Floor Statements

I thank the Republican whip for yielding. On Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session at 12:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 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. A complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 3999, the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act and H.R. 5501 the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008.

We will also consider legislation to address the housing crisis, H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Finally, we may also consider additional energy-related legislation.

We have not discussed that yet. We regret it, of course, that it didn't pass. But having said that, I'm sure there will be discussions as to what the next steps will be. But I am not prepared to announce what they will be, mainly because I'm not sure what they will be at this point in time. But we are still very interested in the proposition, as you know, that that legislation spoke to, and that is providing an accelerated exploration, discovery and exploitation of our energy here in the United States, drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, building a line to get not only the oil, but also natural gas down to the lower 48, and to ensure that companies aren't inventorying property on which either they or others might be producing energy for America.

So we believe the provisions of that bill are important. And I would think that we're going to be looking at ways in which we may move forward on that. But it has not been decided.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I agree with the Speaker that it is our intention to move the Defense bill. We think that is critically important to do. We think it's critically important to move the other bills as well.

I was having a discussion with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee during the last vote. I asked him about his discussions with Mr. Lewis to try to facilitate the consideration of appropriation bills. My belief is that they hadn't made as much progress as he had hoped to make, but with relation to the other bills, I will just reiterate what I have said, that I continue to talk to Mr. Obey about my hope that we can find a way to move appropriation bills to the floor if that is possible. But we have not gotten any scheduled at this point. We do intend to move certainly the Defense bill. The Speaker was accurate on that.

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 ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next; and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, for morning-hour debate.

Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Am I correct that if this was forthwith--you said it could be soon. If it was forthwith it could be done now, couldn't it?

I understand that. My question to the gentleman is, if it were forthwith, what you want done could be done right now, could it not?

I ask my friend the question again. If it was forthwith we could do what you want to do right now, could we not?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the word ``promptly'' be stricken and that the word ``forthwith'' be substituted in the motion to recommit.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, you heard me ask the question of Mr. Hoekstra. Wouldn't it be true that if he would use ``forthwith,'' what he wants to do could be accomplished right now? We would all support it. It is a worthy objective.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hoekstra, in the same motion where he says I want to do something says but I don't want to do it now; I am not sure when I want to do it.

I asked for unanimous consent, and I didn't get to do exactly what I think everybody in this House thinks is a good thing to do, and I will tell my friend we're going to do this. It's a good idea. But the advice you're getting is not good advice.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, ladies and gentlemen on my side of the aisle, this continues to be a political game. If you want to take my words down on that, you can do it. This is not accomplishing the objective.

This continues to be a pattern, and the American voters are pretty smart, and they understand when somebody says I want to do something, but by the way, I want to kill the vehicle at least temporarily that accomplishes my objective, at the same time, they think to themselves something is not right.

So, ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you. We're hopefully going to reject this motion, which sidetracks this important intelligence authorization bill, which everybody has said is an important bill, but I will tell you further, we're going to accomplish the objective of Mr. Hoekstra next week because it's a good objective.

But the fact of the matter is we could accomplish it right now if you didn't want to try to make some political point out of it on this intelligence bill, and you can say ``oh'' all you want. You can say ``oh'' all you want, but that is the truth and you know it. You know it in your heart, and you know it in your mind.

I urge my colleagues: reject this killing motion.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I thank the chairman for yielding and would observe, as I have before on this floor, that there is no Member of this House who has been involved any more deeply, any more passionately, any more effectively to protect, preserve, and expand the availability of health care to the American people more than my friend John Dingell, the chairman of the committee. I want to congratulate him. Not only has he done that, but his father before him did that as well.

Madam Speaker, last week we watched as Senator Ted Kennedy returned from the treatment of his brain cancer to cast his vote in favor of this vital Medicare bill. I don't have to tell you how many of us in both Chambers were moved to see that lifelong crusader for health care come back to cast one more vote for America's seniors.

