Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in memory of my good friend, and a pillar of our Washington community, L.B. ``Bud'' Doggett, Jr. Bud died last month, while Congress was out of session, but I want to take this moment to note how dearly he will be missed, and how many will miss him.

Bud was one of Washington's most successful businessmen, who turned a small parking company founded by his parents into a local business powerhouse. But he was far from content to simply enjoy his success; instead, he made himself into a vital civic leader, contributing immeasurably to Washington's development into a world-class city. Bud was born here in the District, and he always said he never crossed ``the Potomac Ocean'' unless absolutely necessary. Everyone who lives here is a beneficiary of his dedication to his hometown.

But to Bud, leadership meant service as much as it meant power. He learned the spirit of service in the European Theater of World War II, and he put it to work back home. Perhaps his most lasting accomplishment was the foundation of Heroes Inc., a charity that for the last 45 years has provided for the families of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty. As his wife, Cherrie Wanner Doggett, said at his funeral: ``What he most loved was watching his friends and the people he loved being happy. His pleasure in life was doing for others--especially when he knew he was helping someone who could never give him anything in return.''

Our community was blessed to have a servant-leader like Bud Doggett, for so long. He will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, Senator Moynihan once said, ``You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.''

The dominant political fact of the last 8 years has been Republican failure, serial governing malpractice. This month, we will be holding them to account.

There ought to be a heavy cost for 2.5 million lost jobs; for 5 million more of our fellow citizens thrust into poverty; for stagnating wages; for skyrocketing costs of essentials; for 8.6 million more Americans uninsured; for surpluses turned into record deficits; for an America whose respect has been reduced around the world; for foreign borrowing that has exceeded the total racked up under the first 42 Presidents combined. All of that happened under the grip of Republican ideology. Eight years in the White House, 6 years with all the levers of power, and after all that, they suggest more of the same.

Every time they try to change the subject, every time they pretend to be agents of change, we will answer with the simple facts of failure. We have faith in the facts. We will stake an election on that faith. And when we win, we will govern secure in that faith.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 398, 110th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I must say to my friend on the other side of the aisle, I believe it's never the wrong time to do the right thing, and this is the right thing.

My friend mentions trial lawyers. Trial lawyers are in the business of redressing grievances. Juries and judges are in the business of deciding whether the grievance deserves redress, not trial lawyers. Trial lawyers raise the issue. Judgments are not given by trial lawyers, but by judges and juries.

Equal pay for equal work. When we put the principle as bluntly as that, I doubt that anyone in America would disagree. It's a basic ideal of fairness. Is there a woman on this floor that believes they ought to be paid less than the men that do exactly the same kind of work? And I would suggest the answer to that is no, whether they're staffers or Members. I hope there is not a female page who watches these proceedings that believes that they are less valuable than the male pages that serve this House. They are equally valued, irrespective of gender.

The value of work lies in a job well done, not in the gender of the worker; but within my lifetime, it was a radical notion. For decades, it was perfectly acceptable for women to earn less simply because they were women.

We celebrated the 60th anniversary of the integration of the Armed Forces just a few days ago. Colin Powell spoke, and he indicated that he was too small to really remember the ramifications of that executive order, but he said to himself, how strange it would seem today to think that men and women would be segregated by unit and by housing because of the color of their skin. It is equally wrong to make distinctions of gender in payment for services.

Thanks to the hard work of generations of women advocates, we've closed that gap from 61 cents back in 1963 to 77 cents on the dollar today. Being 77 percent right is not enough, we need to be 100 percent right. We need to pay dollar for dollar for work performed.

In fact, it depends on staying hidden, it depends on keeping women in the dark. Because, of course, it's against the law not to pay equally, but if you don't know that you're being discriminated against, how can your grievances be redressed? In fact, the Constitution of the United States says, as all of us know, that Americans are guaranteed the right to petition the Congress of the United States for redress of grievances, and yet we keep people in the dark as to whether or not, in fact, they are aggrieved.

By now, we have all heard about the Lilly Ledbetter case. Ms. Ledbetter was a supervisor at a tire plant in Alabama, and for years she was paid less than her male coworker. I would be interested if any Member of this House is prepared to come to this well or stand at one of these microphones and say it was right to pay a supervisor that was a woman less than a supervisor who was a man. And if you do come to this well and say that, I look forward to debating you on that issue.

But Lilly Ledbetter had no way of knowing that she was being paid differently. She didn't know the truth. And by the time she found out, years after the discrimination began, the court said it was too late, time had run, statute of limitations gone, insurance run out. She didn't have the right to redress her justifiable grievance.

Her case is hardly unique. Justice Ginsburg has written that ``comparative pay information is often hidden from the employee's view.'' In many workplaces, merely asking a coworker about his or her pay is a firing offense. Far from protecting privacy, rules like that can protect an employer's power to discriminate.

