Floor Statements

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.

Jim Oberstar is one of the most knowledgeable people in America on energy issues and on transportation issues. And the two, of course, are closely related. I want to thank him for his leadership and for his service. We are fortunate, as an American people, to have him chairing this critically important committee.

There is no stronger proponent of rail service and mass transit than Jim Oberstar. That service has never been more important than it is today. His vision and his service have put this country in a place where we now have the opportunity to make additional investment which is critically needed so that the demand for mass transit resulting from the cost of gasoline and energy products can be met by our mass transit system. And I thank him for his leadership.

This bill, as well as the other two bills considered on this floor today on drilling and market speculation, is a clear recognition by this House majority that America's energy policy cannot be one dimensional.

We've heard a lot of finger pointing on the floor today, and finger pointing is relatively easy. The fact of the matter is we all need to come together. I don't just mean Republicans and Democrats and the Congress of the United States, but all 300 million of us in this country need to come together and understand that we have 3 percent of the world's oil supply and 25 percent of the demand. It does not take a great mathematician to understand, therefore, that simply drilling for new product will not solve our problem. That is not to say by any stretch of the imagination that that should not be done.

These bills, taken together, and when combined with other actions taken by the majority on energy, are a clear reflection of the alternative to the Republicans' sole focus on drilling, to the exclusion of alternative and renewable sources of energy.

Let no one be mistaken: Democrats do not oppose further drilling, discovery and production of product, period. All we are saying, as I will explain in more detail shortly, is that the oil and gas companies should utilize the 68 million acres--that's 68 million acres--currently available to drill on which contain, according to experts, over 100 billion barrels of oil. And we use about 7.5 billion a year in this country, so that is approximately 14 years of oil. That's what the experts tell us, not Democrats and Republicans, the experts tell us are available on these untapped resources currently available, currently leased. I would tell my friends that, not only that, but they contain hundreds of millions of cubic feet of natural gas.

Now, as to Chairman Oberstar's bill: It promises Americans relief from our $4 per gallon gas prices. Tomorrow? No. Next week? No. Next month? No. Very frankly, we have been too long delaying our investment in alternative energy sources and alternative transportation modes. But it does promise that in the future we will have the capability both to provide mass transit for our people, and to provide for the alternative to lower demand which, therefore, should lower prices as well.

It authorizes $1.7 billion over the next 2 years to provide grants to mass transit authorities to reduce public transit fares and will help transit agencies deal with escalating costs. That is a rational response to increased demand.

In just the first 3 months of this year, Americans took almost 85 million more trips on public transit than in the same period the year before. Surely all of us in this body, faced with 85 million additional trips, will want to respond in a way that provides capacity to accommodate that growth.

Public transit reduces America's oil consumption as well as carbon dioxide emissions. Thankfully, the administration has, very late, come to the conclusion that, yes, global warming is a problem. Unfortunately, for 7-plus years of this administration they denied it was a problem, but coming to the right conclusion late is always timely.

In addition, the legislation on market speculation that was introduced by Chairman Peterson and Congressman Van Hollen is an effort which I hope every Member of this body will support to address this issue, record high gas prices, from another angle.

Oil producers are telling us they believe that a large portion of the price is related to speculation. Can I guarantee they're right? No, I cannot. Am I an expert on this issue? I am not. But I do know that they have said that is the case. If it is the case, it's incumbent upon us to find out, because if it is, and we can reduce prices for the consumer at the pump, they expect us to do so and we want to do so.

The Bush administration, of course, insists that the spike in gas prices is not attributable to market speculation. That may be why the commission that is supposed to oversee this has not acted as vigorously as they otherwise might. George Soros, a very successful investor, has said this: ``The crude oil market has been significantly affected by speculation.''

The legislation that we will vote on shortly simply directs the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use its full authority and emergency tools to curtail excessive speculation and other practices distorting the energy market. Why would any Member of this body vote against asking this commission to look at that issue to determine whether or not there is validity? If there is not, presumably the commission will so find.

Finally, about Chairman Rahall's bill, let me simply say this: What could make more common sense than saying to the oil and gas companies that they should drill or pursue drilling on the 68 million acres of Federal land currently under lease or simply lose those leases? After all, they are leased for the purposes of us producing more product. If they lie fallow and are not being worked, not being investigated, not being explored, not being tapped, then the American consumer finds a dwindling or short supply. And what happens in that context? Prices go up. And yes, oil companies make record profits, but consumers lose. This bill simply says to the oil companies, be diligent in the development of what you have or lose the lease to someone who will pursue the discovery and production of oil.

Democrats believe that we need to find product. I mentioned the 68 million acres that you've heard a lot about, that's a lot of acres. But there is an additional 23 million acres in Alaska, 22 million of which is under congressional set-aside for oil production and discovery. Nine hundred thousand acres have already been leased for that purpose. And experts tell us there is more oil there than there is in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, but our Republican friends continue to focus on the Alaskan Refuge.

Let no one be mistaken: The oil companies have many acres to look at onshore and offshore. According to the Minerals Management Service and the Bureau of Land Management, these 68 million acres on land and waters, 74

percent of which we have already leased, are not producing oil and gas.

Our Republican friends have also charged that we're keeping the best lands out of the hands of oil and gas companies. That is not the case. They can say it again and again and again and again, but it's not the case. In fact, 81 percent--I hope all of my colleagues hear this, and I hope the American public will read the Record--81 percent of estimated oil and gas resources on Federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf are presently available for development. And here, perhaps, is the most important fact: These resources are equal, as I said, to 107 billion barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is 10 times the amount of economically recoverable oil that could be produced from opening up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and more than 14 years of current U.S. oil consumption.

Finally, Madam Chairman, let me say that there is no silver bullet, we all understand that; to pretend otherwise would be dishonest. We need to be honest with the American public. Unfortunately, for over a quarter of a century we have had mostly administrations or Republican control of the House and the Senate which essentially said that drilling more oil and not looking for alternatives was the policy they wanted to pursue.

When we got here, we passed an energy bill that focuses on alternatives. If we only have 3 percent, we have 25 percent of the demand, you can bet your sweet life that those who have the oil all over this world are going to say to us, you pay us what we tell you to pay us. And not until we pursue policies--which this administration has failed to do, which this Republican leadership failed to do--not until that time will we be able to say to our friends and, indeed, some not so friendly, we're not going to pay your price because we have alternatives. We have mass transit provided by Jim Oberstar. We have alternative energies provided by the bill that we passed. We are expecting electricity--which the Republicans oppose--to be produced by alternatives. We have renewable fuel standards passed in this House, sent to the Senate.

Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we have taken significant steps last year, we're taking significant steps today, and we will continue to take significant steps so that America will be energy independent. That's in the best interest of our national security, our economic security and, indeed, it is critically important for our global health.