With that as inspiration, the Senate joined the House in voting by overwhelming margins for legislation that would and does replace a 10.6 percent payment cut for thousands of doctors in Medicare with a 1.1 percent increase, a cut that would put at risk coverage and availability of doctors for our seniors. The bill extends expiring provisions and bonus payments critical to rural communities and providers. The bill expands the preventive services that are available to our seniors. The bill phases mental health parity into the Medicare program. And it improves protections and assistance programs for our low-income seniors, about whom all of us are concerned.

Three hundred and fifty-five of us in this House voted to pass this legislation. Three hundred and fifty-five in an overwhelming bipartisan vote which said this is good legislation, our people need it, and we're going to pass it. Sixty-nine Members of the United States Senate stood up and supported this piece of legislation. And I was pleased to see so many Republicans lining up with us. This is an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill as it was sent to the President of the United States.

Preventing these Medicare cuts isn't a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. It's an issue of protecting and preserving the health care that over 44 million seniors count on, depend on, and, yes, deserve. And our message to the President was unambiguous: We will stand with our seniors and our health care providers, our military families and our disabled. And when it comes to protecting and preserving the health care they depend on, we will put aside party politics and we will stand together. Three hundred and fifty-five of us, sixty-nine in the Senate.

Today President Bush decided that the overwhelming majority of the Congress was wrong. He will have to explain, however, to America's seniors why he was so willing to stand between them and their health care.

But, thankfully, we don't have to take ``no'' for an answer. Thankfully, the Constitution provides us with the ultimate policy- making authority. And I expect, hope, and urge that the 355 of us that stood for this legislation just a short time ago will do so again today, not in opposition to the President but as a proponent of legislation which seeks to solve a problem and to provide health care for our seniors.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to override this misguided veto. And with their support, this bill for our seniors will become law and they will be better for it.

Would the gentleman from North Carolina yield?

I want to rise and join my friend from North Carolina in recognizing my good friend. Howard Coble and I vote together about 1 or 2 percent of the time, I'm sure, but he has become a very dear and close friend of mine. Howard, I want to congratulate you on your service to your State and to your country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California (Mr. Schiff), congratulate Mr. Payne for his leadership on this effort, and Mr. Gohmert for his joining in bringing this legislation to the floor.

I come from the State of Maryland, and Thurgood Marshall is one of the great sons of our State. But I must tell you something that you will find, I think, ironic. If you go to the State capitol which is the oldest State capitol still in use as a State capitol in this country, and you look on the east front of the capitol and you walk out the front, there is a statue on the east front that overlooks the Annapolis harbor, and that statue is of a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from the State of Maryland. His name is Roger Brooke Taney, the author of the Dred Scott decision.

But if you walk out the door to the west and look out on Rowe Boulevard, there is another statue, another Justice, another son of Maryland; and that Justice is Thurgood Marshall.

I have always thought it somewhat ironic that juxtaposed in the Maryland State Capitol are these two justices, both of whom were learned, both of whom served their country, one of whom, however, whose judgment was skewed by the times in which he grew up, whose brilliance was diminished by his failure to see the promise of America, and another who--notwithstanding the fact that he was discriminated against and his people were discriminated against by a country that professed a promise of equal opportunity for all. Nevertheless, the love for his country rose above that segregated environment to preach the principles and to seek their reality.

Today we recall the life and legacy of one of America's champions of civil rights, Thurgood Marshall. Justice Marshall is, as I have said, one of Maryland's greatest sons.

If you come to my office and visit the majority leader's office, you will see, just outside of my door, six portraits of very distinguished Marylanders. One, the first President of the United States, John Hanson. Now, I know that George Washington was technically first President of the United States of America, but John Hanson was the first president of the Continental Congress. You will see others, signers of the Declaration of Independence, but there will be that picture just outside of my door of Thurgood Marshall, because of what he stood for and what his life stands for today.

Few lives were as consequential to the cause of American equality, and it's fitting that we pause the work of legislating and remember that life. Thurgood Marshall said that his life-long fascination with the Constitution began in grade school, when, as a punishment, interestingly, as a punishment, a teacher forced him to read it cover to cover. Even then he must have been struck by the gulf between that document's promise of equal protection and the reality of a segregated America, a gulf that turned that promise into a lie for millions of our citizens.

