Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Kacie Rader, a neighbor of mine in Mechanicsville, Maryland, a constituent from the Fifth District, and a World-Champion Soap Box Racer.

This is the second time I have come to the Floor this year to sing Kacie's praises. On the first occasion, I commended her win in the National Championship. And today, I rise to celebrate her win in the National Derby Rally Championships--held in the great State of Indiana on Friday July 27--where she won her world title.

Earning the title ``world champion'' is no small feat. It takes hard work, determination, intelligence and athletic ability--all of which were on display when Kacie achieved her ultimate goal and became the best in the world at her chosen pursuit.

Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting Kacie this morning, and I can tell you that she is an incredibly well-rounded young woman from whom we expect even greater things in the future.

Today, I want Kacie and her family to know that her district, State and Nation are proud of her accomplishment and wish her nothing but the best in whatever the future may hold.

Mr. Chairman, we are trying to move along the business of the people of this country.

I rise in strong support of this extraordinarily good legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation truly represents a new direction in America's energy policy, and it will thereby strengthen our national, economic and environmental security.

Twenty-eight years ago, President Carter said (and I quote): ``This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our Nation.''

President Carter was correct then, but we failed to act.

We must not fail to act today.

We must pass this comprehensive legislation, which will reduce our reliance on foreign oil by investing in the infrastructure needed to deploy homegrown bio-fuels, providing incentives for plug-in hybrid cars, and promoting the use of mass transit.

This legislation also repeals a number of tax subsidies that benefit the oil and gas industry, and includes landmark energy efficiency provisions that will save consumers and businesses at least $300 billion through 2030.

In fact, the energy efficiency provisions will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 10.4 billion tons through 2030--more than the annual emissions of all the cars on the road in America today.

In addition, it extends existing tax credits for the production of renewable energy; spurs innovation by supporting high-risk, high-payoff energy research; and bolsters research on renewable energy and global warming.

Furthermore, the bill requires our government to become carbon- neutral by the year 2050, moving forward on carbon capture and sequestration, promoting clean energy exports to developing countries, and directing the administration to lead the global effort to achieve a binding global warming agreement.

It is my hope that the house will send this bill to conference with a strong vote so that we can reach consensus on issues such as the use of renewables, the development of new technologies, and the fiscally responsible extension of needed energy tax provisions.

This bill will help us achieve that goal. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I know how concerned you all have been that you haven't gotten sufficient time to consider legislation that's put before you. We have had this for 6 or 7 minutes, and, of course, we have read it page to page. Reading it page to page, we have concluded that we ought not to support it.

Very briefly.

I understand that. But I just got it, and we just got it on the desk as to what you were going to add.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the distinguished ranking member has outlined what's in this bill. It is emblematic of the problem we have seen

for 12 years where we have ignored conservation, where we have ignored alternative energy sources, where we have ignored reaching out with the understanding that petroleum is going to run out from wherever we seek it and that we therefore need to move in a new direction and adopt a new policy and to adopt a policy on the future, not on the present, adopt a policy that looks to our children and grandchildren's future as well as the future of ourselves.

Ladies and gentlemen, this motion puts together a complete substitute with three key differences from our bill. It includes refinery streamlining, provisions that were rejected, rejected in the 2005 Energy Conference Committee, rejected. We were not in charge. That's in this bill. These provisions override environmental law, reduce public participation, and do so for no real benefit.

The provisions in the 2005 law have never been used, and the provisions in this substitute is a solution in search of a problem. The substitute also includes Arctic refuge drilling, as the gentleman has made clear.

We repeatedly rejected that proposition. It could have been offered in a separate amendment. It was not, but it's not hidden in this bill, and we ought to know that. It does not produce oil for more than a decade, while conservation has immediate opportunities.

Finally, the substitute also includes alternative fuel standards; H.R. 3221 does not. We decided to let the committee of jurisdiction work that matter. It is in the Senate bill. I have said repeatedly over the months that standard will be in a bill that we send to the President of the United States.

But the Energy Committee is going to be working on that, the Senate has worked on that, and we will work our will.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is an extraordinary bill. We said when we ran for office that we would provide a new direction for energy independence for America, for security reasons, for security reasons, for economic reasons, and for environmental reasons. We are meeting our promise today.

