial boundaries. The premise, of course, is if we did that, we would be able significantly to address the problem, and it also has as a premise that the obstacles to drilling are what is causing us not to drill.

In fact, that simply is not true. There are tens of millions of acres of federally owned land that are leased to the oil and gas companies, and only 28 percent of acres on shore and only 20 percent of the acres offshore where there actually are leases left are producing oil and gas. So there is an enormous capacity already that is out there for oil and gas companies to do the drilling. Why they don't, I guess we would have to ask them. But it is hard to imagine that there is a disincentive for them to take these leases that they have, giving them the opportunity to drill, when we have got oil that hovers around $130 a barrel. So the suggestion that that is the problem I think is incorrect.

Secondly, the United States, and we have got to face this, we have 2 percent of the world's oil supply. That is it. Yet we consume 24 percent of the oil. So if we think that it is going to be a long-term approach to dealing with the increasing cost of oil when we are using 24 percent and we only have 2 percent of the known reserves, I think that is going to fall on its own weight.

The second issue really is putting aside that debate about what is the long-term, shall we be drilling or not, it begs the question of whether shouldn't we be doing everything that is within our capacity right now to give tools to local communities to save money on their energy costs and don't make the policy argument about whether we should or shouldn't be drilling be an impediment to taking the concrete step that this bill proposes to give our schools the tools they need to save money.

Let me just give you a couple of examples in Vermont. We have 32 schools that have transitioned to wood biomass. These are small schools, but they have saved over 1 million gallons of home heating oil. Home heating oil now in Vermont, the last bill I paid was $4.30 a gallon. That is over $4 million. That also, as my colleague Mr. Arcuri said, is a trifecta, because it reduced carbon emissions by 11,000 tons. It also provided jobs to local Vermonters who are providing the basic material that provided the energy to these schools.

So this is an extraordinary incentive for our local schools to try to save money. That is a burden that is immense on the property taxpayers, and this is a practical piece of legislation that allows our communities and our schools to take positive steps to reduce the bottom line.

I urge, along with my colleagues who have offered this amendment, led by Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter, a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to thank Chairman Skelton for his leadership, Chairman Waxman, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Davis.

I have been listening to Mr. Davis, and he makes a good point; you have to, when you're spending $1 trillion on a war--and we're pushing that--have a good acquisition team. But that really begs the question, we have to have oversight. And there has been documented an astonishing amount of waste, fraud and absolute rip-off in this expenditure of close to $1 trillion. And that does require some simple reporting requirements.

Mr. Murphy's amendment, where private companies that go into contracts from $700,000, and then when the war starts over the next 4 years to $1 billion, that 10 percent cut for the owner of that company, or the owners, the public has a right to know. Sunlight is going to put some limits on how much profit is reasonable when our soldiers are working so hard for so little.

Secondly, when we have no-bid contracts--and these have proliferated so that they are about over $1 trillion--and the companies that have those contracts become aware of fraud, why is it not plain common sense that that company would have the obligation immediately to report to the American government their knowledge of fraud so that we can save taxpayer dollars, particularly when these involve national security contracts, oftentimes with things that are going to protect our troops? We owe them no less and we owe our taxpayers no less. So I thank the gentlemen for the work that they've done to restore fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California. We have two issues here. The first is whether this body, the Congress of the United States, is going to exercise its responsibility or abnegate its responsibility to the President of the United States.

We have a bit of a factual dispute about the nature of this agreement. The chairman of our committee, a distinguished veteran, has made it clear that this can be in the nature of a treaty. That is what it applies to. It could implicate us in the second issue, and that is where the United States should be providing security when essentially you have a civil war.

The agreements and Status of Force Agreements that Mr. Hunter has described have been with countries that have stability. This is a country that has Shia fighting Shia, Shia fighting Sunni, the Kurds sitting on the side, waiting. The United States should not be providing security guarantees without the vote of Congress in that circumstance.

I thank the gentleman from New York.