Thurgood Marshall spent his career working to restore that promise and dismantling the structures of segregation piece by piece. Nearly two decades before the famous case of Brown vs. Board of Education, he was at the forefront of a legal movement that aimed to chip away at discrimination through the courts.

His first victory was also in some ways his sweetest. He convinced the Maryland Court of Appeals to desegregate the University of Maryland law school 6 years after that very school had barred him on account of his race. Over the years to come, he rarely lost a case. In fact, he won 29 out of 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court.

Another famous Marylander and his wife, whom I know, is Speaker Jackson, himself a distinguished African American leader of a distinguished African American family. I know so well the Mitchell family, Clarence Mitchell, Jr., the NAACP's representative in Washington, known as the 100th Senator; and Juanita Jackson Mitchell, one of the first African Americans admitted to the University of Maryland law school.

Some of the credit must go to Thurgood Marshall and his legendary powers of persuasion. But credit, I think, also belongs to the powerful simplicity of his argument that separate can never be equal, that the Constitution belongs to Americans of all colors. His career as an advocate culminated with Brown, which overturned ``separate but equal,'' and it overturned it for good. Not only did it overturn it finally, but also for the good of our people.

Thurgood Marshall later distinguished himself as a Federal judge and a solicitor general before President Lyndon Johnson nominated him as America's first African American Supreme Court justice. President Johnson called the appointment, and I quote, ``The right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man, and the right place.''

Justice Marshall, of course, as we all know, proved him absolutely correct.

He served on the Court with distinction for almost a quarter of a century as one of its leading defenders of individual liberty and civil rights. Other civil rights leaders gave us inspiration, uplift and prophetic challenge. Thurgood Marshall added something to that contribution, dogged advocacy and the discipline of the law.

As a newspaper editorial put it at the time of his death, ``We make movies about Malcolm X, we get a holiday to honor Dr. Martin Luther King. But every day we live with the legacy of Justice Thurgood Marshall.'' Thurgood Marshall would be the first to acknowledge just how far America remains from the promise of equality, an equality that exists in fact, every bit as in law.

But he would be the last to be discouraged. He said that ``A child born to a black mother in a State like Mississippi, by merely drawing its first breath in the democracy has exactly the same right as a white baby born to the wealthiest person in the United States. It's not true, but I challenge anyone to say it's not a goal worth working for.''

The great thing that we remember about Thurgood Marshall, as I said at the beginning, is that confronted with segregation, confronted with racism, confronted with a negative reaction to his color, he, as so many civil rights leaders have done in the past, as Nelson Mandela did in South Africa, as so many other civil rights leaders throughout this world have done, he rose above the hate and the division to bring clarity to our Constitution and unity to our people.

How appropriate it is to remember Thurgood Marshall on the eve of his 100th year.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and work of a historic figure in my community, Mr. John Lancaster, who passed away on July 1st at the age of 90.

John Lancaster was a man of principle and deep devotion to his community. As the first elected African-American county commissioner in the history of St. Mary's County, Maryland, Mr. Lancaster was certainly a political trailblazer. Breaking that barrier was indeed astonishing. John believed that he was accountable to all in the community as he simply but eloquently once said ``I was a commissioner serving all people.''

Perhaps the most important issue to John was education. A local official in my community recently dubbed him as the ``education commissioner'' and many regarded him as a mentor in education policy. As commissioner, John could not sit idly as public schools were decaying in front of him. Today, because of his efforts and foresight, education is a very important issue in St. Mary's County, and students are learning in first class facilities.

John Lancaster was the personification of hard work and optimism. In face of discrimination he pressed forward. Mr. Lancaster will certainly be remembered as an example for those who dare to dream the impossible. I would like to offer my condolences to his loving family, as we mourn the loss of an extraordinary person.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I was in my office, as I have been over the days recently, where I see the distinguished minority leader rise, I see other Members on that side of the aisle rise, beat their chests about drilling. My side of the aisle is for drilling. We just had a press conference on drilling. But as I sit there, I think to myself, you know, the American people gave the opportunity to the Republican Party, the minority party now in the House of Representatives, to lead this country; and they gave them all of the power in Washington. They gave them the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the United States Senate. They did that in the year 2000. They had already given them the House, and two oil men were elected President and Vice President.

