Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns tomorrow, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday 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.

Mr. Speaker, I quote: ``Somehow or other their faces seemed different from those of ordinary men.''

Winston Churchill wrote those words about volunteers who risked their lives defusing bombs in wartime. I imagine that he saw in their faces the constant strain of knowing that their smallest movements over the bomb could mean the difference between life and death. I imagine that he saw in the lines and creases the evidence of the burden they carried for their comrades; and, deeper still, some indefinable quality that made them willing to take that burden on again and again.

Mr. Speaker, I never met Technical Sergeant Tony Capra. But underneath all the marks of strain and stress, I am sure I could have seen there his love for his family: His wife, Angie; his five children, Mark, Victoria, Jared, Shawn, and Adrianna; his 11 brothers and sisters; his mother and his father.

Last week I had the opportunity to talk to his father about the loss of his son in Iraq as he disabled an IED and it exploded. Obviously, he saved scores of others, and paid the ultimate price. His dad, as one would imagine, was extraordinarily sad, but also exceptionally proud of the duty his son had performed.

I am sure I could have seen in his devotion to our Armed Forces an absolute commitment to their mission, to his duty, to his country.

Sergeant Tony Capra, 31 years of age, died on April 9th in Iraq. He was an Air Force Ordnance Technician based in Indian Head City, Maryland, in my district, an expert diffuser of improvised explosive devices. Quoting from the report about him, his ``keen eye for details, astounding memory, and courage without measure,'' in the words of his commanding officer, as I have said, saved countless lives.

But in the middle of an Iraqi road, not far from Balad Air Force Base, an explosion took his life. Sergeant Capra was on his fourth tour in Iraq. When he could have rested at home, he volunteered to return to work, to work

against explosive devices designed to maim and kill his fellow soldiers, as well as innocent Iraqi men and women, and, yes, too many children. He placed his body in harm's way. He laid his life down for others. He died in our country's service and was posthumously awarded a second Bronze Star.

But this great Nation owes him a debt far beyond its power to repay. It is because of the bravery and sacrifice of American patriots like Tony Capra that a dangerous dictator no longer menaces his own people and the world, and that 25 million human beings who were oppressed for a quarter of a century are currently struggling to establish a democratic government that answers to its own people, that stands for freedom, and respects the rule of law. That was Tony Capra's vision. That is why he served his country so well.

I hope, in time, that Tony's unwavering patriotism and courage gives some comfort to his family. I know it does. But, today, there is so little we can say to soften this blow. As his young brother James said shortly after his death, ``It's like a puzzle. Our family is not complete without all the pieces together.''

Memories of Tony are all that can be put in his place, and I know how insufficient they must seem right now. But my sincere hope for you, the family and friends of Sergeant Capra, is that those memories will turn in time from a source of grief to a well of comfort; that you will be consoled by the loving and devoted way he lived, and the fearless way he died in the service of others.

Let me end with this thought. We often speak in abstractions in this Chamber. We use words like ``supplemental,'' ``counterinsurgency,'' ``redeployment.'' But behind each of these words is a young life like Sergeant Capra's. More than 4,000 Americans, like Tony Capra, have paid the ultimate price, have given the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. They bear the burden of the decisions we make here almost every day. And we have a responsibility, indeed, we have a moral obligation, to never forget the Tony Capras and the 4,000 others whom we have lost.

Mr. Speaker, may God bless Tony Capra, a man of courage, patriotism, valor and commitment, and may He console and strengthen those who grieve his loss.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be amended to report back to the House forthwith.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am only going to play the game just so far.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the American public know this game. The gentlelady, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, has just made it clear. Gas prices were $1.46 when President Bush took over the White House, when the Republicans took over the House, when the Senate was taken over by the Republicans. Gas prices are now $3.51. Two oil men reside in the White House and in the vice presidency.

Nothing, of course, is your fault, because we have been here, after all, for 14 months. We, of course, have had most of that which we have wanted to pass on economics vetoed by the President. But what we wanted to pass on energy, we agreed with the President and worked on an energy package to get us to independence.