Reject this substitute, which you have not possibly had the time to read, and enact one of the most far-reaching, new-direction, future- oriented energy bills that this House will have ever passed. Reject the substitute. Vote for this bill. Let us move so the American public can have confidence in a better America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent

(1) that the House hereby concurs in the Senate amendment to H.R. 3311; and

(2) that it be in order at any time on the legislative day of August 4, 2007, to consider S. 1927 in the House under the following terms:

All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI;

The bill shall be considered as read;

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to its final passage without intervening motion except: (a) 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on the Judiciary and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (b) one motion to recommit; and

(3) that it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of August 4, 2007, for the Speaker, as though pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; and that the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with; all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI; points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived; and no general debate shall be in order and the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule; no amendment to the bill may be offered except:

Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate;

An amendment by Mr. Rogers of Michigan increasing funding for cooperative threat reduction programs;

An amendment by Mr. Franks of Arizona regarding missile defense;

An amendment by Mr. Sessions striking section 8020;

An amendment by Mr. Issa regarding public disclosure of the aggregate amount of funds appropriated for the National Intelligence program;

An amendment by Mr. Walberg limiting funds to award grants or contracts based on race, ethnicity or sex;

An amendment by Mr. Castle limiting funds for certain contract awards unless certain conditions are met;

An amendment by Mr. Castle authorizing the use of funds for certain reserve leave policies;

An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for the Swimmer Detection Sonar Network;

An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for Paint Shield for Program People from Microbial Threats project;

An amendment by Mr. Inslee regarding the National Security Personnel System;

An amendment by Mr. Upton or Ms. Harman regarding use of Energy Star certified light bulbs;

An amendment by Mr. Conaway regarding use of reductions made through amendment for deficit reduction;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the National Drug Intelligence Center;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Concurrent Technologies Corporation;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Lewis Center for Education Research;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Presidio Trust;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Atmospheric Water Harvesting Project;

And an amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Doyle Center for Manufacturing Technology.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Defense each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted; and

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further proceedings today in the House and in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that otherwise could be subjected to 5-minute voting under clause 8 or 9 of rule XX or under clause 6 of rule XVIII.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, one of our most senior Members and a gentleman who is deeply committed to civil liberties and the protections being accorded that our Constitution guarantees to every citizen.

I also want to thank Mr. Reyes, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, an individual who has been involved in law enforcement all of his life before coming to the Congress of the United States, who understands the necessity for constraints on those in power.

We all understand as well the threat that confronts us from terrorism. And every Member of this body, without exception, wants to assure the safety and security of our homeland and of our people. Every Member of this body wants to assure that we have given to those in charge of protecting this country the tools necessary to accomplish that objective.

Our Founding Fathers were convinced that if we worked hard at it and cooperatively, that we could accomplish both of those objectives.

I want to congratulate Mr. Reyes and Mr. Conyers for working hard at

this. I participated myself, as I have said the other day when we passed another bill, to accomplish what I believed was much better as far as both objectives.

I believe that every Member in this House wants to protect America. Each of us will exercise our judgment when this vote comes on whether or not this bill is supportable given what I think is the failure to pay attention, as it should have, to the constitutional protections while focusing on the protections against terrorism and against those who would harm and undermine the interests of our country. I regret that.

I spent time talking to Admiral McConnell. Roy Blunt, my friend, and I spent time talking to Admiral McConnell. We spent time reviewing the legislation. I believe that we could reach agreement. I will tell my friends here that I think if we had been dealing with Admiral McConnell, that we would have reached agreement. It became evident, however, that that was not the case. I say that candidly and disappointedly. It became obvious that we were dealing with the administration. There are many of us in this House who believe the administration has focused on the security interests, unfortunately to the exclusion too often of the constitutional requirements.

I will be voting against this legislation, not because I don't want to give the tools to our security apparatus that I think they need, that I want them to have, that I think the American people expect us to make sure they have, but because I believe we have not reached the balance that our Founding Fathers expected.

Now, there would be some on my side and many on the other side who will vote for this legislation. From my perspective, however, we have much work that remains to be done. Mr. Reyes, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. Hoekstra will be working very hard during the coming days to fashion permanent legislation.

This legislation is for 6 months. And my plea to each one of us on this floor and to the administration is to work together to ensure that we protect both the American public from terrorists and, as our Founding Fathers expected our Constitution to do and as conservatives have always focused attention on, protecting our people from the excesses and abuse of those to whom we give power in this country. Because we have done that through the decades and centuries, our country is unique and respected for that protection of liberty and freedom.

So I urge my colleagues, whatever the outcome on this floor tonight, as we proceed over the next few months, let us work together as Americans committed to both of those objectives.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I have a resolution at the desk.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday night I said this was going to be an unhappy week for all of us. I did not expect what happened last night, however; and I regret what happened last night. Mr. McNulty is going to speak as well.

The vote was called. During the course of that vote, eight Members changed their votes after the vote was called 214-214, but the board, as everybody knows, at that point in time had reflected one of the Members who had changed their vote. There were at all times 428 Members voting. The vote went from 214-214, and then 215-213, and then 212-216. Obviously, the 214-214 would have had the motion fail. The 215-213 would have had it to prevail. And then the 212-216 would have had the motion fail. The minority, having been in that place, was understandably angry. I won't use the word ``upset'', understandably angry. If that happened to us, we would have been angry; I would have been angry.

At that point in time, I clearly believe that what had happened gave the impression that clearly, correctly would have been my impression that this was unfair; and, as a result, as the Members will recall, I asked to vacate the vote. That was objected to. So I then moved to reconsider the vote by which the motion to recommit offered by Mr. Lewis had failed.