And should we say, well, I know the employer discriminated, but we don't want to have a lawyer take that case because, after all, we don't like lawyers, they bring to our attention wrongdoing, they ask for redress of grievances, they petition the jury and the court; this is wrong. You know, a famous individual from my State, Justice Thurgood Marshall, did that. He was a trial lawyer. And he petitioned the court and said, it is wrong to segregate blacks and whites, it is wrong to give secondary education to African Americans, just as lawyers come and say it's wrong to discriminate on gender as opposed to quality of work.

In many workplaces, as I've said, merely asking a coworker about his or her pay is a firing offense. That's why this bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, is so necessary. It is time to do the right thing. It may be too late for some, but it's the right time for many.

It amends the Equal Pay Act to bar retaliation against employees who share or inquire about pay information. It strengthens sanctions against discriminatory employers--which have not been adjusted for 17 years. It clarifies acceptable reasons for differences in pay related to factors other than gender. And it authorizes additional training for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission staff to better identify and handle wage disputes.

I want to recognize my colleague Congresswoman DeLauro for working so hard for so long and so passionately to bring this bill to the floor.

I urge all of my colleagues to support it. It's the right time. It's the right place. It's the right time.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I know that all of you are concerned about the schedule. There was some hope that we would be able to get out late tonight. We have been unable to reach an accord on unanimous consent on the adjournment resolution. As you know, the Senate has not passed an adjournment resolution. As a result of that, we will be here tomorrow. So we are going to proceed in the following way: We will have no further votes tonight. I have discussed that with the minority, and they are not going to be asking for votes on amendments, and so we will be having no further votes tonight.

We will meet tomorrow at 9. We will be considering whatever amendments and the Military Construction and Veterans bill, we will vote on that. We will then have a rule on the adjournment resolution, and that will be the balance of our business.

It is my hope, again, not knowing what might transpire during the course

of the day, that we would be able to complete the business that will be before us before 1 o'clock tomorrow, perhaps earlier, again, depending upon how many votes we have and what action is taken on the floor. I wanted all the Members to know that.

I yield to the Republican Whip.

Exactly.

There are two votes apparently left.

That is correct.

I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

I thank the gentleman, not only for his announcement, but for the hard work of he and his committee.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is not a sham. And I would say to the leader, as he knows, he had an opportunity to vote on a DRILL Bill, Drill Responsibly in Currently Leased Land. He voted against that bill. A number of people in this Chamber voted against that bill. What that said is let's produce more product here in America.

What this bill says is, let's make sure that prices aren't being driven up artificially. No more, no less.

This summer the Democratic majority in this body has produced bill after bill after bill to address record oil prices that have exploded on this administration's watch. $1.46 to over $4 during the 7\1/2\ years of this administration.

Every one of us here, Democrats and Republicans, acknowledge that curbing our Nation's addiction to foreign oil, which is how President Bush himself characterized the situation, requires short-term solutions, and long-term strategy. And thus, this body has considered a bill that would increase production of more bio fuels here at home, and a second to incentivize the use of nonfood commodities to meet that goal. The chairman has been a leader in that effort, Chairman Peterson, along with Mr. Goodlatte. Appreciate both of their leadership.

We have considered a bill to hold OPEC accountable for price fixing, bills to address retail and wholesale price gouging, a bill to crack down on energy market manipulation, a bill to increase supply by suspending shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and then another one to release oil from the Reserve; a bill to expedite the production of 10.6 billion barrels of Alaskan oil, to keep all oil produced in Alaska as well in the United States, and encourage diligent development of existing leases on Federal lands.

I tell my friends on the Republican side, when I use that phrase, ``diligent development'' that is lifted from their 2005 bill. We said ``use it or lose it,'' which was essentially the same thing, and they voted against it.

We have also considered a bill to bring down commuter rail and bus fares, and a bill to provide tax credits for renewable and alternative energy.

None of these bills, none of these bills, alone is a panacea. We all recognize that. And we all recognize that there will be no immediate solution.

But all of them, together, constitute a vital step towards confronting our oil dependency and our energy independence.

Many of these Democratic energy initiatives have passed the House. Some have become law. However, unfortunately, some have been blocked by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who seem to have one answer and one answer only to America's energy crisis, drill in places that are not now authorized.

I want to remind my colleagues there are currently some 88 million acres available for drilling. Experts tell us there are 107 billion barrels of oil available under those acres. We use, that would be a 14\1/2\ year supply. And what we have said is, pursue that. Drill. Produce that energy here in America for our use here in America.

Unfortunately, that bill was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the Republican Party. It is ironic, but Democrats generally agree with our Republican friends that increasing domestic production of our energy sources is critical. Both sides agree that we ought to get more energy from America. We agree that we ought to get more oil from America.

And unfortunately, when some of my Republican colleagues speak, they say, Democrats don't want to drill. That is absolutely not true, false, a misrepresentation said, in my opinion, for political purposes to accomplish an objective for politics, not for policy or for energy independence.