Now I want to talk to my side. We know this is a game. We know this is pure politics. We know there wants to be a 30-second ad to say somehow we voted against bringing gas prices down. That is patently absurd, and the American people are too smart for that. The American people are too smart.

I urge my colleagues on my side; I don't know that I will get any votes on this side, but this is a game, and it is a game that has gone on for too long. I asked for unanimous consent, but Mr. Price knows this is a game so he wouldn't give me unanimous consent to include this in the bill and pass it this very night. That is not what you want to do. You want a political ad.

So I am asking everybody on my side--the House wanted to be in order, I heard from over there. I am asking everybody on my side not to play this game, because it will never end. Don't play this game. Don't fool the American public. This is about sending this bill back to committee. It will take weeks to bring it back. The small business community deserves this bill. Support this bill. Reject this cynical political maneuver on this floor tonight.

I thank my friend of some 45 years for his observations. There are a lot of my very dear friends for a long time in this chamber.

Israel is America's friend for a very long time.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting today that Members of both sides of the aisle, almost in unanimity, join to recognize the founding of our Nation's steadfast friend and ally, the State of Israel, to reconfirm the special bond that exists between our two Nations, and to reiterate that the support for Israel in this Congress is bipartisan, overwhelming, stronger than ever, and continuing to grow.

On May 14, 1948, the day on which the British mandate for Palestine expired, the people of Israel proclaimed the sovereign and independent State of Israel. And 11 minutes later the United States, at the direction of President Harry S. Truman, recognized the establishment of this new state.

President Truman observed, at that time, and I quote, ``I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have faith in it now. I believe that it has a glorious future before it, not just another sovereign nation, but an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization.''

So said President Harry Truman, May 14, 1948, 11 minutes after the declaration of sovereignty of the State of Israel. An embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization. I believe that to be the fact, and because I believe that to be the fact, I believe it is absolutely essential that those who uphold those ideals pledge their support and defense of Israel against those who would undermine, not only the nation, but the idea of the civilization that Truman said it represents.

Mr. Speaker, over the ensuing 6 decades, it has become increasingly clear that Israel's success is not only a strategic imperative for the United States, but a moral imperative as well. Ours is a relationship of principle and conscience, of shared values and common aspirations, of peace and opportunity and a mutual commitment to freedom and democracy.

The United States and Israel are nations of immigrants. We are safe havens for the oppressed. The Statue of Liberty lifts her lamp beside the golden door, ``Send these, the poor, the homeless, tempest tossed to me,'' it says. That is what Israel has said to millions of Jews, and others as well, black and white.

We are partners with Israel for peace, and we are united in fighting against terrorism. Few people on Earth have been subjected to more bigotry, violence and discrimination than have the Jewish people, and no people are more in need, in my view, of a sovereign, secure homeland to provide safe haven and to protect identity.

That is why the Balfour Resolution was passed in 1918. That is why, in 1948, the world looked on the creation of Israel as an imperative.

David Ben-Gurion once remarked: ``The security of Israel is,'' he said, and I quote, ``a question of the survival, not only of the people of Israel, but of the Jewish people the world over.''

History has taught us that is true. Throughout the last 60 years, Israel has been an island of freedom in a sea of despair and an absence of democracy. It has been vilified, threatened and attacked. My colleagues have set forth those facts.

And yet, it has prevailed, indeed, prospered, just as it will prevail and prosper today and tomorrow and every day thereafter.

When we talk of Israel, we inevitably acknowledge her courage in the face of those who seek her destruction. But let us also acknowledge that over the last 60 years, the Israeli people have established a vibrant, pluralistic, democratic political system that includes freedom of speech, association, religion, a vigorous free press, free, fair and open elections, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary.

Furthermore, Israel has developed an advanced entrepreneurial economy, and is among the world's leaders in the high tech industry.

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Berman observed, over the last 5 years I've had the opportunity to take a tenth of the Congress, actually more than a tenth of the Congress to Israel, congressional delegations, which have gone to see where we invest our money and where we have committed our security pledge. And what the Members saw was a reflection, really, in many respects, of America and themselves, people who love their country, people who want to live in peace and freedom, and people who want their children to have even greater opportunities and safety.