The bills we are considering on this House floor today are key components of a comprehensive energy strategy that seeks to provide Americans with relief at the gas pump while we wean our Nation from its dangerous addiction to foreign oil. The President said we're addicted to foreign oil. And yet there was a meeting on energy in 2001, just after the President became the Chief Executive, and they convened oil company executives to tell us, what should our policies be? One of my colleagues said, well, whatever they said--because the meetings were secret--their policies failed. Perhaps. Perhaps they failed. One cannot inevitably draw that conclusion, however, because those same companies, 7 years later, are making the greatest profits they have made in the history of their companies. Perhaps their policies failed, or perhaps their policies led to success.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need to pursue mass transit and invest in expanding it so we can meet the demand of our consumers and of our citizens and of our energy independence.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership. And I urge my colleagues to vote for all three of these critically important bills. Are they the sole solution? They are not. Are they the only solution? They are not. Are they the solutions that we will take and then stop? They are not. But they are a step, each and every one of them, in the right direction. Let's take those steps today.

I urge my colleagues to support these three bills.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding, and I thank him for his efforts.

I want to thank his staff, as well, who have been extraordinary. Heather, in particular, has had her virtues regaled by Dr. Abouchar of my staff, and I thank her.

I want to thank Jim Sensenbrenner. I want to thank Cheryl, as well, who has been an extraordinary help on the Americans with Disabilities Act and with this Restoration Act. She has been a giant in her leadership. And I

want to thank Jim Sensenbrenner, with whom I've worked now for many years on this issue, and he has been, of course, a giant, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in years past and one of the senior Members of this House, extraordinarily helpful and a partner in this effort.

I also want to thank Buck McKeon, the ranking member. At the time we testified, he said, you know, we want to see this pass but we want to work together and make sure we can all be for it. And I assured him that we would do that, and I was pleased today that he said, in fact, we had done that. And I think the result that we will see in the vote will show that clearly. And I thank him for his work and effort and good faith in working towards a bill that we could all support.

I want to thank George Miller, the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, whose committee had primary jurisdiction over this bill, for his efforts in assuring that this bill moves forward.

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a list of people, particularly in the disabilities community and also in the business community, who spent countless hours, days, weeks and, yes, even months trying to come to an agreement on a bill that both the business community and the disability community would feel comfortable with. We have accomplished that, but it was the work of these people as well who did that, and I would submit this at this time in the Record to thank them for their efforts and their success which they are so responsible for today.

People to Recognize

Chai Feldblum, Georgetown University; Former U.S. Rep. Tony

Coelho; Former U.S. Rep. Steve Bartlett; Sandy Finucane,

Epilepsy Foundation; Andy Imparato, American Association of

People with Disabilities; Randy Johnson, Mike Eastman, U.S.

Chamber of Commerce; John Lancaster, National Council on

Independent Living; Mike Peterson, HR Policy Association;

Curt Decker, National Disability Rights Network;

Jeri Gillespie, Ryan Modlin, National Association of

Manufacturers; Nancy Zirkin, Lisa Borenstein, Leadership

Conference on Civil Rights; Mike Aitken, Mike Layman, Society

for Human Resource Management; Abby Bownas, American Diabetes

Association; Jennifer Mathis, Bazelon Center for Mental

Health Law; Kevin Barry, Georgetown University; Jim Flug,

Georgetown University; Claudia Center, Employment Law Center;

Shereen Arent, American Diabetes Association; Brian East,

Advocacy Inc.

Madam Speaker, 18 years ago next month, the first President Bush signed into law one of the most consequential pieces of civil rights legislation in recent memory, in over a quarter of a century in fact. In the ceremony on the south lawn of the White House President Bush said this:

``With today's signing of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act, every man, woman, and child with a disability can now pass through once-closed doors into a bright new era of equality, independence, and freedom.''

In large measure, President Bush was right. Those doors have, in fact, come open. Tens of millions of Americans with disabilities now enjoy rights the rest of us have long taken for granted: The right to use the same streets, theaters, restrooms, or offices; the right to prove themselves in the workplace, to succeed on their talent and drive alone.

We all understand why there are cuts in the sidewalk at every street corner, kneeling buses on our city streets, elevators on the Metro, ramps at movie theaters, and accessible restrooms and handicapped parking almost everywhere. By now, they have become part of our lives' fabric. And we wouldn't have it, I think, any other way, because each one is the sign of a pledge, the promise of an America that excludes none of its people from our shared life and opportunities.

That was the promise of the ADA. That was the promise of the ADA that President George Bush signed on July 26, 1990. But looking back 18 years, the hard truth is that we were, in some ways, perhaps too optimistic.

The door President Bush spoke of is still not entirely open, and every year, millions of us are caught on the wrong side. In interpreting the law over these 18 years, the courts have consistently chipped away at Congress' very clear intent, and I know what the intent was because I was there as so many of you were.

I know that many of my colleagues were as well, and I know that they share my disappointment in a series of narrow rulings that have had the effect of excluding millions of Americans from the law's protection for no good reason. We said we wanted broad coverage for people with disabilities and people regarded as disabled, but the courts narrowed that coverage with a ``strict and demanding standard,'' a severely restrictive measure that virtually excluded entire classes of people, even though we had specifically mentioned their impairments as objects of the law's protections.

Civil rights acts have historically been urged to be interpreted liberally to accomplish their objective of protecting the rights of individuals. Unfortunately, in this instance, the courts did not follow that premise.

We never expected that people with disabilities who worked to mitigate their conditions would have their efforts held against them. Imagine, somebody with epilepsy who takes medication to preclude seizures would be told that we're not going to hire you because you have epilepsy, but then be told by the court that that was not discrimination because prescription drugs mitigated the ability or the disability that you had. No one on this floor would have thought in their wildest assertions that that would be an interpretation.

The courts did exactly that, however, throwing their cases out on the grounds that they were no longer disabled enough to suffer discrimination. The discrimination, of course, was determining that somebody had epilepsy, and notwithstanding their ability to perform the job in question, that they would not be hired. That is the essence of discrimination.

That is what we sought to preclude, and I want to again congratulate the business community and the disabilities community for coming together on legislation that will right that misinterpretation because none of what has been held was our intent.

We are here today because a truly wide coalition--members of the disability community ready to claim their equal share, Members of both parties who were tired of seeing constituents shut out, and business groups eager to unlock new pools of talent--an alliance as broad as the one that joined forces to pass the original ADA, has come together to help the courts get this right. I know some of them are watching, and I want to thank them, through my colleagues and through the Speaker, for their efforts.

With the ADA Amendments Act, we make it clear today that a cramped reading of disability rights will be replaced with a definition that is broad and fair--fair to the disability community and fair to the business community--that those who manage to mitigate their disabilities are still subject to discrimination and still entitled to redress, and that those regarded as having disability are equally at risk and deserve to be equally protected.