We must drill more, but we believe the oil companies which today have 68 million acres of land to drill on that is leased and open for drilling, must drill there first. Let's see if it is available there. If it is not, well perhaps let's look at alternatives.

In total, there are 311 million acres available for drilling, including 20 million in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. If they are serious about domestic production, they should be bringing these resources to market that we have leased in the public trust to produce oil and gas for the American people.

Today, I'm hopeful that Members on both sides of the aisle will again come together and support this legislation.

I want to congratulate Chairman Peterson. Chairman Peterson has had some of the biggest challenges in this year in the Congress of the United States, last year as well. The farm bill went a long period of time. The farm bill--which had significant energy components in it--and this bill, the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act. This bill is designed to control the market speculation that is artificially inflating the price of gas.

Among other things, this bill builds upon what we did in the farm bill, and closes overseas loopholes that allow speculation to go on unregulated; increases market transparency with strict reporting standards for traders; sets position limits to prevent individual speculators from dominating the market; and strengthens the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is operating at its lowest ever staffing levels.

I tell my friends on both sides of the aisle if you take the referee off the field, the players are going to take an unfair advantage. You take the referees off the field, I guarantee the split ends are going to start down the field before the ball is hiked because he wants to get that advantage.

We've taken the referees off the field. This bill tries to put the referees back on the field. Even as trading volumes have increased 8,000 times since the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was first established--8,000 times--we have decreased their number of employees, their number of referees, if you will. Expert economists agree that unchecked, unregulated speculation is inflating the oil bubble and costing American consumers billions at the pump.

I urge my colleagues not for political reasons but for reasons of giving relief to our constituents, men and women trying to support their families who drive up to the pump and say to themselves, ``I can't afford this. I have got

to spend it but I can't afford it,'' let's put a stop to out-of-control speculation in the oil markets that is fueling this run-up in the cost of petroleum and harming consumers and the economy. Let's come together, as we have before, and pass this important energy legislation.

I have said something about Mr. Peterson. I want to say something about Mr. Goodlatte. I want to congratulate him for working together with Mr. Peterson to come up with a bill that can have bipartisan support, a bill which tries to effect reasonable, measured policy. I congratulate them both on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. It is not the only answer, but it is one of the pieces of the puzzle that we need to solve for all of our people.

Madam Speaker, every morning when I go in to work, I pass by a plaque honoring Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut on the spot where they were killed, 10 years ago today. It's a quiet hallway today: Down the hall you can hear the sounds of visitors to the Capitol, and a few feet away, the work of the Majority Leader's Office goes on every day.

What a shock to think that that hallway could be filled with gunshots and blood--to know that our Capitol, the most sacred space in our democracy, could be filled with violence. But what a saving grace to know that, every day, we are surrounded by brave men and women who will stand in the way of violence, even at the cost of their own lives. Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut died doing just about the most worthwhile thing one human being can do for another: shielding the vulnerable--and yes, that includes every single one of us in this Chamber.

Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut deserve every tribute they've been given: lying in honor under the Capitol dome; yesterday's words dedicated to their memory; today's moment of silence. But we know that what they did, every member of the Capitol Police--and every law enforcement officer--stands ready to do. We honor Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut not because they were unique in their sacrifice, but because their willingness to sacrifice was so typical--typical of all the best in those who wear the badge.

Edmund Burke wrote that ``Good order is the foundation of all things.'' It is certainly the foundation of everything that happens in this building. Let us thank those men and women who risk their lives to give us order, safety, freedom from fear. And let us keep their families in our thoughts, today and every day--especially their wives, Evelyn Gibson and Wendy Wenling Chestnut.

Without such brave officers, the work of this building--and the work of our democracy--wouldn't last a day.

The Speaker has just made an announcement about two of those who served our democracy and our country and who served this Capitol. Every morning when I come into work, I pass by a plaque honoring Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut on the spot where they were murdered 10 years ago this very day.

It's a quiet hallway now. Down the hall you can hear the sounds of visitors to the Capitol; a few feet away the work of the majority leader's office goes on every day. John Gibson lost his life in the hallway that is in my office that was then the office of the majority leader Tom DeLay. What a shock to think that that hallway could be filled with gunshots and blood, to know that our Capitol, the most sacred space in our democracy, could be filled with violence. But what a saving grace to know that every day we are surrounded by brave men and women who will stand in the way of violence even at the cost of their own lives.

Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut died in the defense of our democracy just as surely as those in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other trouble spots of the world.

Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut deserve every tribute they've been given: Lying in honor under the Capitol dome; yesterday's words dedicated to their memory; today's moment of silence at 3:40. But we know that what they did, every member of the Capitol Police and every law enforcement officer throughout our land stands ready to do as they rise in the morning and put on a badge, either on their uniform or in their wallet or on their hip, and they attach a gun, perhaps, as well, prepared to defend and keep the peace.

We honor Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut not because they were unique in their sacrifice, which, however, they were, but because their willingness to sacrifice was so typical, typical of all of the best in those who wear the badge.

