Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in the past few months and days, a constant stream of headlines has opened the public's eye to the relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists and what goes on in this town and how we make our laws. Professional lobbyists have become a virtual ``back office'' for Congress and Congressmen, serve as travel agents, employment agencies and authors of legislation. In the past 6 years, lobbying expenditures have more than doubled to $3 billion annually, nearly twice as much as we spend on campaigns. That is what they spend trying to influence the type of legislation we have. Whether it is on pharmaceutical legislation, prescription drugs, whether it is on the tax legislation, whether it is on energy legislation, the amount spent by lobbyists has doubled trying to influence the Members of Congress.

Yet while the number of professional lobbyists and their fees have increased, only one in five lobbyists required to register actually does. Of the 250 top lobbying firms, 210 have failed to file one or more of the necessary documents. The bottom line is that the special interests benefit from weak reporting, nonexistent oversight and toothless penalties while the credibility of the United States Congress, this entire institution and the Members who serve in it, suffers.

We have had in the past debates about campaign finance reform and proper debates about the relationship between donors and congressional candidates. It is time now to have a debate and pass legislation about the relationship between professional lobbyists and Members of Congress. The last major lobbying reforms were over 10 years ago. It is time to update our laws to reflect the explosive growth and increasing influence of professional lobbyists on this institution, the people's House.

For all those reasons, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and I have introduced the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act. Our bill creates a code of official conduct for Congress. This code of conduct would close the revolving door by requiring former Members and staff to wait 2 years before coming back to lobby the institution they had worked at prior. The bill also ends the practice of lobbyists serving as congressional travel agents by arranging lavish junkets for Members. Our bill would require congressional travel to conform to expense guidelines similar to those of other government employees, so it is actually the work that trip is intended to do and work on that trip rather than it becoming a lavish vacation and a working trip in name only. We also require lobbyists to disclose their past connections, previous Hill employers and financial activities on a public database.

The Meehan-Emanuel bill increases the penalties for failing to comply with the Lobbying Disclosure Act. It also

creates a bipartisan House task force to recommend ways to reinvigorate ethics oversight and enforcement. It would require the Government Accountability Office to report twice a year on the state of oversight and enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, the gavel of this institution when it comes down should mark the opening of the people's House, not the auction house. Unless we reform the relationship between lobbyists and Members of Congress, we cannot restore the public's faith in the people's House. We are suffering from a systematic problem requiring an institutional solution.

Legislation here that we produced in the last Congress, the pharmaceutical industry spent $154 million lobbying Members of Congress. When we were working on the reimportation legislation of pharmaceutical products, there were two lobbyists for every Member of Congress. The prescription drug bill was passed in a year in which lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry was one of the biggest spenders on lobbying Members of Congress ended up resulting in an additional $150 billion of profits for the pharmaceutical industry over a 10-year period of time.

Just the other day, we voted, this Congress, on an energy bill, a badly needed bill that did not deal with gas prices at the pump and yet gave tax credits, the public's tax money, to the wealthiest corporations who are making the biggest profits. Even the President acknowledged that it was wrong. Why? Because this institution is being lobbied by members that have the right to have their voices heard but not the right to have their voices literally drowning out the public's voice and individuals who vote for us.

It is time for this institution and the Members of Congress of both parties to come together, change the way professional lobbyists relate to Members of Congress, how they relate to the institution, whether there is a revolving door that goes from here, you go to a place of employment and whether you have in fact the transparency and the disclosure that is required, because in truth this is the whole cloud that exists, exists over all the institution. It requires all of us to work on dealing with this.

Mr. Speaker, we have a duty to ensure that the voices of the American people are not drowned out by the voices of the professional lobbyists working the halls of Congress. Only through lobbying reform can we restore the integrity of the Congress and retain the people's trust. We work on important issues here but not so important that it must literally push out the other voices. There is time and again, whether it is dealing with the pharmaceutical industry, the corporate tax bill, the energy bill, other pieces of legislation, you can mark literally the amount of money spent by the lobbying community and the type of legislation this institution passes.