The Israel amendment recognizes that we have a responsibility to the Iraqis who by helping us have put a bull's eye on their back. The interpreters every single day are in immense jeopardy. They have many people who, if their identity is determined, will kill them.

But as aggressive as Mr. Israel is in promoting this amendment, he is really the second-most aggressive advocate. The most aggressive are our soldiers, who have benefited day in and day out from the services of people they have come to call their brothers. They want us to stand up for the people who have stood up for them.

And do they need a job when they come here? Of course they do. This is about doing work so that they can maintain body and soul. It is also about them having work that can continue to help our men and women in uniform.

I thank the gentleman.

This war is the first time in American history when we have had tax cuts during a war. And if ever there is a moment in time when our country should be called upon to share a sacrifice, it is when we are sending our sons and daughters to war.

This amendment calls the question, it says the obvious: We can't keep paying for this on a credit card. There are costs that are going to be paid not only by this generation, but by future generations. The President has put this war on the credit card, and the irony of that is that it is the sons and the daughters of the men and women who are fighting this war who are going to pay for this. It is time to be candid and honest with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Dingell for his leadership and commitment to getting gas prices under control.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this letter from Congressman Ron Kind for the Congressional Record. Mr. Kind has been a leader on this issue starting in January when he sent this letter to the President urging him to take action in suspending shipments to the SPR.

Mr. Speaker, in the face of skyrocketing fuel costs and growing economic concerns, Congress must take action.

Today we take the small but important step of temporarily suspending the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Taking this action sends a strong message to the market that will lower fuel prices and provide immediate relief to consumers.

With the price of gas today at nearly $4 a gallon and crude oil trading at a record high of $126 a barrel, we cannot continue the out- dated policy of topping off a full SPR.

Since 2002, the price of oil has risen a staggering $100 a barrel, and prices at the pump have more than tripled. We must stop taking 70,000 barrels of oil off the market every day while hard working Americans are struggling to till their gas tanks.

By continuing to top off our oil reserve, consumers are paying not once, but twice.

Taxpayer dollars are being used to pay record high prices for SPR oil, while the act of buying that oil is actually driving gas prices higher.

The reserve is currently 97 percent full and maintains a stockpile of over 700 million barrels of oil. By taking this action today, we can offer short term economic relief to the market and to all consumers.

This is a short term solution, and by no means a replacement for the long term energy policy we need to end our dangerous and costly addiction to oil. Last year this Congress made real progress by increasing CAFE standards for the first time in 2 decades by committing to combat oil and market manipulation, promoting the use of more affordable American biofuels, and making large investments in renewable energy development.

The U.S. consumes nearly 20 million barrels of oil a day. Prices are high in part because supply has not kept up with demand. The Department of Energy recently reported that suspension of shipments to the SPR could reduce prices by about $2 a barrel of oil and 5 cents per gallon of gasoline. Other experts have estimated that the suspension could diminish speculation in the market, and lower the price by anywhere from 5 to 25 cents a gallon.

This action would provide real and immediate benefits. Twenty-five cents would add $300,000 to the bottom line of a local trucking company in my district. A rural school district in E. Montpelier, Vermont would save $30,000 in taxpayer financed busing costs. Families, workers, seniors and students need this relief.

Over the last 8 months, the Bush administration has purchased over 10 million barrels of oil to top off the SPR. In that same period of time the price of oil went from $40 a barrel to over $120.

In 2006, facing record high oil prices President Bush said ``. . . by deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps.'' Every little bit does help, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take this opportunity to provide them immediate relief.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, January 22, 2008.

Hon. George W. Bush,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: I write to urge the U.S. Department of

Energy to suspend oil shipments to the Strategic Petroleum

Reserve (SPR) to allow more oil to remain on the market and

available to consumers. This action is necessary to address

record prices and stimulate a precarious economy.

While the escalating cost of crude oil has made headlines

for the past several years, never before have we seen as dire

a situation for consumers as the one we are experiencing now.