I thought it appropriate that that vote be retaken because of the confusion that occurred during the course of that vote and having three separate tallies indicated. I thought that was appropriate. In fact, that motion prevailed. We did reconsider that vote, and the vote passed, at that point in time, by voice vote, and then final passage of the bill. And the bill passed, the Agriculture appropriation bill.

But, clearly, people were angry. Words were said on this floor, unfortunately, that were not, I think, designed, as I said on Tuesday night, to maintain civility. But I don't blame the minority for being angry at what clearly appeared to them, which would have been the impression that I would have had, that they were being treated in a way that they thought was not fair.

It does no good to this discussion to repeat what has happened over the last 12 years, where we felt aggrieved. But when you feel aggrieved, it is justifiable aggrievement.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of having this matter reviewed by the Ethics Committee to ensure that nothing was done that should not have been done, this motion simply refers this matter to the Ethics Committee.

This is no aspersion, I want to say, on the presiding officer. When he called the vote, that was the vote on the board, but it changed almost instantaneously at that time and clearly would have been something that correctly was interpreted as what's going on here.

We need to know what's going on here. My view is, because eight people change their votes, during the course of that, three Republicans changed their vote, five Democrats changed their vote. There have been a lot of questions about changing votes in the past, so we think it is appropriate that this matter be reviewed.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), someone who has served in this body long and honorably and whose integrity, I think, is unquestioned by Members who have served with him on the Ways and Means Committee and in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend. I thank my friend for the tone of his remarks, the focus of the substance of those remarks in terms of ensuring that the House runs in a fashion that Members certainly are given full consideration in terms of casting of their votes, and I will certainly look forward to discussing with the gentleman that issue.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have had an opportunity to discuss various issues in a way that I think was positive. I think the remarks hopefully that both of us are making indicate that we have the ability to continue to do that and want to do that.

I would say to my friend that I, when we complete this action, would look forward to visiting with him in his office or he in mine to discuss that. My suggestion would be that we perhaps unanimously adopt this resolution so that the Ethics Committee can look at it, but not exclusively, as the gentleman indicates and proceed.

Mr. Speaker, we don't want to do that. If the gentleman is indicating that he would prefer not to offer any resolutions at this time, I would certainly, at this point in time, if that is our understanding, be prepared to withdraw this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that comment, and I share his view.

Mr. Speaker, we have not yet had a meeting of the Rules Committee. I expect the Rules Committee will be meeting as soon as we leave here. I am not sure the exact time that it is scheduled. But we will be providing for rules. We intend to do a number of pieces of legislation. The gentleman has mentioned the Department of Defense bill.

Rules is not yet scheduled, but I presume it will be scheduled shortly.

The Department of Defense appropriation bill is a critical bill. We intend to consider that today. We also intend to consider Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation to enhance the ability of the Director of National Intelligence and those with whom he works to pursue those who might harm our country.

We also intend, Mr. Leader, to have on the floor a bill which is an emergency bill to respond to the bridge falling in Minneapolis, Minnesota. We also intend to consider an energy bill.

As I said on Tuesday, if we can complete that legislation today, we will do so. If not, we will complete it tomorrow. If we cannot complete it tomorrow, we will complete it on Monday. That is the order of business that we have contemplated.

As I said on Tuesday night, the legislation that I just mentioned, and there may be some other suspension bills, we intend to finish that business. I would hope it would not take us until Monday. We are going to have a discussion, and perhaps we can pursue that.

If the gentleman would yield, we will have this discussion as soon as we leave the floor. But there are a number of Members who wanted to do 1-minutes. I suggest we proceed with those at this time, if that is agreeable.

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious we have a technical problem. I know that comes as a great shock and surprise to you. I've talked to the gentleman who's in charge of fixing mechanical problems. He tells me that we need to take the system down for a period of time in order to fix it. He has said he needs approximately 30 minutes to do that with no votes. We are in the process of a vote.

What the Speaker pro tempore has said, I don't know what the vote is. I don't know whether it's coming up on the computers. I do know in my office there was no time coming up on the computer. So Members do not know how much time they have left.

Permission to Vacate Vote on Motion to Adjourn

Mr. HOYER (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we vacate this vote, and as soon as the machine is fixed, that we return to cast this vote and then proceed with the proceedings.

For all of us who think that dastardly things are going on, I guess we're all trying to figure out who's doing the dastardly things. In any event, in answer to your question, it would be my intention to rise while the machines are being fixed because we cannot proceed, nor should we proceed, without having Members know how much time they have left to vote.

I want you to be very nice to that gentleman. He represents my daughter and my son-in-law. So be careful and very gentle with him.

I'm sorry, I was getting some technical information about where we are. The computer printout----

I understand the gentleman's proposition.

I have been handed a printout. Now, I don't know where the printout comes from, so I am not going to read it, other than I can tell you that I don't know whether you have it on your computer.

May I ask the gentleman whether the computer over there has the totals?

I asked the gentleman a question because I think it is pertinent to whether or not the computers to which the Speaker has referred are working throughout the floor.