I am proud, Madam Speaker, to have worked for so long with my colleague Jim Sensenbrenner, as I said earlier. He has been a leader in advancing this legislation, and we've joined together to submit for the Record a legal analysis of the bill that we've worked so hard to bring to fruition.

And I want to thank my good friend, former Congressman Tony Coelho for originally enlisting me in this effort. Very frankly, Tony is one of my very close friends, and when he left the Congress, the ADA had not yet been accomplished. But it was his leadership that got it to the point where, in fact, we could proceed, and he gave me the responsibility of ensuring its passage. Working with George Miller and John Conyers and Jim Oberstar and so many others, we were able to accomplish that objective. But Tony Coelho was our leader on this effort, and very frankly, Madam Speaker, our former whip remains our leader today.

Finally, it is my honor to dedicate this bill to the late Justin Dart, the pioneering disability advocate and inspiration behind the ADA, as well as to his wife, Yoshiko Dart.

Madam Speaker, few kinds of discrimination, in all of our history, have been more widespread than the exclusion of those with disabilities. But it was America, America that passed a pioneering law to help end that exclusion. We were the first in the world to do so.

We were the world's model on this central challenge to human rights. Eighteen years later, we cannot afford to fall behind.

Let us pass this bill and bring us one step closer to the days when the fruits of life in America are at last available to all.

I will yield to my friend.

I thank the chairman on behalf of Mr. Sensenbrenner and myself, and for all those who have been involved in this effort.

Joint Statement of Representatives Hoyer and Sensenbrenner on the

Origins of the ADA Restoration Act of 2008, H.R. 3195

On September 29, 2006, we introduced H.R. 6258, entitled

the Americans with Disabilities Act Restoration Act of 2006.

This bill was a response to decisions of the Supreme Court

and lower courts narrowing the group of people whom Congress

had intended to protect under the Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA). The Supreme Court had interpreted the ADA to

impose a ``demanding'' standard for coverage. It had also

held that the ameliorative effects of ``mitigating measures''

that people use to control the effects of their disabilities

must be considered in determining whether a person has an

impairment that substantially limits a major life activity

and is protected by the ADA. This holding was contrary to

Congress's stated intent in several committee reports.

We introduced H.R. 6258, which was designed to reverse

these holdings, at the end of the 2006 legislative session.

We intended this bill to serve as a marker of our intent to

introduce future legislation to address this issue. On July

26, 2007, we introduced similar legislation, H.R. 3195, the

ADA Restoration Act of 2007, which ultimately garnered over

240 cosponsors. A nearly identical bill, S. 1881, was

introduced in the Senate on the same day by Senators Harkin

and Specter.

H.R. 3195 as introduced would have amended the ADA to

provide protection for any individual who had a physical or

mental impairment or a record of such an impairment, or who

was treated as having such an impairment. The purpose of this

legislation was to restore the intent of Congress to cover a

broad group of individuals with disabilities under the ADA

and to eliminate the problem of courts focusing too heavily

on whether individuals were covered by the law rather than on

whether discrimination occurred. The bill as introduced,

however, was seen by many as extending the protections of the

ADA beyond those that Congress originally intended to

provide.

In order to craft a more balanced bill with broad support,

we urged that representatives of the disability and business

communities enter into negotiations to try to reach an

acceptable compromise. We maintained contact with these

communities over the course of their negotiations and

supported them in their efforts to understand the needs and

concerns of each community. After several months of intensive

discussions, negotiators for the two communities reached

consensus on a set of protections for people with

disabilities that garnered broad support from both

communities. These protections would significantly expand the

group of individuals protected by the ADA beyond what the

courts have held, while at the same time ensuring that the

expansion does not extend beyond the original intent of the

I thank my friend, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I thank the Speaker. I thank the Speaker not only for giving me the responsibility for trying to work with some extraordinarily talented people but also for having the courage to lead and the courage to express her convictions.

And I want, at the outset, to share her view that every Member who has spoken on this floor has spoken out of a sense of conviction and out of a sense of responsibility to the Constitution of the United States and to the protection of our great Nation and our great people.

Mr. Reyes, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Smith have all worked to come together, realizing that there were significant differences. Those four have been assisted by some extraordinary people, and at the outset, I want to mention them.

First of all, I want to mention my own staff without whom I think we would not be at this day. She sits on the floor. She worked for my colleague and dear friend Senator Paul Sarbanes for a number of years. One of the benefits of Senator Sarbanes retiring was that she came to my staff. Mariah Sixkiller has expended too much time, perhaps, but with great talent and great ability to reach this day. Thank you, Mariah Sixkiller.

I want to thank Chairman Conyers because Chairman Conyers, as you've heard on the floor, has been conflicted but he has been focused on the necessity to respond to issues that are real and also to help us move forward so that we did not, in the minds of many of us, have a bill pass that we thought was unacceptable, a bill passed by the Senate with 68 of 100 votes. We would not be here, in my opinion, without Chairman Conyers' leadership, not because he supports this alternative, but because he saw the ability to work together.

I want to thank his staff, Lou DeBaca, Perry Apelbaum. And Lou DeBaca, in particular, who sat for hours and hours and hours in a room trying to reach agreement as we made compromises. Mr. Reyes' staff, Mike Delaney, the staff director. Jeremy Bash. Jeremy Bash did extraordinary work. Jeremy Bash was hired by the former Chair of the Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman.

Jane Harman is probably as knowledgeable as almost anybody on this floor, other than perhaps the Speaker who served on the Intelligence Committee longer than anybody in this House. Jane Harman's leadership, concern, focus on constitutional rights, focus on the security of our country, was outstanding. She played a significant role in trying to get us to this day.

Eric Greenwald of Mr. Reyes' staff also played a significant role.

Without Mike Sheehy and Joe Onek of the Speaker's staff, we would not be here today. We would not have reached the good compromises that we reached. Joe Onek and Mike Sheehy, if they were writing this bill, would have written a different bill, much closer to what we passed on our side of the aisle and sent to the Senate, which they rejected. Mike Sheehy has served the House and the Speaker for a very long time in the intelligence field.

I want to thank Senator Rockefeller. We would not be here today on this floor if it were not for Senator Rockefeller. Senator Rockefeller very early on had discussions with me about what could they do to try to move towards the bill that we passed. He made some suggestions. Those suggestions are in this bill today. He facilitated our actions. Andy Johnson, Mike Davidson, Alissa Starzak of his staff were very, very helpful.

Senator Bond, Senator Bond and I did not see necessarily eye-to-eye on these issues as we began, but at the end, we came to an agreement. Louis Tucker and Jack Livinston of his staff were very helpful.

Chairman Hoekstra, or former Chairman Hoekstra, now Ranking Member Hoekstra, I want to thank Chairman Hoekstra, but particularly, I want to thank Chris Donessa who was very helpful, gave us great assistance and advice.