When that gavel goes down, it is intended to open the people's House, not the auction house.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the 75th Anniversary of St. Bellarmine Parish in Jefferson Park, Illinois. I am proud of the continuous support and inspiration this parish has provided to the people of Jefferson Park for the past 75 years, and I would like to thank the parishioners of St. Robert Bellarmine Parish for their dedicated service.

St. Robert Bellarmine has served as an essential part of the surrounding community since 1930, when a group of dedicated parishioners joined with Father Gillespie to celebrate the parish's first Mass in the auditorium of Prussing Public School.

Church and school buildings were constructed in 1931 to house the parish, and the church became an anchor for the community and a beacon of hope for its parishioners.

Today, St. Robert Bellarmine continues to inspire the Jefferson Park community under the exceptional leadership of Father Michael Goergen. This parish provides a prime example of what can be accomplished when we work together for the common good.

The 1,700 families that make up the parish create a welcoming and service-oriented community. Church activities such as the Stretch Program help needy members of the parish, adding to St. Robert Bellarmine's impressive history of donating time, talent, and resources to the community.

The 390 students at St. Robert Bellarmine school receive an excellent and well rounded

education, with the active participation of the Parents Association in extracurricular programs.

Now as St. Robert Bellarmine Parish celebrates its 75th anniversary, I ask my colleagues to take a moment and recognize the importance of places like St. Robert Bellarmine in communities all across America.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parishioners of St. Robert Bellarmine on the first 75 years of their parish, and I wish them continued success and inspiration in serving their community in the coming years.

Mr. Speaker, a constant stream of headlines in recent weeks has opened the public's eye to the all too cozy relationship between lawmakers and professional lobbyists. Professional lobbyists have become a virtual ``back office'' for Congress, serving as travel agents, employment agencies and authors of legislation. We have had a debate on campaign finance reform that ultimately set the rules between donors and candidates. Now we need a similar debate and legislation on how to distance the People's House from the professional lobbyists on K Street.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and I have drafted the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act. Our bill creates a code of official conduct for congressmen; closes the revolving door by requiring former Members and staff to wait 2 years after they leave Congress before lobbying the institution; ends the practice of lobbyists serving as congressional travel agents by arranging lavish junkets for Members; and requires lobbyists to disclose their past connections, previous Hill employment and financial activities on a public database.

Mr. Speaker, when that gavel goes down, it should open the People's House, not the auction house for special interests. Only through lobbying reform can we restore the integrity of the Congress and regain the public's trust.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday marked the 2-year anniversary of President Bush's now infamous ``Mission Accomplished'' speech aboard the USS Lincoln. Tomorrow the House of Representatives will vote on another $82 billion for the Iraqi conflict and Afghanistan conflict, bringing the total cost to the American taxpayers of $300 billion. Sunday, the 2-year anniversary of the ``Mission Accomplished'' speech; tomorrow the United States Congress puts the tab at $300 billion for the Iraqi and Afghanistan engagements.

What have we accomplished? We have defeated Saddam Hussein; yet we find ourselves mired in an endless occupation. This past January we witnessed a successful election; yet the progress on developing a functioning government has been slow at best. Terrorism and the insurgency remain as strong as ever and at times seems to be escalating.

Today we learned about another explosion killing 50 individuals. Last week over 100 individuals were killed in different terrorist acts. The economy is stalled, the civil society cannot form a consensus, and millions of Iraqis remain without basic services such as electricity. The brave men and women in the American Armed Forces continue to fight a valiant effort, but the battle has taken its toll.

In addition to the $300 billion it has cost the taxpayers, we have lost 1,600 sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles; and 12,000 citizens are wounded, some permanently. And the strain is so great the recruiters in the armed services cannot meet their enlistment goals. Through the first 5 months of fiscal year 2005, the Army is short its recruitment goal by 15 percent. The Pentagon now says that they are stretched so thin, it would be difficult for the Armed Forces to meet other obligations should they need to.

Mr. Speaker, Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war of choice. As President Kennedy once said, ``To govern is to choose.'' One can only hope that the war in Iraq was the right choice, and as I said, tomorrow we will add an additional $82 billion, bringing the total cost to $300 billion.