As our allies in Israel celebrate their 60th anniversary in just a few weeks, let us honor their determination to fulfill the vision of Zionism's founding father, Theodore Herzl. Through courage and will, Israel was born and the dream of generations was made real, and it will endure. It will endure with our support, with our encouragement, and with our commitment.

I want to congratulate the citizens of Israel and the entire Jewish community, not only in the United States, but throughout the world, who have enabled Israel to survive. Congratulations. Happy birthday.

We remain a loyal, steadfast and unswerving ally in your quest for a better life, not just for your people, but, as Truman observed, for civilization as well.

Madam Speaker, today, as millions of Americans prepare to file their Federal income tax returns by midnight, many will be confounded, confused and, yes, perhaps even cranky because of our unbelievably complicated tax code, and, I don't think there's a person in this body who will blame them.

Our tax code is a maze of complexity that creates confusion and, yes, unfairness. In fact, between 2001 and 2006--when our Republican colleagues controlled the Congress and the White House--they added more than 10,000 pages to the Internal Revenue Code and regulations.

It now takes people an average of 34 hours to complete a 1040 long form. It's no wonder that 62 percent of Americans rely on a tax professional to prepare their returns.

The Democratic majority has been focused for years on making our Tax Code fairer and simpler--and doing so in a fiscally responsible way, but this issue also demands Presidential leadership. We know that from experience.

The last real tax reform occurred 22 years ago when President Reagan and Dan Rostenkowski, then Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, came together to streamline our Tax Code.

When a new President takes office in January 2009, I believe that this should be an issue near the top of the agenda--particularly an effort to reform the dreaded alternative minimum tax.

Today, we will consider the ``Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act,'' which makes small, but important reforms to our Tax Code.

Among other things, this bill will:

Strengthen taxpayer protections from identity theft and tax fraud;

Expand assistance for low-income taxpayers;

Close tax loopholes that allow Government contractors to set up sham companies in foreign jurisdictions to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes; and

End the private collection of Federal income taxes.

Just this morning, the Washington Post reported that the Internal Revenue Service expects to lose more than $37 million by using private debt collectors to pursue tax scofflaws.

That's right--private companies hired to collect tax revenue that the IRS does not have the resources to pursue actually cost the Federal Government--i.e., taxpayers--more than they bring in.

Furthermore, let me say that there clearly is something wrong with our Tax Code when the costs of noncompliance--the so-called ``tax gap''--is an estimated $345 billion a year. The reality is, this tax gap is only going to be narrowed and closed when we get serious about real tax reform.

Until that day, Mr. Speaker, we must do what we can to make our tax laws fairer and simpler. This legislation is an important step in that regard.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this bill, and, in the months ahead, to come together--like we did in 1986-- in support of real tax reform.

May I use this podium?

Let me come over here.

I tell a story when I greet, as so many of you have, constituents to the floor of the House. I tell them the story that few Members of the House did I come with a more negative perception of than John Rousselot, as you can imagine. John Rousselot had quite a reputation around the country. And I say that to them for the purpose of saying that I ended up thinking John Rousselot was one of the really delightful human beings with whom I served, notwithstanding our deep disagreements. Some of you who served during his term will recall, as we know, John had a problem with his leg, but he used to delight, as you recall, going over to that rostrum and talking to you us. You remember that, Bob, I am sure, very well. He did it, however, not in a confrontational way but with a twinkle in his eye, as if to say, I'm coming over

here and I'm going to tell you guys what you really ought to be doing. And I really always enjoyed it.

When Jay said, well, I'm not going to speak from that rostrum, I'm going to come over here, it reminded me of that.

Unfortunately, as all of you know through the years now, the aisle has become more a wall than an aisle. A division has grown. I lament, I really do, Bob Michel's loss from the House and from the country's service in this body--he still serves our country as all of you do as well--because he was, with Tip O'Neill, two unifying leaders who tried to bring us together, not agreeing necessarily but disagree in a sense of trying to get together to solve problems with our different perspectives being involved. As all of you know, I have a deep affection for Bob Michel for that reason. But I always come here-- before I was majority leader I came here--because I want to thank all of you for the service you have given to our country, the friendship you have given to me and so many others in this body.