My question to him is, because I don't know because I am not over there, whether or not your computer, where you are standing, is reflecting for you a vote total.

Under those circumstances, under those circumstances, the reason I made the offer to vacate, the request for the unanimous consent to vacate, is because you can't verify it, and I have a list here in front of me. It may or may not be accurate.

The machines are obviously not functioning as we would want them to do, so my suggestion is the way to fix that is to vacate the vote. The machines have to be taken down.

Would the gentleman yield?

The gentleman read the rule correctly. It said ``may.'' The simpler way to do it and the confidence-building way to do that seems to me, because we want to use these machines, is to allow the technicians the opportunity to fix the machines. That is our desire.

Now, we understand that if you don't want to proceed with the business of the House, either the DOD appropriation bill, the FISA bill or the bill trying to give emergency relief to those in Minneapolis, the bridge, we may not want to proceed.

Ladies and gentlemen, if the gentleman will yield, we need to calm down. We have a heavy responsibility. We have great differences. I understand that everybody's sensibilities are taut. I predicted that last Tuesday, that that would be the case. I regret it.

I regret what happened last night which has generated this. But we do have business to do. All I am saying is I don't want to have a question about this vote, because we cannot assure ourselves, as the gentleman said, that the list I have in front of me or the screen that you have projected to you is projecting the accurate information.

Therefore, I suggest, given that, that we give the technicians an opportunity to facilitate fixing it. I think that's a reasonable request.

I would hope that everybody in the House would think it's a reasonable request.

I am trying to make a decision collegially with 435 by unanimous consent.

In either event, whether we shut the machine down now and allow them time to fix this by rising or going to the suggestion of the gentleman from Texas as to the rules, in either event you have to vacate this vote.

Frankly, the Speaker can call this vote. I presume, I don't know, because I haven't asked, that the result I have in front of me is the same the Speaker has.

I have no problem with doing that vote, frankly. But I think it would raise in the minds of every Member here, is that the accurate count? I think in light of that, I would prefer not to do that. So I am trying to accommodate the confidence of the Members by vacating this vote.

In consultation with the technical people that we have, who are responsible for ensuring the proper operations of our computer system, which advises all of us on time and computes the votes, that they have to take the system down for approximately a half an hour, maybe slightly longer, for the purpose of fixing the machine. I think the machine needs to be fixed.

So in order to accommodate that objective, I am suggesting that we vacate this vote, allow them to do that, come back and then revote this particular vote and then move on to wherever we are going to move on.

I will tell my friend, my first order of business, as I propounded in my unanimous consent request, will be this vote. This is the matter of business before the House, the motion to adjourn.

We cannot resolve it with, I think, the full confidence of the Members. So that would be the first order of the business. We will then proceed with the business as we had been doing.

We are going to consider both of those matters.

The order we will consider those is we will consider Minnesota first. We believe that is the least contentious of the items, and we think, therefore, it would be good to get the least contentious item out of the way first.

Everybody in this body has great empathy for the State of Minnesota, but, more particularly, the people who lost their lives in that tragic collapse of the bridge. We will go to that first.

Of course, we have the rules to complete, but we will then, in terms of business, go to FISA, as we have expressed.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Barton, I have been waiting at least 15 minutes for you to be here.

Madam Speaker, we had a conversation on the floor of the House today with reference to this matter. I introduced a resolution to investigate this matter. The minority leader asked me to withdraw that resolution. I withdrew it.

The minority leader then asked me to have a meeting with himself and Mr. Blunt, and Mr. Clyburn attended that meeting. We discussed the incident of last night, we discussed proceeding to do the people's business, and what would be the conduct today.

The minority leader suggested that I have a member of my staff contact a member of his staff to discuss the creation of this select committee. That was just a few hours ago. Those discussions have not begun obviously and may not begin.

The minority leader talks about patterns. I think this is a pattern. I'm deeply disappointed, not by the resolution itself; although, we think the facts that are stated in the resolution are incorrect. I want to tell every Member of this House that I do not believe that there was any wrongdoing by any party yesterday. I do believe that there was a mistake made. I said that this morning. I repeat that this afternoon, and I regret it. I regret it because that mistake, understandably, angered those who perceived themselves disadvantaged by that mistake. I have a disagreement with the conclusion in here that has been again stated by the minority leader that I think would be disproved by any investigation that occurs.

There was never a call of the vote prevailing at 215-213 with a Republican motion to recommit prevailing. There was never a call by the Chair of that vote, period.

I observed, to the minority leader, that for 2 hours and 45 minutes I sat on this floor, actually, I'm not good at sitting on this floor. I walked around and talked to a lot of Members. For 2 hours and 45 minutes, my side was prevailing; not for 5 minutes, not for 2 minutes, not for 1 minute, as was the case last night. For 2 hours and 45 minutes, my side was prevailing, and the vote lasted another 10 minutes. It was referred to on ``60 Minutes'' last Sunday.