In January, the Vice President decided to have, and he had over the coming months in 2001, he convened a meeting, a secret meeting of those involved in the energy industry to adopt energy policies.

Now that meeting--the minority leader is now leaving, but we will see him later--that meeting perhaps resulted in success, I don't know. I don't know what the meeting was about.

But during the course of the Presidency of Bill Clinton, oil went from $1.06 to $1.46. A nickel a year, 5 cents per year was the increase in the cost of gasoline at the pump for Americans.

And then, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the Republicans came to town, all of town, and gas went from $1.46 in January 20, 2001, to over $4.10 on average throughout this country. Pretty stark. It now goes up from time to time 5 cents a day, where under Bill Clinton 5 cents a year.

And then the Republicans, 5 years later, adopted a bill, 2005, their energy policy. They were in control of the House, control of the Senate, and they had the Presidency. They passed that bill. Gas was then about $2.20. And they said we've adopted an energy policy--said it on the floor, said it when they signed the bill--we have done a bill now that's going to stabilize prices, going to make sure that Americans have energy supply. That's what they said. That's not what we said.

Now, ladies and gentlemen who are listening to this debate on this floor, I tell you that there are 68 million acres right now, right now available for leasing. You wring your hands and say, well, open up places for drilling. We've done that, friends. Look at the statistics, 68 million acres in the lower 48 and another 20 million acres, give or take a million, in Alaska.

They talk about a wildlife refuge that they want to drill in, but they don't talk about the 20 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve area in Alaska currently available. The administration could be pursuing leases on it. We may well have legislation to say, Administration, start moving, start drilling, start bringing product to the market so we'll bring prices down.

Now, of course, one of the aspects of bringing prices down, my friends, will be that the oil companies will make less profits. I know everybody in America believes that the oil companies want to get more products so they can bring prices down and make less profit. I know all Americans believe that's the way the system works.

The Republicans keep harping on drilling. We want to drill. We want to produce more American product. And by the way, we're going to bring legislation to the floor that's going to say when you drill, sell it here in the United States of America, keep our resources here in the United States of America.

I want to tell my friends, there are 88 million acres. And now, let me tell you something, 88 million acre, that's Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, and most of Maryland. Now, I know my friend from Texas thinks that's not much of an area of space, but I will bet everybody listening to this debate thinks that is a pretty large piece of property on which you can drill in America today. Why? Because we want to produce energy.

But I will tell you, one of the reasons we're in this pickle is because for a quarter of a century, for a quarter of a century that I've served in the Congress, a little more than that, the Republican Party has taken the position, no, we don't want to invest in alternatives, we don't want to see alternative energy sources developed.

And you can say it's not true as much as you want, I tell my friend, but the record reflects that has not been the priority. The priority has been, let's get more oil. We want to get more oil.

But I will tell you a country, as Boone Pickens said--I don't know whether you read Boone Pickens. He's one of the people who thinks that some of the policies you have been pursuing aren't too bad. He's not a Democrat. Here is what Boone Pickens said. The problem, of course, is our growing dependence on foreign oil. It's extreme, it's dangerous, and threatens future generations. And he says in this article in The Wall Street Journal, you are not going to drill yourself out of this hole that we've dug. He says, rightfully, that we need to see investments in alternatives.

Now, happily, last year when we took office, took control of the House and

the Senate, we adopted a bill, the President signed that bill, which looks to alternatives to complement the relatively small supply. America demands 25 percent of the energy resources in this world, and we have 3 percent of the petroleum supply. My friend the minority leader said he wasn't much of a mathematician, but you don't have to be much of a mathematician to know that if you're relying on that 3 percent, it's not going to be there very long.

So, yes, my friends, we need to find more domestic product. We need to drill where we now have authorized drilling to occur, and if that doesn't produce the resources that experts tell us are on that property, then I tell you this. Then we ought to look at other alternatives, and perhaps we ought to look at other alternatives now.