But in the meantime, while we have made this effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, what has happened here at home? Every President has always thought in the middle of a military engagement, how do I make America stronger post this war? What do I do to think about America's future, raise its sights to see another horizon?

President Lincoln, in the middle of the Civil War, he thought of the transcontinental railway system. President Lincoln thought of the land grant colleges. President Eisenhower thought, in the height of the Cold War, of the highway system in America. President Kennedy, in the middle of the escalation of Vietnam and the Cold War, thought of putting a man on the moon. President Roosevelt, during World War II, thought of the GI bill that built and made this an American century the last century.

So as we go through it, Eisenhower thought of the highway system here in America; President Bush is threatening to veto the highway bill. President Lincoln thought of the transcontinental railroad system; President Bush wants to veto Amtrak and eliminate it. Every President has thought of America as a greater and bigger vision. This is the first President who is now talking about a lesser vision for America in the middle of a war.

We must not have the legacy only of 1,600 dead, 12,000 wounded, and costing $300 billion and an America that is weaker and smaller and all we have left them is $2 trillion of additional debt to dig their way out. We can do better. We must have a vision of America that is stronger past this conflict, not one that leaves Iraq stronger and us weaker.

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, May 1, marked the 2-year anniversary of President Bush's speech abroad the USS Lincoln, the ``mission accomplished'' speech.

So what have we accomplished in the last 2 years? Saddam Hussein's regime has fallen. Yet today we find ourselves mired in an endless occupation.

This past January witnessed a successful election, yet progress on developing a functioning government has been slow at best. The terror and the insurgency remain as strong as ever and seems to be growing at certain points. Explosions killed more than 100 people last week alone.

The economy is stalled, the civil society is unable to come together, and millions of Iraqis remain without regular electrical services and basic services from their government. The brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces continue to fight a very vigorous fight, but the battle has taken its toll. We have lost 1,600 fellow citizens in the last 2 years, 2\1/2\ years, and more than 12,000 have been wounded.

The strain has been so great that recruiters cannot meet their enlistment goals. Through the first 5 months of fiscal year 2005, the Army is short of their recruitment goal by 15 percent. The Pentagon now says that they are stretched so thin it would be difficult for the military to meet other obligations should they need to do so.

Mr. Speaker, Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war of choice. And as President Kennedy once said, to govern is to choose. One can only hope that the war in Iraq was the right choice. This week we will appropriate an additional $81 billion, bringing the total cost of the war in dollar sense, to $300 billion: $300 billion, 1,600 American lives, 12,000 citizens wounded.

And yet the insurgency continues and the war goes on. The $300 billion we have added to the structural deficit is on top of a $2 trillion new debt created since President Bush originally took office in 2001.

And what have we done while we have added $300 billion to Iraq? Every President when they have taken the battle and taken the war, has thought about how to build America post that war.

President Lincoln finished the transcontinental railroad, the land grant colleges. Roosevelt not only had the

Great Depression that he dealt with for the Great Society, and rather the New Deal. He also thought after the war of a GI bill.

Universal health care with Harry S Truman. Eisenhower talked of the interstate highway. President Kennedy in the middle of his days of Vietnam thought of putting a man on the Moon. What do we think about at the end of the Iraq war, as we think maybe we will see a point on the horizon? We cut Medicaid by $10 billion. We eliminate vocational training. We eliminate the COPS program that puts 100,000 cops on the American streets.

Every President and every Congress thought about America after the war, thought about what it could do, how do we build that future; not only what we did overseas, but what are we going to do for Americans here at home. We, unlike our predecessors, do not think of a vision in the future. We have thought about how to limit America's horizon and not think forward.

This President made an attempt once to talk about putting a space ship on Mars, but we cancelled that. We have cancelled our review of the stem cells. We are not investing in America's future like we are investing in Iraq's future.