Now, historically, in the last 12 years, let me tell you what my friends' actions would have been on this motion. Immediately you would have moved to table. I do not do that. I do not accept the premises in your resolution, but I welcome the investigation. I applaud coming to the bottom of what happened because I know what happened.

Now, I wasn't looking behind me; I was looking at the Chair. But I've been informed of what happened, and what happened is eight people changed their votes. Three were Republicans, five were Democrats. There were 428 people who voted last night during that series of three votes. Every time the vote was called, 428 people voted. And the Chair called the vote at 214-214, which as all of you know adds up to 428. So every Member of the House had voted. No one was excluded. But some changed their vote on your side, and then some changed their vote on my side. And so the vote ended up and was finally called at 212-216, and we prevailed.

Now, as I said this morning, I understand the anger that existed and the sense of unfairness that was felt because, on the board electronically, when one of the changes came forward switching from one of the 214 to one of the 215 and reducing the 214 to 213, that was immediately reflected on the electronic board as the Speaker was announcing the vote, and so you were angry. I don't blame you. For 2 hours and 45 minutes as we sat on the prevailing side, the winning side, having more votes than your side, the vote was not closed. So I empathize with the sense of anger and frustration that you have.

And so what did I do? I didn't do what one of your former leaders did, just shrugged my shoulders and said, well, that's the way it goes, folks. I went to that rostrum, and I said we ought to vacate this vote and we ought to give everybody a fair shot at making sure the result is what those 428 votes want to do, because I understood that you had a sense of being wronged, and I wanted, to the extent I could, to try to right that wrong.

So I asked unanimous consent that that vote be vacated. There were many objections on your side of the aisle. I'm not sure why. You thought the vote was improperly cast. I know my friend, and everybody knows he's my friend, but we have a deep disagreement on this conclusion. Mr. Blunt believes that you won 215-213. We were ahead for 2 hours and 45 minutes. We didn't prevail. Why? Because the Speaker did not call the vote, and the Speaker didn't call the vote at the 215-213 margin. He called it at 214-214; you're absolutely right. But then he said, no, I was premature because there were changing votes, and so that vote was not finalized. You're absolutely right. The vote that was finalized was the accurate vote, 212 for your resolution and 216 against your resolution.

Now, one of those 216, of course, was the minority leader. He switched so he could make the motion, I presume, to reconsider, but it was not necessary for him to do that. I wanted, as I said, to try to make this right because, as I said on Tuesday night, and I repeated this morning, I want to try to have a civil relationship.

I work with a lot of you in this House on that side of the aisle. I like a lot of you on that side of the aisle. Some of you I do not know as well as I know others. More importantly than that, this is about my 40th year in legislative office, and I believe that it is important that we say hi to one another, respect one another and have trust in one another.

After you objected to the vacation of the vote, I moved to reconsider the vote, by which we prevailed on your motion to recommit.

I don't know why you didn't vote on that. It passed. We all voted for it on this side. All the Members on this side

voted for it to give you a second chance because you felt the first go- around wasn't fair.

I think it was fair but not appearing so because of the 215-213. Now, this investigation will look into that. As I said, we welcome it. We will not move, therefore, to table.

I have been asked to ask for a unanimous consent to drop all the ``whereas'' clauses but accept the result. I am not going to do that. Let me tell you why I am not going to do it.

I do not accept those ``whereases.'' I think they are factually inaccurate. They were not reviewed by me, and there has been no meeting of our staffs, I say to my friend, the minority leader, which we discussed at approximately 11:30 this morning.

I withdrew my resolution. My expectation was that the minority leader and I would sit down and our staffs would sit down and discuss this matter and determine how best to investigate this. That's what we discussed. There was no discussion about this resolution coming forward. There was no notice to me that this discussion was going forward; and there was a request to me, which I honored, to withdraw my own resolution offered this morning. I am disappointed.

I am not going to oppose this resolution, and we will have an investigation. We will appoint three on our side, and we will appoint three on your side. We will appoint three fair-minded Members who care about this institution. I hope you will do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to take the leader up on his offer, and I don't want to argue the facts more than we have done. Mr. Blunt knows I disagree with the conclusions he has just expressed. We discussed our disagreements in my office just a few hours ago.

I want to take the leader up on his offer. And pursuant to that, I would ask unanimous consent that the Chair be permitted to divide the question of agreeing to House Resolution 611 between agreeing to the resolution and agreeing to the preambles.

The preambles are your conclusions. I would therefore, with the question divided, I would hope, very frankly, Mr. Leader, as my resolution did, it did not make conclusions. It simply asserted that we ought to look into the matter. Your resolve clause says that. We will support that, but we will not support the conclusions.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As has been stated on this floor, this is an extraordinary and important development and even more important issue.

I want to comment first on the involvement of Mr. Reyes, Mr. Conyers, myself, the Speaker, and others. I have met on at least three occasions with my friend, Mr. Blunt. Every time we made a draft, I took it to him and discussed it with him. This was not something that I thought ought to be done on a partisan basis.