Even the price spikes following Hurricane Katrina did not

come close to the $100 per barrel oil we saw last month, yet

your Administration wisely responded to that crisis by

temporarily suspending purchases for the SPR. That action was

successful in providing the type of immediate, targeted

relief we need now.

The writing is on the wall: our country is clearly in

danger of recession. Unemployment is up, retail sales are

slowing, housing prices continue to slide, and consumers and

lenders alike continue to suffer the fallout from the sub-

prime mortgage crisis. Average families are feeling the

effects more painfully than ever as they experience the worst

inflation in 17 years, largely because of escalating food and

fuel prices.

Suspending the 12.3 million barrels of oil scheduled to be

delivered to the SPR over the next six months is a simple

step your Administration can take immediately to lower gas

prices, put money directly into the wallets of Americans, and

save taxpayer dollars. Congressional investigations and

independent experts have found that purchasing

oil for the SPR drives up gas prices, and costs taxpayers

billions. This is money that working men and women cannot put

into other parts of the economy, harming American families

and businesses alike.

While I recognize this action should not be taken as a

means of reducing prices in the long run, it can have

temporary benefits that could go a long way to helping

American families who are being squeezed, and to stimulate

the economy. I urge you to take this important step.

Sincerely,

Ron Kind,

Member of Congress.

I thank the gentleman from New York.

This bill has many good features, and I want to speak about two. One is energy and two is children.

If we are going to take on the challenge of energy independence, then we have to start providing incentives, as we do in this bill, for wind, for solar, for biomass, for alternative energy and efficiencies. It is a confident Nation that takes on that challenge. It is a submissive Nation where the leader of our country goes hat in hand to a country that is not our friend and asks him to solve our problem by pumping more oil. This moves us in a confident direction of independence, self- sufficiency, and self-reliance.

The second is children. It is troubling I think to many of us in this country, and many of us in this body, that the gap between the wealthy and the poor has never been wider. The top five hedge fund managers last year earned $12.6 billion. The 9 million lowest income families, that was their equal income, $12.5 billion.

This bill finally increases the earned income tax credit for low- income families, bringing down the floor to $8,500, and 15 percent above that is going to be eligible. Do you know what that is going to mean just in the State of Vermont? 21,000 kids are going to get help. 21,000 kids. It also means 77 low-income kids from military families are going to get some assistance. This is money in their pocket where they too can be self-reliant.

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

First, I want to thank Chairman Dingell for his leadership on energy issues and for assisting in bringing this legislation to the floor for consideration by the full House.

I want to address a couple of observations by my friend from Texas. Number one, the revenues that would be generated from drilling on Federal lands

would go into the Treasury. And there are many uses and debates that can be had about whether that money ultimately should go into alternative energy, whether it should go into LIHEAP, and those will all be had in due course as part of other legislation.

The question that we have before us today is whether or not taking a small step that in the past has been taken by this President Bush, by his father, by President Clinton, that when it has been taken has proven to actually have a direct and immediate impact on lowering the price of gas at the pump from 5 cents to 25 cents a gallon.

All of us know, we're going home every weekend and we're hearing from our constituents. It doesn't matter what district we're in, it doesn't matter what part of the country we're from, folks are really feeling burdened by these ever-escalating home energy heating bills and the cost of filling up their pick-up truck and their car. And basically the question for us is whether or not, even as we have to proceed with long-term debates about our future energy policy, this Congress is going to be willing to take a short-term step that has the potential to bring down energy prices.

You know, we could go out and clap, but I actually think this would be more effective. History tells us that, in fact, when we've used this Strategic Petroleum Reserve as an asset belonging to the American people and suspended purchases--and incidentally, this Strategic Petroleum Reserve is nearly full, we're talking about topping it off, it's very expensive to do so now with $126 per barrel oil--that when we've done it in the past, it has actually reduced that pump price. And just two examples of what it would mean in my small State of Vermont. I talked to a trucker from Barre, Vermont; they've got a company and drive a lot. It would put $300,000 on his bottom line if the price of gas went down 25 cents. A school district in a rural area, it would be $30,000 off their bottom line if we could get the price down 25 cents.