$300 billion in Iraq. Sixteen hundred American lives. Twelve thousand wounded. $10 billion cut from our health care programs. Vocational training programs eliminated. Is this the tradition when Roosevelt thought of the GI bill after World War II, President Kennedy in the early days of Vietnam thought of a man on the Moon? Lincoln, in the days of the Civil War thought of reconstruction, the land grant colleges, and the transatlantic railroad system.

This is not in the tradition of America to think less of our future than the one we are building overseas. We can do better than we are thinking of today. And all of the while that we are not investing in America and we are investing in Iraq, and we have put ourselves in line in Iraq, and everything of America is on the line there, North Korea has crossed the red zone, and now has the ability of nuclear capability.

A senior military strategist testified in the Senate last week that North Korea can mount a nuclear weapon on their missiles. While we have been bogged down in Iraq, Iran is developing their capability. The fact is, if there is one area where the United States should be acting unilaterally, it is North Korea; the one place we should be acting in coalition is Iraq. We got it mixed up.

But it is high time we invest in America and stop thinking less about our future and stop putting our dollars like we have in Iraq, start putting them here in America and follow the tradition that Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy and Johnson and Roosevelt did by thinking about the future for America.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from South Carolina for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this economic blueprint which, for 3 years in a row, adds over $400 billion each year to the Nation's deficit, running a structural, basically putting in place structural deficits that added up to $2 trillion in over 4 years to our Nation's debt. All the while that we have added $2 trillion to the Nation's debt, we have taken every penny out of the Social Security surplus; $700 billion in 4 years. We have not left a single dime in there. Every penny we have taken out of Social Security.

And while we have taken that $700 billion out of the Social Security surplus and have run up $2 trillion to the

Nation's economy, to the debt, we have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs in 4 years; 43 million Americans are now without health care; and incomes are falling behind, in the last few years, behind inflation.

That is the economic record of this budget; and rather than change directions, rather than launching in a new way to help Americans, what are we doing? The same old same old that will get the same results. The one thing that will always be said about this economic blueprint and this economic strategy is that we will forever be in your debt, and that will be the record of this economic strategy. That is what you will leave us.

So while you produce a $2.7 trillion budget, you did not even meet the President's request for college assistance and Pell grants for $5.4 billion.

You cut $10 billion from health care. And your economic strategy has left people without jobs, without health care, without the ability to pay for higher education, and their incomes are falling.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of the Schuster Family to the prevention and treatment of kidney and urinary tract disease. On April 27th, the National Kidney Foundation of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont will host a dinner with President Bill Clinton in honor of Gerald and Elaine Schuster and their two sons Mark and Scott for their 35 years of tireless dedication to this important cause.

In 1954, Dr. Joseph Murray performed the very first organ transplant in the world at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. That same year, the National Kidney Foundation of Massachusetts, which would later expand to include Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont, was founded.

For more than half a century since then, the National Kidney Foundation and its affiliates have played a crucial role in the prevention and treatment of kidney and urinary tract disease. In particular, the Foundation provides patient services, funding for much- needed research, free early-screening services, public and professional education, and organ donation information. In addition, the Foundation helps further the prevention and treatment of kidney and urinary tract disease.

The Schuster Family has long played a vital role in the success of the National Kidney Foundation. As President of the National Kidney Foundation of Massachusetts, Elaine Schuster successfully advocated for including organ donation check-off on Massachusetts' drivers licenses in 1968, a move which has saved countless lives by giving every citizen an opportunity to get involved in an easy and direct way.

In 1978, the Schuster family felt the impact of their work firsthand, when Mark Schuster donated a kidney to save his brother Scott's life. Twenty-six years later, Scott Schuster is a successful businessman and Chairman of the very Foundation that helped to make his life-saving surgery possible.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the dedication of the Schuster Family, and the important, lifesaving work of the National Kidney Foundation.

Madam Speaker, it used to be said that what is good for GM is good for the country. Well, things are not so great for GM. What does that say about America?

Their cars are not selling because they face skyrocketing health care costs that put them at a competitive disadvantage with Toyota and other companies.

For every car GM produces, they actually spend more on health care than on steel. Yet it is not the United States Congress, the White House, seeking to help GM out of this problem. GM's knight in shining armor is Toyota.