Edmund Burke wrote that ``Good order is the foundation of all things.'' It is certainly the foundation of everything that happens in this building. Without peace and good order, democracy could not survive.

Let us thank those men and women who risk their lives to give us order, safety, freedom from fear, and let us keep their families in our thoughts today and every day.

God blesses America with men and women ready to defend our freedom, our country, and our Capitol. Without them, the work of this Capitol and the work of our democracy would not prevail. We thank their families, we remember them this day, and may God grant them continued peace.

Mr. Speaker, five years ago, the United States made an unprecedented commitment to the people of the world who suffer from HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. We pledged $15 billion--and with that funding, we have: Provided life-saving drugs to almost 1.5 million people; funded care for over 2 million orphans and vulnerable children; and provided mother-to-child transmission prevention services during more than 6 million pregnancies.

For millions, HIV/AIDS has been transformed from a death sentence to a manageable condition--and Congress has played a very real role in making that happen. On this issue, our moral obligation and our self- interest speak with one voice. Not only do we have the opportunity to save millions of lives--failing to do so will help proliferate disease and instability, spreading bloodshed across borders.

Today, with the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde Global LeadershipAgainst HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act, we raise our commitment to eradicating those diseases to a total of $48 billion. In addition to expanding our prior efforts, this carefully negotiated legislation will:

Strengthen HIV -related health care delivery systems and increase health workforce capacities;

Foster stronger relationships between HIV/AIDS initiatives and other support programs, including those that promote better nutrition and education;

Allow HIV/AIDS testing and counseling to be provided as part of the U.S. bilateral family planning program; and

Enhance prevention and treatment programs targeting women and girls.

This bill also eliminates a requirement that \1/3\ of prevention funds be spent on abstinence--a requirement that has proven ineffective. Instead, we have directed the Administration to create a ``balanced'' approach, requiring behavioral change programs to receive 50 percent of the funds devoted to the prevention of sexual transmission of HIV. In the face of the AIDS pandemic, this bill will show the world, unambiguously, that America accepts its obligation to act.

Last year alone, 2.5 million people contracted HIV--roughly 6,800 every single day. And last year alone, 2.1 million AIDS victims were added to the rolls of the dead. We are confronting a scourge far too pressing, far too powerful, to be made the object of political inaction. We have rarely faced a greater global challenge. We have rarely needed a greater global solution.

I want to thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee for her hard work to shape that solution. But most of all, I want to honor Tom Lantos. This bill, in many ways, was the culmination of his career, his lifetime of service. I wish he could be here to see it. But how perfect that Tom's work, which began in the fight against tyranny in his homeland, expanded to encompass the whole world, and the world's struggle against the tyrannies of disease and poverty.

Chastened by the vast challenge of AIDS--but inspired by Tom's example, and Henry Hyde's, as well--let us come together across the aisle and join the struggle with all the force America can muster. Let us pass this bill.

I thank my friend, the Republican whip.

On Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session at 11 a.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow, as is the custom.

I tell the Members that we will also consider the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs fiscal 2009 appropriations bill; H.R. 1338 the Paycheck Fairness Act; additional energy legislation; and any conference report available, possibly including the Higher Education conference report, the Amtrak conference report and the Consumer Product Safety Commission conference report.

We expect it to be an open rule, but we do expect to ask that amendments be prefiled so that Members will have notice of amendments.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Our thought is that both sides should have notice of what amendments are going to be considered, that all Members have notice of what is going to be considered. Obviously, there is no constraint on what amendment somebody might want to offer, but we believe that it would be helpful if Members had notice of what the substance of the amendments are so they can, if they want to support it, support it on the floor, if they want to oppose it, have the opportunity to come here and do so. But I think it will be our intention to ask that there be a notice requirement without restriction on the amendments that are asked but simply to give notice as to what the amendments are going to be.

Thank you for yielding.

I would certainly anticipate more appropriations legislation coming to the floor in September, yes.

We have a number of pieces of legislation that are obviously pending. First of all, we are very hopeful that we will pass the extenders legislation which we sent to the Senate some, actually months ago, a couple of months ago, I think, which, as you know, ensures tax credits for alternative energy. Wind is particularly important. Boone Pickens was here, as you know, on the Hill talking to both Democrats and Republicans, the importance of that. Others have talked about that as well. As you know, they're trying to dispose of some of the ``Coburn holds'' as we call them. Some of those may be back. Obviously we will have to consider a funding resolution for government after we leave. My expectation is that will be a point of business. We're also talking about obviously, as you have read in the paper, and as I think, I'm not sure you and I have talked about a jobs bill and some continuing economic assistance to make sure our economy hopefully grows and does not certainly fall any deeper into recession. Those are some of the pieces of legislation.

I have mentioned some of the things that we hope to get from conference next week, mental health parity being one of those, higher education, the consumer products safety. Hopefully many of those may be dealt with next week. But if they were not, it is my expectation we would do those in September as well.