Lamar Smith and Caroline Lynch of his staff, thank you very much for your efforts as you sat in that room, as we all sat around, every one of the committees sat around the table, as we came to the final agreement.

Then I want to thank, of course, Jen Stewart and the minority leader, without whom we could not have gotten to this day.

Lastly, I want to thank my friend. There's an article going to be written. It's going to speculate whether or not he and I hurt one another by saying the other is his friend. I don't think that's the case. I said that Roy Blunt and I often disagree on substantive issues, but what we agree on very strongly is that this House needs to sit down and talk to one another and try to reach resolution on difficult issues, not hard-to-reach compromise on easy issues. It's on the difficult issues.

Roy Blunt is a man of this House, who cares about this House, who cares about this country. And he cares about drafting legislation that can be agreed upon by a broad section of this House and the American people. He has an extraordinary staff of Brian Diffell, who I want to thank for his efforts, but in particular, I want to thank Roy Blunt for his friendship, for his integrity, and for his willingness to take risks to reach compromise. Thank you, Roy.

Madam Speaker, today we conclude one step in a long, continuing process. Just under a year ago, the House came under great pressure from the administration and the Senate to pass the Protect America Act, a bill I could not support and spoke out against for its lack of civil liberties protections.

Since then, there have been other attempts to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: first, the RESTORE Act passed by the House last November with my strong support, with Mr. Conyers' strong support, Mr. Reyes' strong support, and the support of this House; that was followed by the Senate bill which passed, as I said earlier, with 68 votes in February; and most recently, the FISA Amendments Act, passed by the House last March. I supported that bill as well. I think it was a better bill. It would be my alternative. It was our alternative on this side of the aisle, but it was not the consensus alternative, and we needed to reach consensus to move forward.

I was proud to support the two House bills, which I believe struck the right balance between giving our intelligence community the tools to go after those who seek to harm and protecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.

Today, I stand in support of a different kind of bill, a compromise. To be clear, this is not the bill that I would have written or that perhaps anybody individually on this floor would have written. However, in our legislative process, no one gets everything he or she wants. Different parties, often with deeply competing interests, come together here to produce a consensus product, where each side gives and takes. I don't believe we've given on the ultimate principles on either side.

Over the past few months, I've been involved in almost daily discussions with the stakeholders on this important issue, Members in both Chambers, in both parties, as well as outside organizations and experts. I want to thank all of the outside organizations, whether they agree with our product or do not. Their contribution has been an important one. I particularly want to thank those who take very unpopular

positions to protect the rights of perhaps just one of us among the 300 million, who in the land of the free and the home of the brave deserve to have that one individual right protected, and I appreciate their efforts to ensure that that country remains that kind of country.

Together, we have worked to develop a bill that strikes a sound balance. This measure provides the intelligence community with the strong authority to surveil foreign terrorists who seek to harm this country and our people. As the Speaker said, that is our responsibility, and we intend to meet it.

It provides for enhanced civil liberties protections for Americans and insists on meaningful judicial scrutiny.

It includes critical new oversight and accountability requirements that both address the President's warrantless surveillance program and ensures that any surveillance going forward comports with the fourth amendment and will be closely monitored by the Congress.

Of vital importance, my colleagues, this legislation makes clear that FISA is the exclusive means by which the government may conduct surveillance, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Contrary to the administration's previous actions, in which it did not comply with the FISA statute, this statute makes it very clear, this and this alone is the process through which we will intercept communications, an issue of great importance to the Speaker, as she has said.

Notably, this bill does not address or excuse any actions by the government or government officials related to the President's warrantless surveillance program, nor does it include any statement by the Congress or conclusion on the legality of that program.

Indeed, it mandates for the first time ever a robust accounting by the Inspectors General of the warrantless surveillance program, which Congress will receive and act on.

Madam Speaker, in closing, let me say again, this bill is a compromise, but in my opinion, it is a compromise worth supporting. And the conclusions drawn by editorials in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post over the last 2 days reflect this compromise.

Today, for example, the Washington Post recognized that this is a reasonable effort to strike a compromise, stating: ``Striking the balance between liberties and security is never easy, and the new FISA bill is not perfect. But it is a vast improvement over the original law and over the earlier, rushed attempts to revise that law.''

As I said at the beginning, this bill is one step in a long, continuing process of updating this critical legislation, ensuring that our national security and our civil liberties are both protected.

This legislation sunsets at the end of 2012, and it's imperative that we scrutinize its implementation in the future and make any necessary changes. I believe we have the best bill before us that we could possibly get in the current environment. It is a significant improvement over the Senate-passed bill and, I suggest, existing law.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the years ahead to ensure that both our national security and our civil liberties are protected. That is our responsibility. That is our pledge to our constituents. I urge passage of this legislation.

I thank 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, Mr. Speaker, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning hour and 10 a.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including a bill to address cuts in Medicare physician rates. I will reiterate that. We will have a suspension bill on Medicare physician rates.

The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act; H.R. 6275, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008; H.R. 3195, the Americans with Disabilities Restoration Act; two bills dealing with Michigan Indian Land Claim Settlements, H.R. 4415 and H.R. 2176.

And we also anticipate considering important energy-related legislation including H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008.

And I yield.

I want to thank you for your very generous remarks. I also want to thank you for not only working on this particular piece of legislation with me and with others, but also for the spirit that you bring to trying to work together if that's possible within the context of reaching a compromise, again, if that is possible. So I thank you very much.

Also I want to say that while you and I worked very hard together, I think both of us would say that Mariah Sixkiller and Brian Diffell probably worked more together and longer and harder than we did. And I want to thank Brian on your staff for the work that he did, and of course, Mariah Sixkiller on my staff for the work they did, as we worked with all of the individuals and committees who are involved in the jurisdictional matters here.

So I thank you for your kind words and I thank you for your efforts. I think that the product that we produced is a product that will be good for the country. And I'm hopeful, as you are, that the Senate will pass it next week and send it to the President for his signature.

If the gentleman will yield.

The committee is working on that now. As the gentleman knows, we discuss this problem all the time. Of course, we had passed a Medicare physicians' reimbursement bill which precluded the 10 percent cut from going into effect, and it provided for a modest increase in the reimbursement rates to physicians. We passed that, of course, as you know, approximately, maybe, a little over a year ago. The Senate did not include it in the SCHIP bill, of which the SCHIP was a part of the CHAMP bill. The only thing they passed was SCHIP, and they indicated to us at that point in time that they would certainly pass the Medicare reimbursement. That has not yet happened.

Unfortunately, the failure of that to happen has now put us in a position where we are facing the June 30 expiration date of the authorization and, therefore, the 10 percent reduction.

Late yesterday, it was apparent that the Senate would not be able to reach a compromise or at least it had not with Chairman Rangel and Chairman Dingell after discussions--and I don't know how long those discussions took--yesterday with Chairman Bachus, and I don't know whether Senator Grassley was involved in those conversations.

