Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes. As you know, we have been talking about, on both sides of the aisle, developing greater domestic supply from that which we have control over here in this country. I think both sides agree that that is an objective that ought to be pursued. The differences have been I think where that should be done at least in the short term, maybe not in the long term. In the short term, it is our belief that there is very substantial areas available for further exploration and development of energy resources from our own country. As the gentleman may have heard me say on the floor earlier today, there is about 88 million acres that we believe is currently available for leasing that experts indicate are prime opportunities for finding, drilling, and producing energy for our country. We may well consider legislation which will try to accelerate, particularly in Alaska, where there is 23 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve area designated and approved by the Congress for drilling, where approximately 1 million acres of that has been currently let for lease but there are substantial millions of acres still available. So we may well have legislation which will direct the administration to accelerate the leases for that area and speed the development. In addition, we may well include in that legislation the Use It Or Lose It bill, we had disagreements on whether that was appropriate, which essentially says to companies: Don't inventory large segments. If you are not going to use it, let's get it back and give it to some who may well use it at this point in time. Again, an opportunity to accelerate the exploration and securing of oil within our control here in this country. In addition, that legislation I think will include a requirement that any oil petroleum products that are produced as a result of this legislation or as a result of these leaseholds being extended, that petroleum would need to be used in the United States of America, not exported to Japan or to other nations. You had in a piece of legislation that you had in 2005 a similar provision. I can't recall the phrase right now, but essentially requiring due diligent requirement as they proceeded with the leases to develop the energy. So we think our Use Or Lose It is, while not exactly what you include in your 2005 bill, certainly a similar objective of saying: You get the leases, let's develop the oil. We will also be calling I think in that legislation, Mr. Whip, on the President to pursue finishing construction of the natural gas and the oil pipelines from Alaska as soon as possible. If that requires resources, for the administration to ask for those resources. We share again a view that it is prudent for us to develop all of the lands that we currently have available. And pretty significant, again, I don't know whether you were there, but the 88 million acres essentially covers Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, New Jersey, and most of Maryland. So a pretty large area that is available now. So we want to pursue that, but clearly want to see further exploration, further drilling, and further utilization of our own resources here in this country, all with the view of bringing prices down. Now, we don't know specifically why prices have spiked so rapidly, but we are very concerned about it. As you have heard me say before, prices during the last 8 years of the nineties went from $1.06 to $1.46, about one nickel a year. Prices during the last 7\1/2\ years have spiked from that $1.46 to now $4.15 or so. All the energy policies that have been adopted have obviously been adopted in the last 7\1/2\ years with President Bush's signature. There is no energy bill that is passed without his signature. So that we believe that we have not been successful over the last 7\1/2\ years of getting an energy policy in place which has given us independence and provided for stable prices. Both the President and proponents of the 2005 legislation, which I voted for, by the way, because I think we need to seek energy independence, but the proponents of that bill indicated 3 years ago that it would keep prices down and make sure that we had supply. That hasn't been the case. Obviously, that was not the intent of anybody who was for the bill that that wouldn't happen, but that is the legislation that we currently are looking at. We are developing that now and trying to write the language essentially with the objective of utilizing the 88 million acres that we currently have authorized on which to drill because we think that is the quickest way to proceed.

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

Mr. HOYER. It is the same bill.

Mr. HOYER. In response, if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, the Republican Whip, for yielding. On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning hour and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected in the House. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition, we will consider H.R. 415, a bill to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers. In addition, we will consider H.R. 5959, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009; H.R. 3999, the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act; and, we may also consider important energy-related legislation.