Some of you I see on a regular basis. The Historical Society obviously making such a continued contribution. I saw Ben Gilman 2 days ago at a breakfast at which I spoke. But I really wanted to reiterate the welcome of Speaker Pelosi to all of you back to the House.

I also want to recognize our friends, and I'm not sure which one of you are here, from Great Britain, from Ireland. As a matter of fact, I think there are 19 Irish Parliamentarians here. There are a couple from Greece and New Zealand; Great Britain, as I said; and Canada. So we have five nations represented who with the United States have something in common with one of them, Great Britain. And we have much in common with all of us. We welcome you to the House. You are friends and great allies at a time of challenge for the global community, both in terms of economics, in terms of terrorism, in terms of moving our international community towards a more peaceful resolution of its problems.

Senator Mitchell. Did he leave? I'm sorry. I should have said that at the beginning. I was going to invite Senator Mitchell, based upon his experience in Northern Ireland, if he might visit us here and see if he can resolve the differences between the Senate and the House. I thought that might be a very useful contribution to the country. We're having some problems. You may have noticed. The Senate is a strange body, Senator Tydings. We're trying to work with them, but it is very difficult.

In any event, I want to welcome all of you back and thank you for what you have done for our country on both sides of the aisle, as Americans, not as Republicans or as Democrats but as Americans, and say how honored I am to have the opportunity to join with you on this day when you return, to remember what you have done here, but to also remember the friendships that we have made here.

Good luck to you. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have some extraordinary people who work for us. At times this is a very stressful job. They remain even-tempered. They remain gentle and kind and good humored. We have lost one of those just recently. Maybe you did not know his name, but you saw him, usually through the center door, or sometimes other doors. His name was Lou Costantino.

As a member of the House security team for over 28 years, Lou Costantino has been a fixture at the House Chamber's front door and was beloved by Members and staff who were greeted by him every day. I never failed to come through that door that he did not have a kind and gentle world.

He was a ``purveyor of pork,'' if you will. He loved sausage, and he allowed some of us to share in that sausage.

I am very sad to report to all of you that Lou died of a heart attack last Saturday. He was young, 71 years of age. Many of you will remember Lou for the homemade sausage he made for his friends and colleagues every day.

We will miss Lou. He made this institution a better place.

Moment of Silence

I would ask you therefore to join me in a moment of silence in remembrance of a part of this institution who will be sorely missed, Lou Costantino.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his words about Lou Costantino. All of us will miss Lou. He was a wonderful, good, human being who loved this institution and showed great affection to all of our Members.

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. 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, including an important bill from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, H.R. 5712, Close the Contractor Fraud Loophole Act. A final list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, Mr. Whip, we will consider H.R. 5819, a bill to improve the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard authorization bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

My hope is sooner rather than later. However, as the gentleman knows, we are having, as is so often the case, difficulty reaching agreement with the Senate, mainly because the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has a very close vote structure there, as you know, and so he is trying to figure out the votes in the Senate on a budget.

As is too often the case, one of the issues is whether we pay for things that we are doing. The House feels strongly about that issue, and I think the chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate feels strongly about that issue, but he is not sure that he can get the votes. That is the discussion. There is some discrepancy, not much, between the figures, and we are hopeful that we can get a budget conference committee done. As soon as a conference committee is done, we will report it to the floor. If that is next week, it will be on the floor next week.

I am in regular communication with Mr. Spratt, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and he is working at it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I still anticipate that. With reference to the gentleman's question regarding the number of bills, based upon the comments of Mr. Murtha, I have not talked to him personally but that have been reported, it is my understanding that he is thinking of one bill, not both an Afghanistan and an Iraq.