In any event, they determined that they needed to come up with legislation for the House to vote on to provide for reimbursement. They're working on that now. I expect it to be filed today, if possible.

I thank the gentleman.

Obviously, we realize that there is that possibility. We hope that does not occur, but we are very interested in getting a bill in light of the fact this will not be until probably next Tuesday. I'm sure it will not be until next Tuesday that we vote on this. We need to get that bill to the Senate because we know they've had great difficulty passing a bill. I'm not sure whether they'll be in next Friday as well or on Saturday of next week, but we simply believe that it needs to pass as quickly as possible, but we do realize the risk.

It would fail on suspension.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We all agree that this should have been done earlier. At least all of us in this body agree that it should have been done earlier. Frankly, I presume that everybody in the other body agrees that it should have been done earlier.

The problem has been, as you well know, the failure to get agreement and to get 60 votes in the Senate to allow almost any alternative to go forward. Obviously, we passed a bill that had pay-fors in it, which is what you're talking about, some of which were unacceptable to many on your side and to some on our side.

Whatever we offer is going to be paid for. Mr. Dingell and Mr. Rangel, in particular, and his committee are working on that as we speak to see what they can fashion, and we hope that the two-thirds majority necessary to pass a suspension bill will be there--we'll see-- but we'll be working on this next week.

The answer to your question is we do intend to consider that bill under a rule.

I thank the gentleman for mentioning that.

As you know, I was the sponsor and principal manager of the Americans with Disabilities Act when it passed. Some of your Members don't remember him, but he was a great Member of this body: Steve Bartlett, from Texas, who ended up being the Mayor of Dallas and who is a good friend of mine, has been working very hard on this as we attempt to restore it to what we thought it was when we passed it.

The good news is we have worked very hard, and the disability community has worked very hard with the business community, and we have agreement now with employers and with the disability community on a bill that makes sense for both.

I appreciate the distinguished Republican whip for cosponsoring this legislation, and I look forward to working with him to ensure the passage of this bill 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 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.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an important milestone in child

safety: Safe Kids USA's inspection of more than one million car seats.

Since 1996, Safe Kids USA, a member of Safe Kids Worldwide, has partnered with General Motors to address one of the Nation's most significant public health issues: Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children ages 2 to 14 and the leading cause of injury-related death for children under age 2.

Together with GM, Safe Kids USA has redefined how parents and caregivers learn about child passenger safety in order to prevent these injuries and deaths from happening in the first place. We know that when installed and used correctly, child safety seats and safety belts can prevent injury and save lives. Their initiative, Safe Kids Buckle Up, sponsors car seat checkup events, which are essential to show families the intricacies of how to properly use and install child safety seats.

At these events, trained child passenger safety technicians teach families how to safely transport their children and help to make sure everyone in a vehicle is buckled up correctly on every ride. On average, technicians spend about 30 minutes with each child. Most of these events are open to the public and are conducted by Safe Kids coalitions in central locations like Chevrolet and other GM dealerships, hospitals, community centers and shopping centers. Families who need child safety seats, but cannot afford them, are never turned away and children who are being transported in potentially dangerous, recalled car seats are given safe replacements. Parents and caregivers can have the peace of mind that their child will be safer for the simple fact that they participated in a Safe Kids Buckle Up event.

In addition, through the generosity of General Motors, Safe Kids coalitions have access to Mobile Car Seat Checkup Vans which serve communities across the Nation. The vans are specially designed, self- contained units that can turn any parking lot into a full-service car seat safety event site. The fleet was launched in 1999 with 51 vans; today there are 125 on the road with another 12 being added through 2008. There are also more than 400 permanent car seat inspection stations operated by Safe Kids coalitions in order for families to take advantage of trained technicians whenever they are needed.

To date, Safe Kids Buckle Up has reached more than 15 million people and there have been more than 45,000 events that bring much needed car seat inspection services and educational messages to families across the country. The program has also donated 365,000 seats to families in need. On June 12th, the one millionth car seat was inspected at an event in Los Angeles and it personally gratifies me to see the evolution of this outstanding program that serves children and their families.

While crash protection is the backbone of Safe Kids Buckle Up, the program has evolved to offer vehicle safety programs beyond car seats and booster seats. Children can be injured or killed by heat exposure in parked cars, by suffocation when they get stuck in a trunk or when struck in a non-traffic setting such as a driveway or a parking lot. Safe Kids Buckle Up has responded to these risks by introducing three new components to their programming efforts--Spot the Tot, Never Leave Your Child Alone and Preventing Trunk Entrapment--in order to help prevent children from being left alone in or around a vehicle. I applaud Safe Kids Buckle Up for moving beyond crash protection and for addressing children's safety needs in all types of motor vehicle situations.

I was part of the launch of the Safe Kids--General Motors partnership in 1996 and I have been proud to lend my support over the years to Safe Kids in their efforts to raise public awareness of the serious problem of motor vehicle crashes. We have made considerable progress in child passenger safety but our work is not done. Every American must understand that there are proven ways to keep children safer in vehicles and we can prevent many injuries and deaths through proper safety precautions.

I encourage all of my colleagues to participate in a Safe Kids Buckle Up event in their districts to see firsthand how these safety precautions can make a difference in a child's life. Please join me in celebrating the achievements of Safe Kids USA, their remarkable 310+ coalition network and General Motors, whose combined efforts ensure that every child that visits a car seat safety event leaves safer than when he/she entered.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Davis from Illinois for yielding. I particularly want to thank my good friend, Carolyn Maloney, the distinguished Representative from New York, who has been such a giant on behalf of this issue and family issues generally.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body, from the most conservative to the most liberal, shares the conviction that the surest way to improve the quality of life in our Nation is to strengthen our families. Strong families enhance well-being, improve children's self-esteem, and significantly increase the odds that children will succeed in school and grow up to be good parents themselves.

Study after study shows that a strong predictor of child well-being is the degree to which a parent and child bond in the first months of a child's birth. The more constant and nurturing that bond is in the early months of life, the better off the child will be down the road. That is why this is such an incredibly important piece of legislation.

The Federal Government, in many ways, as an employer, has been a leader, not a follower, a leader in efforts to ensure positive employee policies. In fact, the private sector has adopted many of these same policies.

We all know that the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act has been an outstanding success in helping to promote healthy families. So this is not so much about the mother or the father, it is about the child, and the sense of well-being and groundedness that the child has.

Unfortunately, all too often people who have availed themselves of the law to take care of their newborns, or care for ailing parents, have had to make economic sacrifices because the Family and Medical Leave Act does not entitle anyone to receive an income.

Now, very frankly, it's all good and well for most of us, or all of us that serve in this body to say, well, we could take off 6 weeks without pay. Most of us could do that. Certainly my good friend Mr. Issa could do that. I could do it.