So those are some of the major things that I foresee for September. What we will have done next week obviously won't be on September, but if we haven't done them we will try to get them done in September.

As you know, we have considered a number of pieces of legislation which we were hopeful would move us in the direction of, A, producing more domestic energy through encouraging further drilling in those leaseholds already available, approximately 88 million acres that are currently available. We considered the Consumer Energy Supply Act today. Unfortunately, that didn't get sufficient votes. It got a lot of votes. It got a significant majority of the House. It did not get the two-thirds so we could move it to the Senate. We considered the DRILL Act which also received a majority of the votes which provided for both the 10.4 million acres in Alaska and the National Petroleum Reserve to be encouraged to be moved forward as quickly as possible to drill in that area, produce oil and petroleum in that area, which also encouraged, as you recall, the building of additional pipelines, both for natural gas and for petroleum products.

Next week, we will be considering--many people are very concerned about the fact that the price spikes which don't seem to go down consistent with the price of oil by the barrel, which has reduced significantly, but the gasoline price hasn't reduced. There is significant concern about the impact of speculation. We are going to consider that bill, I think, next week, as I indicated.

You say you have introduced this bill. I'm sure it will go to the committee. I haven't seen the bill. I will certainly talk to the various chairmen. I don't know how many committees will have jurisdiction over the bill. You say it's a comprehensive bill, maybe multijurisdictional, but I will certainly talk to the Chairs about the substance of the bill.

Let me say, the American public is obviously very concerned. Our position is we ought to drill. We ought to drill where we've given leases that exist.

Your position essentially is, well, that is fine, but there are other places where we could drill as well. We believe that is accurate as well. It's been very controversial. As you know, Governor Schwarzenegger, the Republican Governor of California, is not too interested in proceeding with drilling off his shore. There are differences of opinion. We really do believe that we ought to drill, we ought to drill now and we ought to drill where there is not controversy and where we do have leases. I think that is the difference between us, apparently, not that any of us oppose drilling. It is where you drill first. If that proves, from my perspective, not to be fruitful, then perhaps at that time we ought to look at alternatives. But the President, of course, has indicated and made it very clear that he believes wherever you drill is not going to make a substantial difference in the next 5 to 10 years.

So we believe we ought to start drilling right now so that we can move ahead as soon as possible. There are 107 billion barrels currently speculated to be in the identified areas of that 88 million acres to be available. We use about 21 million a day, about 14 billion a year. That is a pretty good supply, about 7\1/2\ years of supply. We would hope we would move ahead on that. But we haven't done that yet. We understand that.

But we ought to have a legitimate debate on it. I think all of us want to get to the same place--energy independence for our country and the use of alternative and renewable energy sources to not only help our energy supply but also help our environment. So I will certainly encourage the committee to look at that bill.

Will my friend yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

As my friend clearly knows, as you know, we've been operating under two moratoria: One has been the executive moratorium which was just lifted which was placed on by the first President Bush. As you know as well in the Interior bill year after year in the 6 years your party was in charge and then last year in the Interior bill, that moratorium was continued. So under both parties, Governor Schwarzenegger, Governor Bush of Florida, both very, very strong proponents effectively of not drilling off their shores. So this is not a Republican-Democratic difference. In fact, both parties were supporting--I presume, I don't want to speak for your party--our party was supporting drilling where we have current leases.

I would disagree with my friend, and we may disagree on the definition of deep water. They are drilling now in the Gulf of Mexico, as you know, at depths of 1,000 feet. Additionally, there are 33 million acres available in the gulf now on the Outer Continental Shelf and available for drilling right now.

I would say further to my friend, if you wanted to drill tomorrow anywhere, there is not a drill available in the world. Now my presumption is there is not a drill available in the world that is not being used because they are pretty pricey items and you can make a pretty good profit providing those drills. My presumption is that people have not requested those drills be made available and have not asked to purchase them. As you heard me say, Exxon made $40 billion. These drills are pretty expensive items, and they bought no drills with that $40 billion.

So as a practical matter, tomorrow, if everything were available, there would be no drilling because there are no drills available. My presumption is that the oil companies believe there is sufficient supply available. There are no lines at any of the gas stations that I go to. I have not seen any gas lines. I am old enough, I know you're not, but I'm old enough to remember the lines in the 1970s. They were long. That was an artificially created shortage by OPEC, as you recall. But notwithstanding that, I don't see any lines. I don't see any shortage of product available. What I see is a healthy price at the pump. And in my opinion, when you get more supply, the price comes down. I think some people are pretty happy with the price. None of my consumers are happy with the price. None of the people who pull up to the pumps in my district are happy with the price, but I can't believe that the oil companies are unhappy about the price. I don't see them complaining about their high profits.