But for you to have a blind eye and pretend to the American people that somehow we're not allowing people to pursue drilling on our soil here in America and on the Outer Continental Shelf, I want you to know, that is currently authorized where drilling is not occurring, then you are misleading the American people. The American people ought to know: The Democrats want to make sure that we have more domestic product.

The Speaker has written a letter to the President just the other day saying, Mr. President, we have 773 million barrels of oil that are in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Mr. President, use some of those, as your father did, as Bill Clinton did, at a time of economic crisis to help our people, help our people get to work, help them get their kids to school, help them afford their other expenses.

So I tell my friends that we need to deal with this issue. We're going to deal with this issue. We're concerned about this issue, all 435 of us, but to hear day after day after day that somehow we, who came to office just 18 months ago, after an energy policy was conjured up by the Vice President and the White House and an energy bill was passed in 2005, that somehow, somehow what's happening now is our fault, the American public aren't buying that. Polls show that.

But I will tell you, that we can work together because we need to be energy independent. It's a national security objective, an economic security objective, and we also need to keep our environment from choking our children and generations to come.

We're committed to both of those objectives, and we will join with all those who want to do the same.

I thank my friend, the Republican Whip, for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning hour and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

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.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 415, a bill to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 5959, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009; H.R. 3999, the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act; and, we may also consider important energy-related legislation.

In response, if the gentleman would yield.

It is the same bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There is an extensive letter to all of our colleagues from Congressmen Frank, McGovern, Kennedy, Langevin, and Lynch.

I don't want to read the whole letter; but responding to the points in question, I am looking at the letter to see whether or not--one of the points they make is that notwithstanding this bill there are several barriers to this proposal going forward, that is the LNG plant. Killing the bill that would provide environmental benefits to people of our districts would in no way save the LNG plant from the rejection it has already received. The point being, and I have not read the entire letter, but that there are other impediments apparently to moving forward on that LNG plant. As I say, it is a long letter, I haven't read it fully, but I do know that each one of the points that was raised in the article today have been responded to and therefore will be the subject of debate once the bill is considered.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes. As you know, we have been talking about, on both sides of the aisle, developing greater domestic supply from that which we have control over here in this country. I think both sides agree that that is an objective that ought to be pursued. The differences have been I think where that should be done at least in the short term, maybe not in the long term.

In the short term, it is our belief that there is very substantial areas available for further exploration and development of energy resources from our own country. As the gentleman may have heard me say on the floor earlier today, there is about 88 million acres that we believe is currently available for leasing that experts indicate are prime opportunities for finding, drilling, and producing energy for our country. We may well consider legislation which will try to accelerate, particularly in Alaska, where there is 23 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve area designated and approved by the Congress for drilling, where approximately 1 million acres of that has been currently let for lease but there are substantial millions of acres still available. So we may well have legislation which will direct the administration to accelerate the leases for that area and speed the development.

In addition, we may well include in that legislation the Use It Or Lose It bill, we had disagreements on whether that was appropriate, which essentially says to companies: Don't inventory large segments. If you are not going to use it, let's get it back and give it to some who may well use it at this point in time. Again, an opportunity to accelerate the exploration and securing of oil within our control here in this country.

In addition, that legislation I think will include a requirement that any oil petroleum products that are produced as a result of this legislation or as a result of these leaseholds being extended, that petroleum would need to be used

in the United States of America, not exported to Japan or to other nations.

You had in a piece of legislation that you had in 2005 a similar provision. I can't recall the phrase right now, but essentially requiring due diligent requirement as they proceeded with the leases to develop the energy. So we think our Use Or Lose It is, while not exactly what you include in your 2005 bill, certainly a similar objective of saying: You get the leases, let's develop the oil.

We will also be calling I think in that legislation, Mr. Whip, on the President to pursue finishing construction of the natural gas and the oil pipelines from Alaska as soon as possible. If that requires resources, for the administration to ask for those resources.