But very frankly, I have three daughters, and they may be able to rely on Dad to help them do it, but if Dad were not able to do it, they would not be able to do it. They've all had the opportunity to spend time with my three grandchildren as those grandchildren were born in early years, and that was not only beneficial to my grandchildren, it was beneficial to the community in which they will live.

Currently, the Federal Government does not provide paid parental leave to its employees. Employees must use accrued annual and sick leave if they want to maintain an income stream while they're out.

By providing 4 weeks of paid leave to Federal employees, which, by the way, most Members of Congress already do, for their employees for the birth and adoption of a child, H.R. 5781 recognizes that economic security is a critical ingredient in ensuring that parental leave succeeds.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is the Nation's largest employer. It should set a strong, positive example for how the needs of the workplace and the needs of the employees can be balanced, and indeed, the needs of the children can be met. H.R. 5781 is an important step in doing just that.

Again, I congratulate Carolyn Maloney, who has been a real leader on this effort for her entire career in the Congress of the United States. I'm so pleased to be her ally in this effort.

I also want to turn to my friend, Tom Davis, who himself has been a giant, along with Frank Wolf, and a partner of mine, in promoting the well-being and appropriate benefits for our Federal employees, on whom this country relies in so many ways to give them a government that is a partner with our private sector in maintaining the greatest country on the face of the earth. And I thank Mr. Davis for his leadership.

I'm sorry Mr. Davis will be leaving us at the end of the year and will not be serving in the next Congress. And I will say, I am sure, many times, how beneficial his service has been to Federal employees, and how beneficial his service has been to the Washington metropolitan region and, indeed, to the country. And I thank him for his leadership on this particular effort.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Maryland, the Honorable Donna Edwards, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

I thank the distinguished Speaker for recognizing me for this delightful opportunity.

Madam Speaker, you will appreciate this as much as anybody in this House. I was elected in a special election on January of 1981, actually May of 1981. The Maryland delegation had eight members. Fifty percent of the members of the Maryland House were women, Mrs. Holt, a Republican, Mrs. Spellman, my predecessor who had a cardiac arrest and her seat was declared vacant, Mrs. Byron, a distinguished wife and daughter-in-law of two Members of Congress, and actually there were four Byrons that served in the Congress of the United States, and Barbara Mikulski, were all members of the Maryland delegation.

It was a wonderful delegation. One by one, those women left for one reason or another. Senator Mikulski, of course, became the first woman elected to the United States Senate without a relative preceding her.

One by one, they were replaced by a male. Those were good males, I want you to know. But our delegation became an all-male delegation. It was, to that extent, not fully representative of the people of our State. We have been advantaged now, not only because Marylanders have elected an extraordinary individual to serve them. She is a highly educated individual. She traveled throughout the world. Her father served in the Air Force. She is well educated. She didn't go to the University of Maryland, which was a lamentable fact, but she went to a great school, Wake Forest University. She got her law degree in New Hampshire. She has served the community well and has served citizens' organizations well.

So in a very real sense, she has been a representative for a very long period of time. This day, however, she begins her career as a representative elected by the constituents of the Fourth Congressional District.

Madam Speaker, I know that I speak on behalf of yourself, on behalf of all the Members of the House and certainly on behalf, Donna, of the Maryland delegation, we are extraordinarily proud that you have joined us. Our delegation will be stronger, better and more representative because of that. And this institution will be stronger for the strong advocacy that you will bring on behalf not just of the people of the Fourth Congressional District, but the people of this Nation.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am deeply honored to introduce to you a young woman to whom some years ago I gave an appointment to the United States Air Force Academy. She determined that she was going to go to Wake Forest. But she has been my friend for a long time. Ladies and gentlemen, the newest Member of this body, Donna Edwards from the Fourth Congressional District.

She is a mother, lawyer, and long-time community activist and organizer.

Born in Yanterville, North Carolina, she moved frequently as a child.

Her father was in the Air Force, and she traveled throughout the country and world.

She graduated from Wake Forest University and later the Franklin Pierce Law Center (in New Hampshire).

Before attending law school, she worked as a contractor for Lockheed Corporation at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt.

After law school, she clerked for a superior court judge in Washington, co-founded the National Network To End Domestic Violence, and

became executive director of the Arca Foundation, which gives grants to civic groups, organizations that study the media, and public policy groups.

She helped lead the fight to pass the Violence Against Women Act, providing comprehensive funding to shelter and offer services to victims of domestic violence and their children.

The Washington Post has called her ``bright'' and ``tough-minded'' and recently said: ``Poised, persistent and principled, she would make a fine representative for the fourth district'' of Maryland.

I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for his work on this bill. I thank Mrs. Maloney as well.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I would hope we would defeat this motion. Again, this is a motion to recommit promptly. If in fact the motion maker wanted to change the substance and offer an amendment that would go into effect, he would have offered a motion to amend and report back forthwith. The effect of this motion, as we all know, is to delay for some period of time the passage of this bill. My friend from Georgia will get up and ask the rhetorical question that we all know the answer to, does it kill it? It does not kill it. But, my friends, we have 5 legislative days to go in this session before we break. We ought to pass this bill now. We ought to pass this bill and tell the Federal employees of this country, who work for all of us, all 300 million of us, some 2 million civilian Federal employees, that we honor their service.

But, more importantly, this is not just about those who will get leave. It is, as I said in my statement, much more about the children, who will have better nurturing and a sense of self-confidence in their early months of life. Scientist after scientist, educator after educator, tell us that if that occurs, if that bonding occurs in the early months, children are much better off, and if those children are better off, our communities and our society and our families are better off.

I would ask all my colleagues to oppose this motion. Pass this bill. Say to the children who are perhaps yet to be born and have just been born, we want to ensure the best start we can for you in life in America.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I want to thank the chairman. No one has worked harder to get us to this point in time in a bill that can be signed by the President and passed by the Senate. No one has worked harder than David Obey has on that objective, and he spent months at it. His staff has worked extraordinarily hard.

I also want to thank my counterpart, the minority leader Mr. Boehner who just spoke, and thank him for his efforts. This agreement would not have been reached without his leadership and his cooperation, and I appreciate that.

I also want to thank Mr. Lewis for his work on this effort as well.

Mr. Speaker, this supplemental appropriations legislation is the result, as has been said, of a bipartisan compromise that addresses critical needs of the American people.

Will every Member be happy with the substance of the two amendments that we are going to consider? The answer to that question is no.

Will every Member here get what he or she wants? Again, the answer is no. That is, after all, the legislative process.

However, our Nation is at war. We have 150,000 men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. Catastrophic floods continue to wreak havoc in Iowa and other States in the Midwest. And millions of our workers are struggling to make ends meet because they've lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

These two amendments that we will consider address these needs, as well as others.

The first amendment will provide funding for our troops on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each Member will decide how they should vote, and their vote should not be questioned on that particular amendment.

It is also important to note that the second amendment includes important policy provisions regarding the war in Iraq.