The problem is while there is, I think, pretty universal support for the effort in Afghanistan as being critical to our fight on terrorism, there is more disagreement on the Iraq component and what we ought to be doing there. But the way the budget is structured, it would be very difficult to consider them discretely, Afghanistan and Iraq. So it is my understanding that Mr. Murtha has recommended and intends to pursue it as one bill.

Those are my thoughts; my thoughts and my hope. I think that lame duck sessions, in my experience, have not been particularly productive, particularly when you are going to have a change of administration. Whether it is Senator McCain, Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, we are going to have a change of administration. I expressed it as a hope, and we are going to work toward not having a lame duck session.

Let me go back and answer your question. I think we had a week delay on the supplemental, and I think the week of May 5 is the week we are looking at for the supplemental. As you know, I said the last week in April, the first week in May. That is the first full week in May, so I guess I am still accurate. We are on for that week hopefully on the supplemental, which will be timely in accomplishing the objective of getting dollars in time before the depletion of the funds that have already been appropriated.

With respect to the appropriations process, obviously I will be discussing with Mr. Obey and with Mr. Spratt, if we fail to pass a budget, we have to give the Appropriations Committee a figure to mark to. My thought would be that we will do as we have done in years past, deem that the House budget will be the numbers to which they will mark. But we have not made that decision at this point in time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The Speaker has focused on, as I think she has been quoted in the press as saying, we are still looking at TAA and discussing that with the administration. TAA, trade adjustment assistance, we think that is very important. There have been some positive discussions and indications from the administration. In addition, I know the Speaker has been discussing additional items with the leadership in the House and with Mr. Reid, and I think as well with the White House. So I think discussions are ongoing. The Speaker has made it very clear that the action taken from her perception, certainly from my perception, was not the death knell of Colombia. I know that some have interpreted it that way, but I don't think that the Speaker or I interpreted it that way.

As you know because we have had an opportunity to discuss it, I have essentially been coordinating this issue on our side with Mr. Reyes and Mr. Conyers, and also working with Mr. Rockefeller. And you and I had a meeting with Senator Bond, the ranking member on the Republican side.

I am hopeful that we can have a proposition passed through the House and hopefully by the Senate by the Memorial Day break. That is my time frame. I am working toward that. I have meetings tomorrow with respect to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I am going to have meetings this afternoon, and I had meetings yesterday. I am giving it a lot of attention, with others as well. As you know, we met briefly. I would reiterate to you that when I have some better fix on where I think the Senate is willing to go or where we are willing to go and where we can reach agreement, I want to discuss it with you because I am hopeful that we can work together to try to make that happen.

If the gentleman would yield, I share that hope. Again, I share the conviction, which I have expressed on numerous occasions, that the law that currently exists to my understanding, and when I say currently exists, and the authorizations that were given under the Protect America Act, are in place and in fact are continuing to provide opportunities to intercept those communications that the administration and the intelligence community feel are necessary to focus on. Having said that, we are trying, I'm trying to move ahead as quickly as we can come to agreement.

If the gentleman would yield, I want to thank the gentleman because I believe he is absolutely sincere in that effort. He and I have had an opportunity to have discussions. We are going to continue those over the coming days, and hopefully we can get this done sooner rather than later. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee have both expressed that objective.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

I thank my friend, the Republican whip.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. And on Thursday, the House will meet at 8:30 a.m. and recess immediately to allow for the Former Members Association annual meeting, and will reconvene at approximately 10 a.m. for legislative business after the meeting is concluded.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The final list will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

On Friday, no votes are expected.

We will consider H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2007; H.R. 5719, Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008; and H.R. 5715, Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loan Act of 2008.

In addition, we intend to consider at some point next week the bill we started today, H.R. 2537, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to beach monitoring. We will consider that to its conclusion.

I am not sure when it was introduced, very frankly. It was marked up this week and reported out of committee. Whether it was introduced this week or not, I do not know.

As you know, Secretary Spelling has indicated this is a very severe challenge confronting student loans. Obviously we want to get ready for September in particular so families have some confidence they will be able to secure loans for their children, or for young people going to college, securing the loans themselves.

If the gentleman would yield, I would agree with the observation on our side. I say that, and it is obviously not humorous except to me.