I talked to the Director of National Intelligence on at least five different occasions individually and then in a conference call with Senator Rockefeller and Senator Levin, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Reid, the Speaker and myself. We talked over a number of hours. The conversation did not last hours. From time to time, we hung up and the DNI went to contact people.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent a substantial amount of time trying to reach what our Founding Fathers wanted us to reach, and that was a balance of power, a balance of making sure that our country was secure and making sure that our individuals were secure. That's what our Founding Fathers were all about. They didn't want King George knocking on the door and coming in just because he wanted to come in. They thought that King George needed to be restrained. So

they set up a separation of powers, they set up a judiciary and they set up a Constitution, and 10 amendments thereafter.

Mr. Speaker, our highest duty, as Members of this body, is to defend our Nation, protect our people and uphold the Constitution of the United States, as we've talked about. And one has to be thoughtful in doing that because, at times, it would appear that those three duties may be in conflict with one another. It is our job to harmonize those to accomplish all three objectives. That is, we have a duty to keep this Nation safe from those who seek to harm us.

And let there be no doubt, there are terrorists who seek to harm us. They have harmed us. They are people that we need to stop. They are people that we need to identify. They are people whom we need to act against. And, yes, a duty to ensure that our government abides by the principles upon which it was founded.

In 1978, as has been said, this Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in an effort to balance these critical interests. It is with these principles in mind that we bring this bill to the floor to immediately fill the intelligence gap described to Congress by the Director of National Intelligence.

Among other things, this legislation clarifies that no court order is required, as has been said over and over and over again, to intercept and conduct surveillance on foreign-to-foreign communications that pass through the United States. That's a new technological reality, because that switch is here and so we needed to accommodate that.

The Director of National Intelligence discussed that with us. We made a change in the legislation that was proposed to accommodate that, and he was positive with respect to that change. I do not say he supported that change; I say he was positive.

It reiterates that individual warrants based on probable cause are required when surveillance is directed at people within the United States, not incidental contacts but directed at people in the United States.

It provides for an initial 15-day emergency authority so that international surveillance may begin immediately, so that we can empower the DNI to act now, and it allows for up to two 15-day extensions while the court considers the approval of surveillance procedures.

No one should be surprised that this majority is concerned about the actions of the administration after the last 4 years. The courts have been concerned. And the courts have acted because they did not believe that the administration was acting consistently with the duty to uphold and protect the laws and Constitution of this country.

That ought to be a serious concern. Frankly, it ought to be a very serious concern for those who label themselves conservatives, who have historically been the most outspoken in their fear of Government exercise of power and their concern for the constraint on the use of that power.

Our legislation also compels the cooperation of communications carriers during emergency periods, while it extends liability protection to those who assist in this intelligence-gathering effort. This was a very important provision. We understood that. It is controversial. But we thought it was important.

The legislation also requires the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to conduct an audit every 60 days of communications involving Americans that are intercepted under ``basket warrants,'' because we know those basket warrants are going to be just that, broad- reaching, because we wanted to give the DNI the authority to reach broadly and not be slowed down bureaucratically by individual requests. But we also thought that we needed to protect those individuals with an aftercheck, if you will, by the Inspector General. We think that is fair. We think conservatives ought to be for that. We think liberals ought to be for that. We think the American people are for that.

Finally, the legislation provides that these provisions sunset in 120 days, because it is imperative that we consider issues of this magnitude in a thoughtful manner.

We have been working hard. I said how often I have talked to the DNI, how often I have been in meetings, and how recently I was in meetings with the DNI. It is imperative that we consider these issues consistent with the magnitude that they present, not only for the safety of our people, but for the integrity of our Constitution and laws.

Now, some will say this bill doesn't go far enough. That may be so. And we ought to thoughtfully consider that in the months ahead as the committee, the ranking member, Republicans and Democrats, consider the permanent laws that may be put in place.

Many of them support the administration's proposal, which would permanently authorize warrantless surveillance and searches of American's telephone calls, e-mails, homes, offices and personal records for at least 3 months and for however long an appeal to the Court of Review in the Supreme Court takes, as long as the search is, and I quote, ``concerning a person abroad.''

In fact, the administration's proposal practically eliminates the role of the FISA court. That, of course, is the administration's intent. We understand that. The administration, in fact, undertook the TSP program, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, outside the ambit of the check and balance that we contemplated when we adopted the legislation.

Madam Speaker, we have spent hours with the Director of National Intelligence and worked hard to give him the tools that were requested. The DNI asked that we expand the language in the bill from ``relating to terrorism'' to the much broader ``relating to all foreign intelligence.'' I support that change. I want to make sure that the DNI has a broad reach and view. So that is in this bill.

The DNI asked that we eliminate the requirement that the FISA court adjudicate how recurring communications into the United States from foreign targets would be handled, and we agreed to that change.