On Monday, Toyota's chairman said the Japanese auto maker was considering raising its prices in order to give American car makers some breathing room.

Here is what former Governor John Engler from Michigan said of the GM crisis: We cannot, with the deficits we face today, step in and help this company get back on its feet.

We are too deep in debt to save hundreds of thousands of jobs and help an American company compete and win.

Today, we are facing a fiscal crisis that is stripping America of its ability to compete and win. The health care crisis facing General Motors is the same health care crisis facing the Federal Government and every American family, and yet we are in debt of nearly $8 trillion and unable to compete and win in today's economy.

Mr. Speaker, today on the front page of USA Today's business page, there was a headline, ``Pharmaceutical Industry Goes Furthest to Sway Congress.''

Last year the pharmaceutical industry spent $158 million, just last year, to lobby Members of the United States Congress and Senate.

Now, I know you may be shocked to know that it may not have been in your interest, $158 million to lobby the Members of the United States Congress and Senate. Since 1998, in 6 years, they have spent three- quarters of a billion dollars lobbying, wining, dining Members of the United States Congress, taking them on golf trips, taking them on vacations, taking them to conferences, taking them out to meals, all to tell them about their industry.

There are 1,300 pharmaceutical registered lobbyists. There are only 535 Members of the United States Congress and Senate. There are 2\1/2\ lobbyists for every Member. Three-quarters of a billion dollars in 6 years, $158 million last year alone, and 1,300 lobbyists working on behalf of the industry.

About 475 of them, according to this article, are former Federal Government employees; 40 of them are former Members of Congress. It is the most influential and well-financed lobbying operation in Washington.

Challenging the drug companies is always a costly undertaking, and, more often than not, it is a very difficult one and a losing one. But I want you to know what you are getting for your $158 million.

Congress, when it passed a prescription drug bill last Congress, the 108th, we prevented the United States Government from negotiating prices like the Veterans Administration does, like Wal-Mart does, like Sam's Club does when they want to negotiate. When they want to deal with a supplier they negotiate best prices, not the United States Government. It explicitly prevents the United States Government from negotiating on behalf of Medicare for 43 million seniors for the lowest possible price.

What does it say to our taxpayers? What does it say to our senior citizens? We are not going to do best business practices like Sam's Club, like Lowe's, like other people who negotiate price. We will send you out there and make you pay the highest price possible, which is why the United States taxpayers and senior citizens pay the highest pharmaceutical prices of any major industrialized country in the world. That is what you got for their $158 million.

What else did we get for that $158 million that they spent lobbying Members of Congress? We got a bill that prevented the reimportation of pharmaceutical products from Canada and Europe so we could not get competition and choice in the marketing of prices. That is why people in Canada pay 50 percent cheaper prices than we do here in the United States.

What else did that $158 million get? It does not allow generic medications to come to market to compete against name-priced drugs. Every principle of the free market, whether you negotiate prices based on Medicare, just like Sam's Club, whether you allow competition through the free market and allow people to buy their drugs in Canada and Europe and use competition for Lipitor and for other types of products, or whether you allow generics to come to the market in a speedier time to compete against the name brand, every principle in the free market was prevented.

We have a captive market in this country. We pay the most expensive prices. And the irony of ironies is that the American taxpayer through the R&D, Research and Development tax credit, subsidizes the research for the products that we buy, and we pay top dollar. That is why somebody has to do something about the $158 million, the three-quarters of a billion dollars, in 6 years, spent on behalf of an industry that has got the best government they can get for their resources they spend; 1,300 lobbyists working for the pharmaceutical industry; 2\1/2\ lobbyists for every Member of Congress.

When you are working on their legislation, if you work down the halls of Congress and you see a shadow, it is usually theirs, not yours. Three-quarters of a billion dollars in 6 years, $158 million last year alone.