So when you say if we could drill in the deep water, I don't know what you mean by deep water. It could be more than 1,000 feet which is where we are drilling now in some places in the Gulf of Mexico. But we do have 33 million acres available on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico available for drilling right now. And if the drills were available and the inclination were available, I would hope that the companies would pursue, either the large companies or small companies. The problem with small companies is that it is a very expensive proposition, as the gentleman knows.

We agreed with your premise, and we offered a bill to have that happen, and it was Use It or Lose It which said we have 107 billion barrels identified, speculated to be available on presently held leases, a 14-year supply in the United States of America. And what we wanted to direct the administration to do was start leasing that land right now because we agreed with your premise that the psychological effect would be that those who have the petroleum and are frankly selling it very dear, and many of our consumers are being really hurt, we understand that, our premise was either by drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve now or drilling in the 68 million acres available in the lower 48, including 33 million in the gulf now, that it would have exactly the effect that you projected.

Unfortunately, we also believe that releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which in 1991 and two other years, I don't have the exact years, we have done it three times, including once under this administration after Hurricane Katrina, in 1991 price went down 33 percent. It went down less when SPR was released after Hurricane Katrina.

Our view is you are correct. Psychologically, that would have a real effect on the market. Unfortunately, we couldn't pass that. We wanted to pass it as quickly as possible. How do you pass something as quickly as possible? You put it on suspension and give it to the Senate. Unfortunately, large numbers on your side of the aisle determined that was not a policy that they wanted to pursue. So they had no psychological effect, which we thought would have been, as you do, a psychological effect and may well have had an immediate impact on pricing by the barrel, and hopefully then would be converted to price at the pump.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Monday next; and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 29, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.

Frequently I rise in support of a bill and congratulate the chairman. It is always warranted to do that; but in this case, it is particularly warranted. No Member has worked harder or longer in a more complex context than has Chairman Frank, working with Secretary Paulson of the administration, with Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bachus, and Mr. Shelby. While I know there may not be full agreement, I know there has been the opportunity to work together. I want to congratulate Mr. Frank who has been lionized in the press, properly so, for his expertise on the subject matter and for his political skill in bringing this matter to the floor today in a fashion that will see its passage.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to economics, none of us, none of us is an island. Our prosperity is always, and always will be, bound up with the prosperity of our neighbors. And nothing has proved that more than the mortgage crisis that is rocking our economy today.

Yes, it has reached to the heights of Wall Street to threaten huge banks and the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But the crisis began close to home. It began with millions of families who have seen their subprime mortgage rates jump out of reach, sometimes because they didn't understand the repercussions but often because they were misled by unscrupulous, unregulated lenders. The consequences will be felt close to home.

Home prices are set to decline for the second year running, the first time that has happened since the Great Depression. And communities are facing a vicious cycle of foreclosures, falling property values, declining property tax collections, cutbacks in city services, rising crime, and more foreclosures. The American public rightfully expects us to act. So the bill that we debate today isn't simply about helping hundreds of thousands of Americans keep their homes, as vital as that objective is. It's about stabilizing an entire economy.

We have talked about a stimulus bill. This is a very important component of the stimulus of our economy. As Fed Chairman Bernanke put it: ``Doing what we can to avoid preventable foreclosures is not just in the interest of lenders and borrowers. It's in everybody's interest.'' It's in our economy's interest.

I couldn't agree with him more. And that's why I'm proud to stand in support of this Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act.

This legislation will enable at least 400,000 homeowners, that's 400,000 families, to refinance their homes, switching from risky subprime mortgages to safer loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration.

Now, it's not about a bailout. Lenders will have to take losses, and borrowers must agree to share with the government any profit from the resale of a refinanced home. That's right, it's appropriate, and this bill contains it.

The bill also helps stabilize communities that are reeling from foreclosures and declining property values by helping States and cities buy up foreclosed properties. Not just will the homes in question be bought up. Entire neighborhoods will be protected.

Furthermore, this bill creates a strong, independent regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I have observed often that one of the problems in our economy has been that over the last 7\1/2\ years, we have taken the referee off the field. This bill reinstates a vigorous referee.

It also gives the Treasury Department temporary authority to extend credit to the GSEs, should they require it. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that there is ``probably better than a 50 percent chance,'' and I quoted that, that this authority will not be used. But even if it is not, this bill will go a long way toward shoring up confidence in our financial markets.

Mr. Speaker, there is barely a Member in this body whose constituents have not felt the pain of the housing crisis, whether the personal crisis of losing a home or the ripple effect set off by each foreclosure. The needs of our constituents outweigh the demands of ideology. That's always true, of course, but at moments like this, we feel that truth more acutely than usual.

So I hope that my colleagues will put partisanship aside and do the right thing for our economy, for our neighbors, and for our country.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me read the Statement of Administration Policy. One of the things I want to congratulate Mr. Frank and Secretary Paulson on is the bipartisan way in which they have worked on a daily basis. I know they have talked daily. I have talked to Secretary Paulson, I think, weekly. But on a daily basis to make sure that we had a bipartisan administration-Congress response to the crisis that confronts us. I read from the Statement of Administration Policy, which is dated July 23, at 12:25, just a few hours ago. I know all my colleagues will want to listen intently to what the administration says we ought to be doing:

`` . . . the temporary Treasury authorities and GSE reform provisions are too important to the stability of our Nation's housing market, financial system, and the broader economy not to be enacted immediately. For these reasons the administration supports passage of H.R. 3221, as amended.''