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

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I cannot confirm, because I haven't seen the report on that, nor has the chairman told me that he made such an announcement. I did read an article in which he indicated that he thought that might be the case. As you know, he tried to move the Labor-Health bill through to markup through the full committee, and as you know, the ranking member moved to substitute the Interior bill rather than do the Labor-Health bill. The chairman believed he was pursuing the regular order. I have never seen, in the 23 years that I served on the Appropriations Committee, one of the appropriations bills substituted for another one of the appropriations bills in the appropriations process. So a lot of unusual things are happening, unfortunately. And we haven't been pursuing regular order. I lament that, personally. I think that we ought to do that. I will say that last year, as you know, we passed every appropriations bill through the House of Representatives by the August break. We had some difficulty at the end doing that, but we got them all passed. And we passed them all in the year, in the calendar year that we were supposed to pass them, not in the fiscal year, in December. As you know in a number of years we didn't do that until the following year: nine one year, eight the other passed in January, the end of January or the middle of February, as I recall, 2 years. I forget whether it was 2004 and 2005 or 2005 and 2006. So I share the gentlemen's concern. I think both sides share the concern that the appropriations process is not proceeding in the regular order. But I want to say to the gentleman that from my perspective, I have not concluded that we're not going to consider any appropriations bills on the floor.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was in my office, as I have been over the days recently, where I see the distinguished minority leader rise, I see other Members on that side of the aisle rise, beat their chests about drilling. My side of the aisle is for drilling. We just had a press conference on drilling. But as I sit there, I think to myself, you know, the American people gave the opportunity to the Republican Party, the minority party now in the House of Representatives, to lead this country; and they gave them all of the power in Washington. They gave them the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the United States Senate. They did that in the year 2000. They had already given them the House, and two oil men were elected President and Vice President. In January, the Vice President decided to have, and he had over the coming months in 2001, he convened a meeting, a secret meeting of those involved in the energy industry to adopt energy policies. Now that meeting--the minority leader is now leaving, but we will see him later--that meeting perhaps resulted in success, I don't know. I don't know what the meeting was about. But during the course of the Presidency of Bill Clinton, oil went from $1.06 to $1.46. A nickel a year, 5 cents per year was the increase in the cost of gasoline at the pump for Americans. And then, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the Republicans came to town, all of town, and gas went from $1.46 in January 20, 2001, to over $4.10 on average throughout this country. Pretty stark. It now goes up from time to time 5 cents a day, where under Bill Clinton 5 cents a year. And then the Republicans, 5 years later, adopted a bill, 2005, their energy policy. They were in control of the House, control of the Senate, and they had the Presidency. They passed that bill. Gas was then about $2.20. And they said we've adopted an energy policy--said it on the floor, said it when they signed the bill--we have done a bill now that's going to stabilize prices, going to make sure that Americans have energy supply. That's what they said. That's not what we said. Now, ladies and gentlemen who are listening to this debate on this floor, I tell you that there are 68 million acres right now, right now available for leasing. You wring your hands and say, well, open up places for drilling. We've done that, friends. Look at the statistics, 68 million acres in the lower 48 and another 20 million acres, give or take a million, in Alaska. They talk about a wildlife refuge that they want to drill in, but they don't talk about the 20 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve area in Alaska currently available. The administration could be pursuing leases on it. We may well have legislation to say, Administration, start moving, start drilling, start bringing product to the market so we'll bring prices down. Now, of course, one of the aspects of bringing prices down, my friends, will be that the oil companies will make less profits. I know everybody in America believes that the oil companies want to get more products so they can bring prices down and make less profit. I know all Americans believe that's the way the system works. The Republicans keep harping on drilling. We want to drill. We want to produce more American product. And by the way, we're going to bring legislation to the floor that's going to say when you drill, sell it here in the United States of America, keep our resources here in the United States of America. I want to tell my friends, there are 88 million acres. And now, let me tell you something, 88 million acre, that's Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, and most of Maryland. Now, I know my friend from Texas thinks that's not much of an area of space, but I will bet everybody listening to this debate thinks that is a pretty large piece of property on which you can drill in America today. Why? Because we want to produce energy. But I will tell you, one of the reasons we're in this pickle is because for a quarter of a century, for a quarter of a century that I've served in the Congress, a little more than that, the Republican Party has taken the position, no, we don't want to invest in alternatives, we don't want to see alternative energy sources developed. And you can say it's not true as much as you want, I tell my friend, but the record reflects that has not been the priority. The priority has been, let's get more oil. We want to get more oil. But I will tell you a country, as Boone Pickens said--I don't know whether you read Boone Pickens. He's one of the people who thinks that some of the policies you have been pursuing aren't too bad. He's not a Democrat. Here is what Boone Pickens said. The problem, of course, is our growing dependence on foreign oil. It's extreme, it's dangerous, and threatens future generations. And he says in this article in The Wall Street Journal, you are not going to drill yourself out of this hole that we've dug. He says, rightfully, that we need to see investments in alternatives. Now, happily, last year when we took office, took control of the House and the Senate, we adopted a bill, the President signed that bill, which looks to alternatives to complement the relatively small supply. America demands 25 percent of the energy resources in this world, and we have 3 percent of the petroleum supply. My friend the minority leader said he wasn't much of a mathematician, but you don't have to be much of a mathematician to know that if you're relying on