We share again a view that it is prudent for us to develop all of the lands that we currently have available. And pretty significant, again, I don't know whether you were there, but the 88 million acres essentially covers Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, New Jersey, and most of Maryland. So a pretty large area that is available now.

So we want to pursue that, but clearly want to see further exploration, further drilling, and further utilization of our own resources here in this country, all with the view of bringing prices down.

Now, we don't know specifically why prices have spiked so rapidly, but we are very concerned about it. As you have heard me say before, prices during the last 8 years of the nineties went from $1.06 to $1.46, about one nickel a year. Prices during the last 7\1/2\ years have spiked from that $1.46 to now $4.15 or so. All the energy policies that have been adopted have obviously been adopted in the last 7\1/2\ years with President Bush's signature. There is no energy bill that is passed without his signature. So that we believe that we have not been successful over the last 7\1/2\ years of getting an energy policy in place which has given us independence and provided for stable prices.

Both the President and proponents of the 2005 legislation, which I voted for, by the way, because I think we need to seek energy independence, but the proponents of that bill indicated 3 years ago that it would keep prices down and make sure that we had supply. That hasn't been the case. Obviously, that was not the intent of anybody who was for the bill that that wouldn't happen, but that is the legislation that we currently are looking at. We are developing that now and trying to write the language essentially with the objective of utilizing the 88 million acres that we currently have authorized on which to drill because we think that is the quickest way to proceed.

You mentioned H.R. 6. First of all, as you heard in my list, we are not contemplating adding that into this legislation that we might be considering. However, let me say this, very honestly. You and I both, I think every Member in this body very much supports the free market system. We have found it provides the greatest good for the greatest number throughout the world.

In 2005, you put incentives in the bill, $14 billion worth of tax breaks for oil companies. Oil was then, as you point out, about half of what it is bringing today at the pump. The free market system, in my view, is if you are getting a high price for your product, you try to produce more of it and you try to find more of it. The oil companies are earning the highest price that they have ever received in the history of the sale of oil. That ought to be the incentive, not taxpayers who are paying the highest price at the pump they have ever paid, also having to pay higher taxes because the oil companies are getting an incentive of $14 billion of tax cuts to incentivize what ought to be incentivized by the price that they are getting for their product.

I want to say further that the information I have, and I think you will find this interesting, is that Exxon made $40 billion in profits last year. I am informed $32 billion of that profit was spent to buy back stock. Not to do additional research, not to drill in America or any place else, but $32 billion to buy back their stock. Obviously that did have a very good effect on those stockholders who remained because their equity clearly went up. I do not criticize that, but I point it out because it was not spent either to produce more oil product, petroleum product, or to pursue alternative energy sources which we think is important which is what we will use the $14 billion in H.R. 6, whether it was hybrid cars, ethanol research, water, wind, hydroelectric, or from my perspective, nuclear.

Let me also say that I understand what you are saying, but when we talk about this 68 million or 88 million acres, let me give you this point. The oil and gas companies hold leases on these 68 million now, land and water.

They are not producing on these acreage, and 81 percent, according to experts, of the estimated oil and gas resources on Federal lands and the OCS are currently available for development in these reserves, and they are equal to 107 billion barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

So what we are saying and what we will say in this legislation is that you have about 14 years supply here for America if you would develop this 107 billion barrels of oil or 658 trillion feet of natural gas on the land or offshore that you currently have leases on.

So I think this is a good debate to have, and ultimately hopefully at some point in time we will get through the politics of this issue on both sides and we will get to a point where frankly we develop this.

But I will also tell my friend that if we focus only on petroleum, we will not serve your young son or my grandchildren--you are much younger than I am--or my grandchildren very well because I will tell you, and as you know, I have a great granddaughter. She is 18 months of age. When she is my age, petroleum will not be her major source of energy. We know that. Petroleum is a wasting resource. By that I mean it is a resource that is going to go away. We don't know how much is left. Experts don't know how much Saudi Arabia still has. But we need to pursue vigorously alternatives while at the same time, as you and I would agree, developing that 107 billion barrels that we have here in this country that are currently available for lease.