America will be pleased when, in a bipartisan way, the administration and Congress act together to face a crisis confronting our citizens and our country. I urge my colleagues to vote for this critically important piece of legislation.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his leadership, and I thank Mr. Hoekstra for his excellent idea.

As you will recall on the floor, I indicated we would adopt it immediately on the spot if he would agree to a unanimous consent request to strike the ``promptly'' and insert ``forthwith'' so that we would not, in adopting Mr. Hoekstra's good idea, kill the bill. He rejected that idea, at which point in time I made the representation that we will introduce that bill as a suspension and bring it to the floor next week.

I tell my friend, that is exactly what we have done. Mr. Hoekstra made a determination, very frankly from my perspective, that he was more interested in trying to politically put some people on the hook for a vote on a proposition that he knew and we knew they were for but they did not want to kill the Intelligence bill in the process.

Now people will say it doesn't kill the bill, that is accurate, but it clearly delays the bill. There was no reason to delay the bill because had Mr. Hoekstra agreed, contrary to the advice he was receiving, to yes, I will strike ``promptly,'' insert ``forthwith'' so that my proposition can be adopted immediately, which would have been the case.

So I think any criticism of sinking to a new low, very frankly, if politics had not been played with this proposition, it would be on the authorization bill to the Senate as we speak. This proposition, which Mr. Hoekstra came up with, as you recall I said on the floor, we think this is a good idea. Proving that we thought it was a good idea, we have brought it to the floor today for passage.

Mr. Hoekstra, who I now see is on the floor, made a determination he did not want to adopt, in the way that we suggested, his proposition last week. So we are going to adopt it this week.

I would hope that all of us would vote for it, because, as I told Mr. Hoekstra then and believe now, Mr. Hoekstra's idea was a good idea. It is a good idea. We are going to pass it, hopefully, tomorrow morning by an overwhelming majority vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank him for bringing this bill to the floor.

Drill Responsibly In Leased Lands. The assertion was that Democrats are not for drilling. This gives lie to that assertion. This says, as we have been saying, there are 88 million acres available for drilling right now. Those acres are subject to lawsuit, my friend says. Any acreage would be subject to lawsuits. This acreage is subject to the availability of drills. Black and Decker or otherwise. What an absurd, I say to my friend, assertion. There are no drills available currently to drill in new lands here or other places.

The minority leader, I presume, is going to be speaking in some few minutes. He said this: ``They're,'' meaning the Democrats, ``offering excuses designed to get people thinking about something other than drilling. They worship at the altar of radical environmentalists.''

This is, of course, the crowd that said global warming didn't exist until just a few months ago. This is the crowd that has been in charge of the White House for the last 7\1/2\ years.

The gentleman from New Mexico says, Gee whiz, let's bring the price of gasoline down.

They had an energy policy which they came up with under Dick Cheney. Some people say it failed. I'm not sure the oil companies thought it failed. It was $1.46 when they brought up the policy. It's now $4 at the pump. The oil companies are making the biggest profits they've made in their history.

The assertion Mr. Boehner made is, as I said again, that we worship at the altar of radical environmentalists. Let me quote one of those radical environmentalists: ``I have been an oilman my whole life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of.'' That radical environmentalist's name is T. Boone Pickens, and as he said earlier in that statement, ``I have been an oilman all my life.'' He understands very well what can and cannot be done.

This bill says let's drill. Let's get American product to American consumers and try to bring down prices. We've also asked the SPR be released. Not all of it. Maintain most of it. Why? To bring prices down, to free the oil that Americans have bought for their use and to bring prices down. With Americans being pummeled by $4-a-gallon gas, it's high time that America did just that. With the passage of the DRILL bill, America will move decisively to increase its domestic oil production.

Now, ladies and gentlemen of the House, isn't it an ironic happenstance that the day before we put this bill on the floor, 24 hours before we put this bill on the floor and say let's drill in the National Petroleum Reserve, isn't it ironic that the White House announces they're going to do just that? My, my, my. What an awful idea we had--right up until the time 24 hours ago when the administration decided they would do it.

I'm glad they've done it. And if our actions spurred their action, so be it. And we're going to take credit. Because they've been in office 7\1/2\ years. They took it 24 hours ago. What was the reaction of the oil industry? They were happy.

Now, nobody is saying if you have land over here you have got to use it before you get land over here. What we're saying is you can't inventory land. You can't inventory acreage. You can't be a huge, rich oil company and want no competition and therefore inventory land. We're saying that. Yes, we are. We think that makes good sense for the American public.