that 3 percent, it's not going to be there very long. So, yes, my friends, we need to find more domestic product. We need to drill where we now have authorized drilling to occur, and if that doesn't produce the resources that experts tell us are on that property, then I tell you this. Then we ought to look at other alternatives, and perhaps we ought to look at other alternatives now. But for you to have a blind eye and pretend to the American people that somehow we're not allowing people to pursue drilling on our soil here in America and on the Outer Continental Shelf, I want you to know, that is currently authorized where drilling is not occurring, then you are misleading the American people. The American people ought to know: The Democrats want to make sure that we have more domestic product. The Speaker has written a letter to the President just the other day saying, Mr. President, we have 773 million barrels of oil that are in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Mr. President, use some of those, as your father did, as Bill Clinton did, at a time of economic crisis to help our people, help our people get to work, help them get their kids to school, help them afford their other expenses. So I tell my friends that we need to deal with this issue. We're going to deal with this issue. We're concerned about this issue, all 435 of us, but to hear day after day after day that somehow we, who came to office just 18 months ago, after an energy policy was conjured up by the Vice President and the White House and an energy bill was passed in 2005, that somehow, somehow what's happening now is our fault, the American public aren't buying that. Polls show that. But I will tell you, that we can work together because we need to be energy independent. It's a national security objective, an economic security objective, and we also need to keep our environment from choking our children and generations to come. We're committed to both of those objectives, and we will join with all those who want to do the same.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and work of a historic figure in my community, Mr. John Lancaster, who passed away on July 1st at the age of 90. John Lancaster was a man of principle and deep devotion to his community. As the first elected African-American county commissioner in the history of St. Mary's County, Maryland, Mr. Lancaster was certainly a political trailblazer. Breaking that barrier was indeed astonishing. John believed that he was accountable to all in the community as he simply but eloquently once said ``I was a commissioner serving all people.'' Perhaps the most important issue to John was education. A local official in my community recently dubbed him as the ``education commissioner'' and many regarded him as a mentor in education policy. As commissioner, John could not sit idly as public schools were decaying in front of him. Today, because of his efforts and foresight, education is a very important issue in St. Mary's County, and students are learning in first class facilities. John Lancaster was the personification of hard work and optimism. In face of discrimination he pressed forward. Mr. Lancaster will certainly be remembered as an example for those who dare to dream the impossible. I would like to offer my condolences to his loving family, as we mourn the loss of an extraordinary person.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to offer my congratulations to Courtney Rayle, the winner of the Masters Division of the 67th Greater Washington Soap Box Derby held in our Nation's Capital on June 22. I am very pleased that Miss Rayle, who is a resident of Mechanicsville, Maryland and my constituent, has now earned the right to compete in the 71st Annual All-American Soap Box Derby national championship on July 26 in Akron, Ohio. Courtney has worked tirelessly to earn such a noteworthy win; due to her hard work, the victory marks the seventh time someone from the Rayle family has won the Greater Washington Soap Box race. This year will be the 19th time a member of the Rayle family will race in Akron. Courtney joins Jimmy Rayle Sr., Billy Rayle, Jimmy Rayle Jr., and Jeff Rayle in a long tradition of excellence in this sport. As Courtney now looks to compete for the national soap box title, I, along with the people of Maryland, wish her the best of luck. The origin of soap box derby racing dates back to 1934 when a photographer for the Dayton Daily News in Ohio, Myron E. Scott, saw boys racing engineless cars down a hill, inspiring him to organize a race and award the winner with a ``loving cup.'' The venue was later moved to Akron--the site of today's national derby championship--on account of the numerous hills. With the hard work of countless civic organizations, a permanent track site for the youth racing classic was created in Akron with the assistance of the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The All-American Soap Box Derby is the second-oldest racing event in the Nation--second only to the Indianapolis 500. This event has been called the greatest amateur racing competition in the world, and it is an excellent opportunity for contestants from all around the country to learn building skills while gaining a real sense of accomplishment. Congratulations to all of this year's competitors, and congratulations once again to Miss Courtney Rayle.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this bill provides mechanisms to ensure that FISA's longstanding exclusivity is crystal clear. It states that only a new statute directly addressing the Executive branch's foreign intelligence surveillance authority can modify FISA. It provides clarity for the public and for telecommunications carriers by requiring requests for assistance to cite the statutory authority uuder which they are issued. In a January 19, 2006 White Paper on NSA Legal Authorities, the Justice Department made public a legal justification for the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program, TSP. It claimed that the President had an extra-statutory legal basis for foreign intelligence surveillance outside of FISA, both implicitly through an Authorization for the Use of Military Force or through a broad reading of Article II of the Constitution. Those arguments fly in the face of the longstanding doctrine of FISA exclusivity and are contrary to the plain language of the FISA statute. To be clear, the inclusion of these additional exclusivity mechanisms in this measure does not ratify the Administration's arguments with respect to the TSP. Nor does the bill's treatment of liability issues in Title II stand for a Congressional ratification of the Administration's actions under the TSP. In conclusion, I would like to extend my thanks to a few additional staff who worked tirelessly over the past few months on this FISA compromise, including Margaret Cantrell of the Whip's staff, Ted Kalo and Mark Dubester of the Judiciary Committee, Wyndee Parker of the Intelligence Committee, and Chris Healey of Senator Rockefeller's Intelligence Committee staff.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. I will yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. 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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

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