First, it prohibits military construction funds from being used to establish permanent bases in Iraq. We have addressed that previously in this House and overwhelmingly supported that proposition.

Secondly, it requires reconstruction aid for Iraq to be matched dollar-for-dollar by the Iraqi Government. With the price of oil being what it is, having been told by the administration that the oil in Iraq would pay for all reconstruction, that is a reasonable and appropriate requirement.

Additionally, the second amendment includes major legislative items that the White House has agreed to accept. That is a good sign that there is an opportunity to work together when the interests of the American people are at stake. We don't always do that. The American public is concerned about that and disappointed by that. But this night, we have come to such an agreement, and the American public can be pleased by that.

Among other things, this amendment expands the education benefits that veterans receive under the GI Bill to restore the promise of a full, 4-year college education, and allowing servicemembers to transfer educational benefits to their spouses and dependents. That was a bipartisan agreement. It's something that we can be pleased about as a country. It's something that we do, in fact, owe our veterans, and we will redeem that promise this night.

Thus, this legislation supports our troops not only when they're abroad but when they return home as well.

We know from our experience with the original GI Bill that this legislation will foster an educated workforce and a vibrant economy. The greatest generation, after all, not only defeated fascism--Charlie Rangel, at a later time, fought for our country in the field--but they also came home, that greatest generation, and built the greatest economy the world has seen. This bill will help in many ways redeem the promise for this generation of men and women who are asked to defend our country and its freedom. It is the right thing to do. We will do it this night.

The President initially indicated his opposition to an extension of unemployment insurance. But this second amendment includes a 13-week extension for workers in every State who have exhausted their benefits. Again, the right thing to do.

The administration also had placed a moratorium on seven Medicaid regulations, the result of which would cut services for seniors, families, and those with disabilities. The administration, after conversation with both sides, has decided and agreed to a moratorium on six of the seven regulations. That's good for the States, but more importantly, it's good for those whom these dollars will help in a time of trouble. This provision has overwhelmingly been supported in this House previously, both sides of the aisle, who voted for protecting the Medicaid safety net by a vote of 349-62. I am pleased the administration has joined us in the support of this effort.

The second amendment also includes critical disaster assistance in the wake of devastating tornadoes and floods, which all of us have seen on TV over the last few days, as well as funding to strengthen New Orleans' levees, as requested by the President, and housing vouchers for those left homeless by Hurricane Katrina.

I want to again commend Chairman Obey and Chairman Rangel. Chairman Rangel played a key role in getting us to this agreement, and I thank him for that.

I also again want to thank Minority Leader Boehner and Ranking Member Lewis for their leadership on this legislation.

Some will say this legislation is not perfect. To that extent, they can apply that to any piece of legislation that we consider, but this legislation is a good piece of legislation. It will provide for our troops in the field, while addressing critical priorities here at home. It will have my support, and I urge the support of this body for such amendment as they believe to be appropriate in the best interests of our country.

I thank my friend, the distinguished representative from the State of Texas and a leader in our caucus and in our Congress.

I want to say how very proud I am to be associated with my good friend, Sam Johnson, an American hero not only to this body, but to veterans who have served in every one of our wars, and certainly the Korean War in particular. I thank him for his cosponsorship of this resolution with me.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation granting the Korean War Veterans Association a Federal charter. It will enable them to expand its mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes.

The Association, comprised exclusively of Korean War members, has more than 23,000 members and is one of the few such organizations of its size without a Federal charter.

More than 50 years have passed since the war-weary men and women who served in Korea returned home. History has revealed that the sacrifices made by these brave soldiers was instrumental in stopping the expansion of communism, and that their sacrifice effectively contributed to a more peaceful world. Can one imagine if North Korea were in charge of all of Korea, what a dangerous world this would be? Granting this Federal charter is a small expression of our appreciation for the extraordinary courage of our forces who were deployed to the Korean Peninsula.

This bipartisan legislation is an opportunity to express our gratitude and respect for our military, past and present, and to give Korean War veterans the long-awaited recognition that they so deserve so that the so-called ``forgotten war'' is and should be forgotten no more.

I want to thank, as I have done earlier, my colleague, Representative Sam Johnson, a decorated Korean and Vietnam veteran, for cosponsoring this legislation with me in the House. He honors our House by his service, as he honored this House and this country by his service in Korea and in Vietnam. I know that the Korean War veterans, his colleagues who stood the battle in Korea, are extraordinarily honored by his cosponsorship of this resolution.

I want to thank my good friend, Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, for his work on this issue in the Senate.

This is an appropriate step for us to take. This recognition for our Nation's Korean War veterans is long overdue, but it is never too late to do the right thing. And I am pleased, Madam Speaker, to rise and urge my colleagues to unanimously support this resolution, and again thank the distinguished soldier who serves with us and served his country so well in battle.

Madam Speaker, this Friday an esteemed member of the Washington press corps--our friend, Steve Barr--will conclude his service as the author of the Washington Post's Federal Diary. For 29 years, Steve has served our region as a reporter with the Washington Post, and for the last 8 years he has written the Post's Federal Diary column, covering workplace issues within the three branches of the Federal government.

As someone who represents 58,000 Federal workers, I am especially grateful for Steve's work to make the Federal Diary a highly-valuable resource on the issues of greatest importance to our nation's civil service employees. For those of us monitoring the daily developments affecting our federal workforce, Steve's column has been required reading.

Madam Speaker, as we are well aware, our federal workforce is one of the best in the world, and in Steve, we could not have asked for anyone who recognizes that more. The quality of his work is a mark of the great pride and pleasure he so clearly possesses in his service to our public service workers. So while Steve's departure marks the end of an era at the Post's Federal Diary, I assure you that his contributions will long be remembered. I wish him the best in his future endeavors.

I thank the Republican whip for yielding.

On Monday, the House is not in session. 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. The final list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

We will take any pending votes on H.R. 6063, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, which we will debate later today after this colloquy; and we will consider H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008. We will also consider H.R. 5876, Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008; and we hope to consider and I expect to consider the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

He observes that I said we hope to have it on the floor. I want to reiterate that I hoped each one of those weeks that we would have it on the floor, and I hope that we will have it on the floor next week.

I would say to my friend that I hope we have a bill on the floor next week, pass it through the House and pass it through the Senate and that the President will sign that bill. Obviously, one of the reasons that we have not gotten the bill on the floor as quickly as I had hoped is that there have been very, very substantial discussions between the House and the Senate, between the House and the White House, and the Senate and the White House about what their thoughts are with respect to various aspects of the supplemental bill and what they would or would not consider a signable bill.