No one here is suggesting that this is an answer to our energy situation. What we are suggesting--and, really, recommendations on a bipartisan basis--is that the tool that's within our reach we should use and do all we can on a short-term basis even as we debate long-term energy policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, just in response, as a clarification for my friend from Texas, my understanding of the bill is we will continue to accept and will honor contracts during that 45-day period for royalty in kind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield another 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

I recognize the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) for 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that we can't amend the bill at this stage, and that this is a question for the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, not having had an opportunity to review this, only hearing the recitation of it from my friend from Texas, not having any awareness as to whether this has been scored by the CBO, as has the underlying bill, I am not prepared to give unanimous consent to the gentleman's offer and would object at this time.

A point of inquiry. The ruling of the Chair is that that proposed amendment was not in order?

I am not making a request for unanimous consent.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

Mr. Speaker, I want to answer a few questions that were raised by my friend from Texas. First of all, the question is how, when it's such a small amount of oil, 70,000 barrels a day, can suspending purchases have an impact on the price?

There are two things, number one, history has shown that when the Federal Government, on behalf of the consumers of this country and the small businesses, have used this Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help alleviate market pressures. It's worked, and the previous speakers have recited how it happened with this President Bush, the prior President Bush and President Clinton. We have history as a guide that says taking this action does work.

Second, the reason it works is that one of the problems we have in the oil market is speculation. There was legislation passed in 2002 by Congress that included a loophole that allowed the deregulation of the energy futures trading market, and there is enormous evidence, that that has allowed hedge funds and arbitrageurs and speculators to impose a premium in the cost of each barrel of oil and in the cost of a gallon of gas.

The fact is, if the Federal Government is showing, particularly on a bipartisan basis, that we are going to use the levers that we have, even in a short-term way, to protect the consumer against the speculator, then that has a chastening impact on speculation and helps bring the price down.

Third, the process. My friend from Texas is the distinguished ranking member of that committee, but this issue about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is well worn. In fact, it's been used before, as I mentioned, so it's not all that complicated. We are doing it only for the period of 2008 in respect to the wishes of the chairman.

The Senate has passed the Reid-Dorgan amendment by 97-1, essentially the

very same proposal that we are considering today. The bottom line is this, will we take the short-term actions that it's within our reach to take that have a proven capacity to help the consumer?

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. The legislation does two things that are good and one thing that is very good in its absence. The two things that are good are one, it addresses very specifically, in a practical way, the housing crisis that has been brought on by the subprime foreclosure debacle.

What it does is it shares the opportunity of relief and it shares the pain of getting the relief so that we can end up at the end of the day with several hundred thousand American families still in their homes, lenders having been able to mitigate their loss, homeowners being able to keep a roof over their head, and the American taxpayer not being left on the hook.

It does it by recognizing we have to use existing institutions to accomplish that. It does it by acknowledging that it has to be voluntary. A lender will be in this program only when they make the practical business decision that it is a better route than foreclosure. A borrower is going to be able to make that same change and has to be able to demonstrate an ability to pay at the new current appraisal value of that property. And in the process of doing that, it means that we use the guaranty of the taxpayer, but in all likelihood, according to the CBO score, not the money of the taxpayer.

So it is a practical solution to a very severe problem that could only have been brought to this House for consideration with the extraordinary cooperation of both sides in the Ways and Means Committee, the Financial Services Committee, and the help of high administration officials who had significant input along the way.

And it would be very unfortunate if the procedural debates that we are having about process, made at the leadership level, derail what is a practical approach to solving a very serious problem. What this bill isn't, and I congratulate the Members on both sides as well, it is not a blame game about who caused this. That is for another day.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.