Today we call their bluff, I think. Yesterday they saw us. And they said, we'll drill here.

Mr. Speaker, 68 million acres of American oil-producing land are sitting leased, available, and idle. There is even more land available for drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A, which we're dealing with today.

Combined, we are talking about an area the size of--and all my colleagues listening to this debate and anybody else who is listening to it, they ought to know currently what is available--the area of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and most of my own State, Maryland. That entire area is currently available for drilling, for getting American product to Americans.

Let's help the oil companies get that oil out of the ground and get it flowing to the Americans who need it. The DRILL bill speeds up the leasing process in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. It ensures that Alaskan oil will fill American gas tanks.

That is, I presume, why, when they knew this bill was coming to the floor, yesterday the administration said they were going to have this land leased. Yesterday. The American public is pretty smart. There's nobody I think that's hearing my voice, wherever they are, doubts that if they just did it yesterday, after being in office for 7\1/2\ years, then maybe, maybe, maybe there was a relationship between Chairman Rahall bringing this bill to the floor and the action yesterday to try to preclude the credit for doing what we think is good policy. Hopefully, we're all going to vote for good policy today and vote for this bill.

It calls upon the President to speed up the completion of the Alaskan oil and gas pipelines. That's what it does because we need those lines to get that oil and product, natural gas and oil, to market and to Americans.

``Drill on the leases you have, or let somebody else do it. But don't just sit on them while Americans are paying $4 a gallon. Use it or lose it.''

The gentleman says, well, they're not just sitting there; they're afraid of lawsuits. We may all be afraid of lawsuits. We may never drive our car because we're afraid of an accident or a lawsuit. That's not what they're in the business for, and very frankly, in terms of fear, when you're making the largest profit for a product, you go look for more, unless of course you want to keep the price high and supply down.

Why is our plan better than the Republicans'? One, it means more oil. The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which is already approved for drilling, has an estimated 10.6 billion barrels of oil. ANWR has 10.4 billion. And the information we have is the oil companies aren't too interested in drilling there.

Two, our plan means more oil, faster. Unlike ANWR and protected coastal areas, NPR-A plus the 68 million leased acres elsewhere are currently approved for production.

And get this, right now, today, available pipelines reach to within 5 miles of the National Petroleum Reserve, and if the pipelines are completed soon, we will speed production up even more.

Third, I see no reason to give even more handouts of public land to companies enjoying record profits and billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies unless they are using that which they currently have. Inventorying land, inventorying acreage, inventorying possible oil supplies is not what the American people want.

What the American people want is they want production. They want performance. They want prices to go down. That's why we say let's start on the land they already have. Let them eat their vegetables before they think about dessert.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Reclaiming my time, what the majority says is we've done seismic, we've had available 10-year leases to do the research on 68 million in the Lower 48. Thirty-three million of those are on the Outer Continental Shelf, and 20 million acres are in the Alaskan Petroleum Reserve.

What we are saying is, we have available now. You don't have to do the seismic. Presumably, that's what you've been doing on the 68 million acres. If you haven't been doing it, then let's release it and give it to somebody else who will because, as you point out, the seismics have not been done in other areas. They have been done here, presumably by people who already had available the leases.

I'll yield one more time, and then I want to finish my comments.

Reclaiming my time, what the American people want, they want to know why we're simply arguing that we ought to have more available when we haven't used what we now have available. That's what the American people want to know, and that's what this bill says, and that's what we're arguing.

Your argument, with all due respect, is not necessarily wrong, but it certainly is not a replacement for what we have provided here. Let's move ahead on that which is already authorized, and then we can certainly authorize more to see whether or not more is available.

Mr. Speaker, we have lived through 7\1/2\ years of Republican energy policy: plans put forth by Vice President Cheney, a bill passed in 2005--let me stress, a bill passed in 2005. Oil was approximately $2. Their plan was passed, passed through this House, passed through the Senate, sent to the President, he signed it. Three years later, the price of gasoline has doubled. It is a failed policy. We need a new policy. We need to make sure we use the land we have.

And that's why it's so ironic that just yesterday, I tell my friend from Louisiana, isn't it ironic that just yesterday the President made an announcement the day before this bill was going to be announced that he wanted, in October, to allow the leases to move forward on this land which we're talking about? He apparently agrees with the objectives of this bill.

With this responsible domestic production bill we can start today. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Let's use the resources that are available right now on leased lands. Drill responsibly in these leased lands. Let's keep America's oil in America. Vote for the DRILL bill. Let's make America more energy independent.

And before I close, let me reiterate what T. Boone Pickens said because the nub of this debate is not just about more oil. The nub of this debate and the nub of the failure in the past of perhaps all of us has been that we have not honestly said to the American public, the only way we will solve this problem, the only way we will become energy independent is to ensure a vigorous program of pursuing renewables so that we will have energy for the future, not just for today; for our children, not just for ourselves.

Vote for this DRILL bill. It is a responsible way forward.