Madam Speaker, in closing, let me tell the Members that yesterday in that conference call I asked the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, this question: Does this legislation improve or not the situation you find yourself in? I quote you his answer to me just about 24 hours ago. This legislation, which has been so harshly analyzed, I quote the Director of National Intelligence: ``It significantly enhances America's security.''

That is a quote. It is a direct quote. I do not imply that he said he supported it. And we have a very harsh statement from him that we just got a few hours ago. I will tell you, it doesn't sound like the Admiral McConnell with whom I have talked over the past few weeks.

Madam Speaker, the administration truly seeks a temporary fix to the FISA statute. This legislation provides one.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this important legislation. There are some on my side who believe it goes too far. There are some on your side that believe it goes not far enough. But it is, I suggest to you, a compromise that we can make that, as in the words of the Director of National Intelligence, significantly enhances our national security.

Madam Speaker, I urge the support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

Point of Order

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we have proceeded for 10 appropriation bills with an open rule with an agreement we would reach a unanimous consent agreement on those rules within the framework of the time that we spent last year.

I said on the floor that we spent approximately 52 hours longer on the first 10 bills than we had last year under unanimous consents that Mr. Obey agreed to. I am informed by Mr. Obey that our staff has recomputed the time, and when one includes the Agriculture bill, it is closer to 80-plus hours longer under open rules. That was certainly not shutting anybody down or out. That was not our intent. In fact, it was not our practice. As I pointed out then, we complied, we think, with the letter of that to which we agreed.

We now find ourselves in the context of trying to move forward on very important legislation. This bill was open, of course, for debate and amendment for an extended period of time. The debate was not used for amendments or debate about the substance of the bill before us.

In fact, it is my understanding the Rules Committee talked to those who wanted to offer amendments in this rule. It is not shutting out all amendments. In fact, what it is doing is including a number of amendments on both sides of the aisle. It includes in the self- executing, to which the gentleman refers, a balanced group of amendments, all of which, we think, will be agreed to.

Mr. Flake is going to offer some amendments, one I have a particular interest in. He was given the choice of what amendments that he wanted to offer. Yes, we have limited amendments, because we have limited time and we want to complete this bill.

When we complete the debate on this bill, it will be just a little shorter than the bill that was considered last year. Just a little. We think it is fair. But we are here because we did not pursue the agreement that we thought we had with the open-rule process.

Now, we still have one additional bill to go, the Defense bill. We are discussing that. We are hopeful that perhaps we can proceed as we have proceeded in the past, with an open rule on that bill.

But we are trying to facilitate the doing of the people's business. We said we would do that. That is what we are doing. We believe that Members have been treated fairly.

Yesterday, on SCHIP, there was a request of me to include an additional hour of debate. That was agreed to. I think that was a good and full debate. We had very significant differences on that bill. The bill was approved by the House. I think this bill will be approved by the House and moved. That will leave us just one appropriation bill. I think by the end of this week, we will have passed all of our appropriation bills.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I will try to show the gentleman the appropriate respect, given that seniority.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his observations, and I reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, very frankly, as I have said, we have spent almost 80 hours more on the first 10 bills than we spent last year under the unanimous consents we granted to you under Mr. Obey's leadership. Given that fact, we considered a lot of amendments.

From my perspective, frankly, in a group of 435, the reason you have a Rules Committee is because you can't possibly accommodate all 435 Members if they want to offer one.

As the former chairman of the Rules Committee, you know that.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, in my opinion, although we allowed it, there were an extraordinary number of redundant amendments, 1.25 percent, 1 percent, .75 percent. I understand that. They were message amendments. I understand making messages. That is part of what we are about.

This rule that the gentleman is very concerned about is a precedent. Frankly, we argued for following the precedent of last year. That was not done.

We are now trying to get the business of the people done, while at the same time giving a fair number of amendments, as we do on almost every other bill, but not every amendment. We think that we have done that. We think that we are fair in terms of the amendments that are included in the self-execution, because they are not just Democratic amendments. There are a balanced, equal number of amendments, and one other significant amendment I think will be unanimously supported, I hope and believe, and will facilitate the consideration of this bill and substantively move ahead the work of our country and our people.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat: We are hopeful that we will be able to move forward in the future, next year, as we do the appropriation process, consistent with what we did on the first 10 bills and what we may do on the twelfth bill, in a manner that honors and respects one another's ability to make their point but also to do the business of the people. That is what they expect us to do. That is what we are going to do.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

My friend from Arizona is having a good time. I don't blame him, but this is something that is good for the country. It is good for literally millions of people who have grown tobacco.

Let me say to my friend from Arizona: A, I don't smoke; B, I have never smoked. And when redistricting occurred and I got most of the tobacco-growing areas of Maryland, I went down and met with the Farm Bureau. I said, Look, I'm new to you. You don't know me. Actually, they did know me because I had been in office for some time. But I said, I want to tell you something right out front; I think smoking is bad for people's health, and I am not for it.

About eight of the 10 to 15 tobacco farmers that were there said to me after the meeting, they came up to me and said, You know what, we don't smoke and we don't want our kids to smoke.