Frankly, if the companies tell us that they really can't produce from that, then maybe we ought to look at other sites as well. But certainly it seems to us, you ought to use what you have first; and if that doesn't work, we ought to go on to a second or third or fourth site.

I thank the gentleman for his tolerance in my taking that time.

Will my friend yield just on that?

I just want to say that I understand what you have just said. But, of course, they never did have that until the 2005 bill, or one of the tax bills that was passed around that time. Prior to that time, the manufacturers had that, as you observed, that's correct, but the oil companies were never included in it originally or for long periods of time. They were added just in the last 2005 or 2006 or 2004, I am not sure exactly which bill added it. So it is not as if that had been in place when the tax to which you refer, the incentive to which you refer, was originally included in the code.

That's under discussion. As I said, we're discussing the component parts of the bill. We haven't decided how that bill will come to the floor. But I will certainly look forward to discussing it with you.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I cannot confirm, because I haven't seen the report on that, nor has the chairman told me that he made such an announcement. I did read an article in which he indicated that he thought that might be the case.

As you know, he tried to move the Labor-Health bill through to markup

through the full committee, and as you know, the ranking member moved to substitute the Interior bill rather than do the Labor-Health bill.

The chairman believed he was pursuing the regular order. I have never seen, in the 23 years that I served on the Appropriations Committee, one of the appropriations bills substituted for another one of the appropriations bills in the appropriations process.

So a lot of unusual things are happening, unfortunately. And we haven't been pursuing regular order. I lament that, personally. I think that we ought to do that.

I will say that last year, as you know, we passed every appropriations bill through the House of Representatives by the August break. We had some difficulty at the end doing that, but we got them all passed. And we passed them all in the year, in the calendar year that we were supposed to pass them, not in the fiscal year, in December. As you know in a number of years we didn't do that until the following year: nine one year, eight the other passed in January, the end of January or the middle of February, as I recall, 2 years. I forget whether it was 2004 and 2005 or 2005 and 2006.

So I share the gentlemen's concern. I think both sides share the concern that the appropriations process is not proceeding in the regular order. But I want to say to the gentleman that from my perspective, I have not concluded that we're not going to consider any appropriations bills on the floor.

Will my friend yield on that?

Thank you.

Senator Reid in the other body has made it pretty clear that he does not believe, again, given the failure to pursue regular order in the Senate, that he will be able to get any bills passed, the Senate appropriations bills.

So one of the factors under consideration by Mr. Obey is that if the Senate is not going to consider any bills, that because they cannot get the bills through the House and to the President--of course, the President sent down a number, said, If you go over that number, I'm going to veto all of the bills anyway. And we had real difficulty last year, as you know, with that happening. That's not happened in my career before. I don't mean that a President hasn't indicated he would veto, but there was always room to work on that.

But that is one of the complicating factors or two of the complicating factors: the President's position and the Senate's position as well.

But I think the major problem is that the regular order Mr. Obey did not feel was being pursued in the committee.

I would not agree with the gentleman. After all, we did pass the Iraq funding, we passed a very substantive supplemental, we passed a GI bill, we passed an unemployment insurance extension. We passed an energy bill last year signed by the President. I think much of what we passed in our '06 that was passed, that got through the Senate, was signed by the President and supported by a significant number of Republicans.

Furthermore, let me just remind you, and I'm sure you recall this, that we took 50 hours longer to do the appropriations bills last year than we did in 2006 when your side was in charge. And we had extensive debate. We had 10 open bills, open rules, and we had two rules at the end, because it was clear that we were having great difficulty getting our bills done in a time cramp. Even under those bills, we spent hours debating them. We spent 17 hours on the Homeland Security bill, for instance, and 12 hours on the Labor-Health bill on the floor.

I don't want to get too testy, and you and I are good friends.

But very frankly, it was not a process that we thought was very substantive last year, and every indication that we have received this year, it is not going to be very substantive this year when we consider appropriation bills.

Now, having said that, we didn't pursue the regular order on the Labor-Health bill. The gentleman is correct there are five bills which have passed, and I would reiterate that I have not yet, from my standpoint, concluded that we're not going to consider appropriation bills on the floor this year.