The fact of the matter is I believe that what was said on this side of the aisle and what the Speaker has indicated was that this was sent down we believed contrary to normal practice not with agreement of the leadership and the administration on how this would be considered. The Speaker believed, and obviously the House did as well, that additional time was needed. This was not, the Speaker has indicated that, an attempt to kill this agreement. It still could come up. There still is going to be discussion between the administration and ourselves. We want to resolve some outstanding issues and discuss what we might reach agreement on with the President and the administration.

As you know, we began those conversations yesterday. You and I were down there at the White House together. We hope to continue and hope for positive movement. Regarding other agreements that are pending, we have not discussed nor ruled out the possibility that future trade agreements may be considered by this Congress.

I don't think this was intended necessarily to be precedent-setting. The precedent, of course, has

been that administrations, Republican and Democratic, have discussed with Republican and Democratic Congresses the timing and conditions under which these would be sent forward. We did not believe that had been accomplished this time. The administration's perspective was that there had not been response to their attempts to do so. Whatever the reasons, the answer to your question is we do not believe at this point in time that this is precedent for the two pending agreements.

But I don't want to by that response represent, if we were confronted with the same set of conditions, that is, that we did not reach agreement on how those agreements were moving forward, that this might not be again something that might be considered. But it is not precedent.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, let me say that last week, and I would reiterate the comment, I don't think I spoke to when the committee would move on it. What I did say was that hopefully the supplemental would be on the floor either the last week in April or the first week in May. I don't think that I referenced the committee consideration of that. I still believe that is the case.

With respect to your second question as to what might be on the supplemental, obviously it has not been marked up in committee. There are discussions, as have been reported in the public press, with respect to either language that might be appended to that by the committee or by the House itself. I would not want to preclude that effort.

I want to say that it is my understanding that the President has made a comment today again that what I sent you and the dollar I sent you, not a penny more will I sign.

I will tell my friend, I don't think that is particularly useful. It continues to say from the President of the United States to the Congress of the United States, which is, after all, the policymaking body of this country under the Constitution, ``What I propose you take, or we'll leave it. We'll not do anything other.''

I would hope to have discussions on this. As you know, the economy is in crisis. It is very nice to give money to Iraq. As you know, I support funding our troops. Having said that, we have people in crisis in housing, we have people in crisis in jobs, we have people in crisis without health care, and we have people in crisis with their educational expenses. We have a lot of people in this country who are in trouble.

We think that they need to know that the Congress of the United States is responding to their issues as well as to the issues that the President brings up with respect to Iraq.

So I don't want to commit us to simply doing exactly what the President asks, or apparently thinks he can tell us to do. We don't think that is the process.

Well, of course, as you know, we have passed legislation that's still pending in the Senate. In addition to that, as you know, gas prices in January 2001 were $1.46, on average, in this country. They're now, on average, $3.30, so they've more than doubled during the last 87 months of this administration. We're concerned about that, as I know you are as well. The public would like to have $1.46 gas, I'm sure, back. And we are concerned about that.

We're concerned about energy independence. We all know that it's going to be very tough in the short term on both sides, it's recognized in the short term, to do something on gas prices, given where we are today from that $1.46 where we were in January of 2001.

Having said that, this bill that was on the floor today was an important bill. It was an important bill to a Member on your side of the aisle, and you and I had the opportunity to talk to him about it. It was a bipartisan bill. It's a bill that we thought had merit. And, as a matter of fact, my expectation is that overwhelming numbers of the House are going to vote for it when it comes up for final passage.

But, clearly, gasoline prices, gasoline, energy independence, which is a critical component of why we are in the position of having to pay such high prices, because we don't have great alternatives, getting more efficient automobiles, using alternative energy sources, providing for renewable fuels, as you know, I think you and I, I know you and I were both down when we presented the President with a bill that was signed by him at the Energy Department. We in a bipartisan way moved towards that last year on bills that we passed in a bipartisan way.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, it adjourn to meet at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 17.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on Thursday, April 17, for the Speaker to declare a recess subject to the call of the Chair for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber former Members of Congress.