That aside, Maryland has had one of the most successful tobacco buyout programs in America. In my district, the tobacco-growing area of Maryland, 90-plus percent, almost 95 percent of

the farmers have taken the buyout, which means they can no longer ever on the property they own have tobacco grown for the purposes of smoking tobacco.

There were literally, as you can imagine, hundreds, and across the country there are thousands and thousands of farmers so situated, families who have been involved in this process for most of their lives and who produce a product, used alternatively, can have extraordinary value. But the problem is the research has not been done on it. Why has it not been done on it? Because the tobacco product was a very valuable product for a bad purpose; that is, smoking. Harmful to health and a destroyer of life.

Very frankly, some of the Farm Bureau came to me and said, Do you think we can find an alternative use, because we have a lot of expertise in growing this product, and we have facilities to do so. We think it can have some beneficial effect. My good friend said he thought that was the case. He is correct. There are a lot of good things in life that can happen, and his proposition is why this money, why here?

Well, because I represent my district. But I also believe this has national implications that if we can get a product from tobacco that is useful, and I want to discuss some of them, that will be good for our country, good for our economy, good for jobs, and good for people who have been displaced from the very lucrative but harmful vocation and who are now put to perhaps not having nearly the livelihood they expected to have.

The amendment seeks to eliminate funding for an important research project being undertaken at the University of Maryland. One of America's extraordinary research institutions, a land grant college established in the mid part of the 19th century, it seeks to develop safe and beneficial nonsmoking uses for tobacco.

The Alternative Uses of Tobacco Project has several very important objectives. First, we are seeking to take advantage of the many beneficial nonsmoking uses of tobacco. Most people would not think of the tobacco plant as having a use beyond smoking. They would be wrong. I didn't know that either, frankly.

Tobacco naturally produces high-nutrition proteins, one of the highest of any product, industrial raw materials and large amounts of biomass which can be used for renewable energy. Think of it. We talk about corn, we talk about other things, and we want to talk about cellulosic to produce energy. We just passed a farm bill seeking to do that. Think if all of the tobacco farms in America could be turned into energy producers, an extraordinarily positive contribution to the economy of our country.

Secondly, we're trying to revitalize tobacco-producing communities across the southeastern United States by shifting their focus away from the traditional use of the crop and generating new markets and new industries for beneficial new nonsmoking purposes.

Unlike Maryland, the Federal buyout, as you know, didn't eliminate the growing of tobacco; and in many States that have buyout programs they didn't eliminate the use of tobacco for smoking purposes. Maryland did. So that if we could give alternative uses for a product and get it out of the sale of use for smoking products, what a health benefit that would be for America.

So I suggest that this $400,000 is an extraordinarily good investment in health care, in the economy for our people.

Third, we are attempting to develop new technologies for producing leaf proteins. Leaf proteins are as nutritious as milk protein, but, unlike other protein sources, they are generally nonallergenic. Tobacco may be the largest producer of leaf proteins of any agricultural crop, but its historically inadequate processing technologies have limited their development.

Now, let me tell you something. The tobacco companies do not grow tobacco. They sell cigarettes. So they do not have an incentive to do this. The people who have an incentive to do it are the tobacco farmers, but, guess what, the tobacco farmers don't have a lot of money. It's the tobacco companies that have a lot of money.

So the tobacco companies rely on, I'm sure in your State as they do in mine, land grant institutions who have focused on agricultural research, as does the University of Maryland, as does the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.

So I have some other things to say, but I think you get the point.

Mr. Flake is a friend of mine. I have great respect for Mr. Flake. Not only that, I think he offers his amendments in a very positive way. I've never seen him get mad at anybody. I've never seen him criticize anybody. I've never seen him say a cross word to anybody. He sets forth what is a correct proposition, that, look, we could save a lot of money by not having any of these earmarks and we wouldn't do this research or maybe the State could do it or maybe somehow the farmers could get together in a cooperative and do it. But they haven't done it and the Federal Government has historically invested in long-term progress.

Now, very frankly, the best example is the space program. The space program has made an extraordinary contribution in the creation of jobs outside of the space program, and agricultural research colleges have done the same for farming and feeding the world. We honored with a gold medal a university professor who fed the world, billions.

So I ask my friends, this is $400,000. We will spend $400,000 in Baghdad in the next hour or so. I don't know what the Citizens Against Government Waste think of that, and I frankly don't think they think of this particular item. I understand that. They think generally we ought to stop wasting government money. I agree absolutely.

And if you think research in a product to turn it to pharmaceutical use, if you think that research in a product to turn it to better energy production, if you think research in a product that may be available to give us better protein production, then I think, my friends, Mr. Obey has said, we get the point. So I say this, and I'm laughing, this is a serious investment in good things for all people.

I hope that, notwithstanding the fact that he is my friend, that you will reject the gentleman's amendment, and I thank you for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the vote that we have just taken.

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the previous vote was taken.

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the previous motion to recommit failed.