So I think there have been extensive discussions on that. I am hopeful that

when we finally pass something to the President he will sign it and we will have that bill done. As the gentleman indicated, we are aware of the fact that it is timely that we pass this bill certainly within the next 2 weeks. And when I say pass it, not just pass it but have it signed by the President so we have a law in effect that gives the President and the Department of Defense the funds they need to continue the deployment that currently exists. That does not adopt the policy of the appropriateness of that, but it does recognize the reality of the fact that we have men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman will recall, we had a bill on this House to make those funds available. It did not pass. It did not pass as you recall because many of your Members voted present. I think they would have supported it, and many of our Members did not support that funding. They want to see the policies changed. I agree with them on the policies.

The fact is that we now have that funding passed from the Senate in the supplemental to us and we are trying to resolve as you know the differences. But there is a desire to get that bill done in a timely fashion so that the problems that you portray, which I believe are accurate, do not occur.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As I said last week, with respect to more drilling in various parts of the country, whether it is in Alaska, in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge or on the Outer Continental Shelf, I would like to reiterate the information I referred to last week, but before I do that let me say that we are very supportive of any legislation that will lead this country towards energy independence within the framework of what we think is necessary and needed. Now I say it in this context. I support and I think we support on this side a diversified clean energy portfolio. We think that is critically important for our country.

In the area of supporting energy supply, I hope the Senate will return the tax extender bill which invests in alternative energy sources which can be put online so we can be more energy independent and not dependent upon the producers of petroleum, many of whom are not friendly to us, and others of whom are not as reliable as we would like.

I have listened for some period of time in the last few weeks that all we need to do to solve this problem is more drilling. We don't believe that is the case. In fact, as I said to the gentleman last week, we have nearly a whole refinery's worth of capacity idle right now.

What I mean by that, Mr. Whip, is that our refineries were operating, at the end of last week, at 89 percent capacity. That is the lowest operational capacity of refineries in our country in the last 10 years at this time of year. So our refineries still have another 8 to 9 percent capacity. 8 to 9 percent is a very significant portion.

Now, we've introduced two bills today to make oil companies use their existing leases. Before we go to new leases, before we go to the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge or the Outer Continental Shelf, which is very controversial on both sides of the aisle, we believe that oil and gas companies should use the present leases they have. They hold nearly 68 million acres of Federal land and waters on which they are not producing oil and gas. These 68 million acres of leased but currently inactive land and waters could produce, I tell my friend, an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. So that when we talk about looking for new spots to drill, we first ought to look at those spots. Vast acreage, millions of acres have already been authorized.

If we took those actions, I tell my friend, the information I have is that it would nearly double total U.S. oil production and increase domestic national gas production by 75 percent. That is on existing leaseholds.

It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than a third, if all we did was use existing leaseholds. It would be more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In other words, using existing leases that have already been authorized, would produce six times what the projections are, and the most optimistic projections are for the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

Let me say that we also introduced two bills today to look at and study the investments in oil futures, in petroleum futures. We're very concerned that that is having an impact on price, not because of supply and demand, but because of speculation. Mr. Dingell and Mr. Barton, as you know, have cosponsored legislation, and I've cosponsored it myself with them.

So I'm hopeful that we will move ahead vigorously, as I know the gentleman from Missouri wants to do, to see what can be done to make our country more energy efficient, to utilize the energy sources which are already authorized.

I would say one additional thing in terms of refineries. There's been some discussion about refineries. There's been one application for a new refinery in the last 30 years. One application. It was approved. That refinery has not been built, notwithstanding the fact that the application was approved.

And obviously, with refinery capacity not being at the capacity it's been at in the last 10 years, it would seem that a new refinery was not built because the oil companies made a determination that it was not needed because, at this critical time when demand is so high, they're not operating at peak performance.

So let me just reiterate that we all want to work together to try to have our country be energy independent. We think that's important for our national security, our economic security. And indeed, we think that going to alternative energies is critically important for the health of our global climate.

I yield back.

I thank my friend for yielding.

My friend mentioned the Outer Continental Shelf, and I agree with him. But the facts I have are this. Four times more natural gas is available in areas already open to drilling. Let me reiterate that. In areas already approved and open for drilling, four times more natural gas is available than in OCS waters protected by the moratorium.

In other words, that which is protected has only 25 percent perceived to be available than does the already approved available Outer Continental Shelf areas. So if we started vigorously pursuing exploration and drilling in those areas, we'd get 75 percent more than we get now.

In fact, the figure is that we are using only 18 percent of the 7,740 active leases currently available on the Outer Continental Shelf, only 1,655 are in production; so that when we talk about the problem is that the Democrats are not allowing us to drill and explore and to recover resources that are in our Outer Continental Shelf or on our lower 48, that is not, I think, accurate. I think it's not accurate because of the extraordinarily high percentage of currently approved leaseholds that are not being utilized in this very day.

Now, I'm sure that the oil companies, very frankly, want to increase supply and see prices come down. I say that somewhat with tongue in cheek. If perhaps we were finding more supply, utilizing those leaseholds, perhaps the price would not be quite as high and the profits wouldn't be either.

But I will tell you that Americans are, at $4 a gallon, seeing the companies that are selling them oil receiving extraordinarily high profits. God bless them for getting profits. They have invested, they've worked hard. They put their capital at risk. I'm for that.

But at the same time, when they are failing to use leaseholds that would bring more supply, that would presumably then bring down the price, I think the American public have a right to ask, why are we only using 18 percent of the currently available leaseholds on the Outer Continental Shelf and about one-quarter or a little less than one- quarter of what's available on the mainland?

I yield back to my friend.

I have an automobile.

My friend, at the beginning of his last comments, said ``on public lands.'' I want to make it very clear that the implication, perhaps that we're not allowing that on public lands, there are, as I said, 80 percent of the already authorized spots on public land not being utilized today; so that this is not a question of where we have not authorized drilling. We're for that. We want to find more product.

What we are saying is that we have now got the majority of authorized spots being unutilized. Now, why that is so, when the product is getting the highest price it's ever gotten, which ought to be incentive, in and of itself, to look for new product and to explore and to drill and to get new product to the market, which would then bring the price down.

I hope that nobody is controlling supply simply to escalate price. We know that when demand goes up and supply is constrained, that prices inevitably rise. The American public is paying the price for that. Great profits are being made. But it is adversely affecting our economy and our families. And we share your view that we want to address this problem.

But I want to say, we talk about today. Unfortunately, for too long, I'm old enough to have experienced the gas lines of the late seventies where you waited hours to get gasoline in your car. Hopefully that won't reoccur.

But had we, Democrats and Republicans, Americans all, focused in a disciplined way on looking for, developing more efficient automobiles, more efficient refrigerators and other electric utilities, focused on conservation, focused on alternative sources of energy, we would be far ahead of the game.

In the final analysis, we cannot get distracted, in my opinion. We need to go down both paths, making sure today we have the most efficient process possible but that tomorrow we're energy independent, because in the final analysis, that will be the only way in which we will continue to keep our economy moving, our national security intact, and our environment clean and healthy.