So I want to make it clear. I'm not sure exactly what Mr. Obey announced. There was an article that said I was supporting Mr. Obey's position. I went a little further. What I supported of Mr. Obey's position was that regular order was not being followed in the appropriations committee, not the representation that you say he made with reference to no bills coming to the floor.

I think he's correct that regular order is not being pursued, and very frankly--and I'm going to talk to you about that, talk to my friend about this, because I think it is unfortunate that we have come to this place where the consideration of these bills last year became very politicized, and this year the announcement clearly was very early on out of your conference or your retreat and subsequently that it wasn't going to be a very happy process this year. I don't mean an agreement process. No reason why there should be an agreement. But Mr. Obey has concerns that it would simply be impossible for him to get the bills through.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.

Before I ask for the next unanimous consent, let me say how pleased I am that Congresswoman Edwards, I think this is her first time in

the Chair. She is our newest Member and an excellent Member, and we appreciate her leadership.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise to offer my congratulations to Courtney Rayle, the winner of the Masters Division of the 67th Greater Washington Soap Box Derby held in our Nation's Capital on June 22.

I am very pleased that Miss Rayle, who is a resident of Mechanicsville, Maryland and my constituent, has now earned the right to compete in the 71st Annual All-American Soap Box Derby national championship on July 26 in Akron, Ohio. Courtney has worked tirelessly to earn such a noteworthy win; due to her hard work, the victory marks the seventh time someone from the Rayle family has won the Greater Washington Soap Box race. This year will be the 19th time a member of the Rayle family will race in Akron. Courtney joins Jimmy Rayle Sr., Billy Rayle, Jimmy Rayle Jr., and Jeff Rayle in a long tradition of excellence in this sport. As Courtney now looks to compete for the national soap box title, I, along with the people of Maryland, wish her the best of luck.

The origin of soap box derby racing dates back to 1934 when a photographer for the Dayton Daily News in Ohio, Myron E. Scott, saw boys racing engineless cars down a hill, inspiring him to organize a race and award the winner with a ``loving cup.'' The venue was later moved to Akron--the site of today's national derby championship--on account of the numerous hills. With the hard work of countless civic organizations, a permanent track site for the youth racing classic was created in Akron with the assistance of the Works Progress Administration (WPA).

The All-American Soap Box Derby is the second-oldest racing event in the Nation--second only to the Indianapolis 500. This event has been called the greatest amateur racing competition in the world, and it is an excellent opportunity for contestants from all around the country to learn building skills while gaining a real sense of accomplishment. Congratulations to all of this year's competitors, and congratulations once again to Miss Courtney Rayle.

Madam Speaker, this bill provides mechanisms to ensure that FISA's longstanding exclusivity is crystal clear. It states that only a new statute directly addressing the Executive branch's foreign intelligence surveillance authority can modify FISA. It provides clarity for the public and for telecommunications carriers by requiring requests for assistance to cite the statutory authority uuder which they are issued.

In a January 19, 2006 White Paper on NSA Legal Authorities, the Justice Department made public a legal justification for the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program, TSP. It claimed that the President had an extra-statutory legal basis for foreign intelligence surveillance outside of FISA, both implicitly through an Authorization for the Use of Military Force or through a broad reading of Article II of the Constitution. Those arguments fly in the face of the longstanding doctrine of FISA exclusivity and are contrary to the plain language of the FISA statute. To be clear, the inclusion of these additional exclusivity mechanisms in this measure does not ratify the Administration's arguments with respect to the TSP. Nor does the bill's treatment of liability issues in Title II stand for a Congressional ratification of the Administration's actions under the TSP.

In conclusion, I would like to extend my thanks to a few additional staff who worked tirelessly over the past few months on this FISA compromise, including Margaret Cantrell of the Whip's staff, Ted Kalo and Mark Dubester of the Judiciary Committee, Wyndee Parker of the Intelligence Committee, and Chris Healey of Senator Rockefeller's Intelligence Committee staff.