It is estimated that the United States Congress, when it passed the prescription drug bill last Congress, that it resulted in an additional $150 billion over 10 years to the industry's profits. They know what they are doing. They know what they are getting for their money. They know what they are getting for their meals, for their lobbying, for their trips; but it is time that this Congress spoke up on behalf of the American people, the people that elected us, both the taxpayers and the senior citizens, and get them the types of medications they need at prices they can afford, and stand up to the lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry who are only representing their narrow interests and have lost sight of what we have to do to represent the American people.

Mr. Speaker, as people of many faiths around the world celebrate the historic election of Pope Benedict XVI, we look toward His Holiness for faith and inspiration in addressing today's challenges and opportunities for peace and progress.

News of the Pontiff's election was greeted with great enthusiasm by many in the Fifth Congressional District of Illinois, home to St. Benedict Parish on Chicago's Northwest side. The dedicated parishioners of St. Benedict are delighted that the Pope has selected the name of their patron saint and thus feel a special connection to him.

Since the sixth century, the Benedictine tradition reflected austerity and continuous pursuit of knowledge. These principles formed the cornerstone of Saint Benedict Parish, which was founded on the Northwest side of Chicago in 1902. The new parish was created to serve as an educational center for the area's burgeoning German Catholic population. Pope Benedict XVI, a longtime and learned university professor, has demonstrated a life-long commitment to excellence, wholly fitting the tradition of his namesake.

The Fifth District is also home to many people who share German ancestry with Pope Benedict XVI, who was born in Marktl am Inn, Germany. The parishioners of St. Benedict, St. Alphonsus and others have reason to be proud of the first Pope of German ancestry in nearly a millennium.

Pope Benedict XVI is endowed with great vision, intellect, and knowledge of the Church's rich history and tradition. He is further blessed by long service and loyalty to His Holiness, the late Pope John Paul II, whose divine wisdom and charisma set a shining example of leadership and guidance for all who follow him.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the parishioners of St. Benedict, St. Alphonsus and indeed all of Chicago, I wish Pope Benedict XVI good health, longevity and success as the Bishop of Rome and leader of the Roman Catholic Church.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present in the chamber last night to cast my

vote on rollcalls 115 through 123. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all nine of those rollcalls.

Mr. Chairman, there is a simple test this energy bill should pass.

Is big oil going to see their largess before the American people see relief at the pump?

The answer's yes, and that's exactly what's wrong with this legislation.

It isn't a bill written for the benefit of the American people, but by high-priced lobbyists for the benefit of their high-priced clients.

The Energy Department says this bill doesn't lower gas prices. In fact, it could actually raise gas prices by 3 to 5 cents per gallon according to the Department's independent budget analysis.

Even President Bush said this bill subsidizes the oil and gas companies and that he would have written it differently.

The energy bill is supposed to provide this nation with a comprehensive energy policy, but what's written here is an $8 billion give-away to big oil.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the President said, ``I wish I could simply wave a magic wand and lower gas prices tomorrow.''

Well, Mr. President, I wish that I could wave a magic wand and get your administration and this Congress out of the pockets of big oil companies.

Then maybe we could begin the people's work.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the President said he would have written a different energy bill without the $8 billion in giveaways for the oil and gas companies. ``The President has made his views known, in terms of any incentives in the legislation, that oil and gas companies don't need any incentives when the price of oil is where it is right now.'' That is the President of the United States commenting on the legislation we are going to have before us. Imagine if we spent those $8 billion of taxpayer money on developing new energy-efficient cars or new types of cars that would make America free.

We have got to get rid of the old politics of special interest politics, writing legislation for special interests who give resources to campaigns, and start building a stronger America.

In addition to giving the big oil companies $8 billion of taxpayer money, imagine the oil rigs along the shores of Chicago, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, western Michigan. It is an unwelcome thought for 30 million Americans who get their daily drinking water from the Great Lakes. Drilling is currently banned on the Great Lakes, but this bill would change the law from today's outright ban.

Last night, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and I offered a bipartisan amendment to permanently extend the ban on drilling in the Great Lakes.

Consequently, this bill places the Great Lakes directly in harm's way. Imagine those oil rigs. Now imagine an oil spill closing the beaches and endangering drinking water.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

THE SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?