Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I am reasonably confident it will be sometime next week. It is my hope it will be earlier in the week rather than later in the week. But I cannot say that at this point in time. There's still work being done on the bill. Chairman Obey is working very hard on a draft proposal that can be enacted in a short time frame. We are aware of the time constraints of which the gentleman spoke. I anticipate we will include a package of items that we believe are a cost of the war, the GI benefits that have been discussed, and also items that address a small number of pressing needs. We are strong believers in PAYGO, as you know, but we understand that we have to deal with the other body and the White House, who has not supported that effort. We are sometimes not in agreement with their position, and we will have to keep working on that issue. I know Mr. Obey is working hard on that.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the Republican whip for yielding. Mr. Speaker, 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 at 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. The final list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. We will consider H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008; H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008; and also hope to consider the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, I would reiterate, as you know, we feel very strongly that the new entitlement program for the GIs, which is something we strongly support, but ought to be paid for as a new entitlement so that it does not add to the debt. The Senate did not agree with that proposition. As a result, that is not in the bill that has come back to us from the Senate. So we are currently trying to figure out what to do on this issue, but we feel very strongly that the GI Bill ought to be adopted one way or the other.

Mr. HOYER. I again thank the gentleman for yielding. I can't tell you exactly which ones, but I do anticipate there will be appropriations bills on the floor this summer. I don't, at this point in time, have the ability to tell you specifically which ones.

Mr. HOYER. Not next week. Although, as you know, we passed a major energy bill last year that was signed by the President that looks to real solutions to the problem of reliance on petroleum products and that is relying on alternative energy sources. We believe strongly on this side of the aisle that both from an environmental standpoint, a global warming standpoint, and an energy independence standpoint that looking to alternatives is absolutely essential. As you know, gas prices have risen very, very substantially during the course of the last 7\1/2\ years. As I have indicated before, during the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency, they rose approximately a nickel a year, from $1.06 to $1.46. Under this administration, they have gone from that $1.46 to now $3.86, $3.90, $4, and over $4. I know your contention is that it has just been in the last 12 months that this has happened. We disagree with that proposition. It's an interesting proposition to try to sell to the American public. But the bottom line is, frankly, for the last 35 years, since the late seventies when we had the long gas lines, we have not moved to alternative energy sources in the way we should have, in my view, so that we could not be held hostage by some, frankly, who have profit, understandably, in mind, but not necessarily the best interests of our consumers or our country. We support a diversified clean energy portfolio for our country. I want to make an observation because I have been listening today with interest. You may find this of interest. We have nearly a whole refineries' worth of capacity idle right now. Not for lack of supply, but for lack of use of existing refineries. As a matter of fact, we are at 87 percent, which is about 10 percent below what we usually are over the last 10 years. So for whatever reasons, refiners are now at 10 percent below the capacity they usually are on average over the last 10 years at this time. Secondly, since 2000, drilling on land has increased dramatically. Your side of the aisle has talked a lot about how we need more capacity to drill. I will tell you that since 2000, drilling on land has increased dramatically, climbing 66 percent. A two-thirds increase. Notwithstanding that increased drilling, gas prices have increased. In addition to that, I will tell my friend that oil and gas companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of Federal land and waters on which they are not producing oil and gas. It is our belief and experts' belief that these 68 million acres of leased but currently inactive Federal lands and waters could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. That is existing leases on existing land that are not being used today. As a matter of fact, well less than half of the currently authorized leased land for oil drilling is not being used. It would nearly double if we did that total U.S. oil production and increased domestic natural gas production, by 75 percent. That is without a single new lease or single new drilling authorization being passed. It would also, of course, cut U.S. oil imports by more than a third and be more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that is discussed so much on your side of the aisle. So while we are trying to focus on understanding what effect high prices have today and what manipulation may be going on in the marketplace today that is impacting on prices, we do continue to focus on the long-term solution, which is not, frankly, looking at petroleum products, which are a wasting resource and which will not in your lifetime and my lifetime but in our grandchildren's lifetime not be the source of energy to either power our cars or our economy but alternative sources of energy. We look forward to working with you on all of those. We believe that there is a lot of excess capacity in refining, excess capacity on leases for oil and for natural gas that currently exists that, for whatever reasons, are not being pursued now.

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. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, I had the great privilege of being elected to the Maryland State Senate in 1966. There were two other individuals--there were a lot of other individuals, but there were two other individuals who were elected with me. The other two were elected to the House of Delegates. One of those was Benjamin Cardin, who is now Maryland's junior United States Senator. The other individual elected that had same year was Paul Sarbanes. Paul Sarbanes served for 4 years, then was elected to the House in 1970, served in the House for 6 years, and in 1976 was elected to the United States Senate. I was in the State Senate and had the privilege of working hard for his election that year. He served longer than any other individual representing our State, and one of the programs that he fostered was the program that we are reauthorizing today. He can swell with pride not only on the substance of this legislation but also on the fact that his extraordinary son, who now represents a district that he used to represent, the Third Congressional District of our State, is now sponsoring and shepherding this legislation through the House of Representatives. My colleagues have spoken about the substance of this legislation. John Smith in 1607 came up a bay that was pristine and essentially unspoiled. In the next 400 years, man, in his somewhat irresponsibility, has not husbanded that asset that God gave us as he should or as she should. This legislation, sponsored by Senator Sarbanes many years ago, now shepherded by his son, Congressman John Sarbanes, was an effort to ensure that we understood what Congressman Gilchrest talked about and the importance of this asset we call the Chesapeake Bay, not just to Maryland, not just to Pennsylvania or Delaware or Virginia, but to our country. An extraordinary ecological resource. So I rise simply not to recite what my colleagues have already recited but to congratulate John Sarbanes, to say how proud we are, as I know he is as well, of the extraordinary service given to our State by his father, Senator Paul Sarbanes, the original author of this legislation, and to thank him for carrying this torch forward on behalf of a resource that is priceless, as the ad says. So I thank him for yielding this time, congratulate him for his efforts, and urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 5540, legislation introduced by Representative John Sarbanes which seeks to permanently reauthorize the National Park Service's Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Program. Those of us fortunate to live in this region have been blessed with a multitude of magnificent natural resources, not the least of which is our Nation's largest estuary--the Chesapeake Bay, a body of water that has played such an important role in shaping the cultural, economic, political, and social history of our region. Unfortunately, the Chesapeake Bay of 2008 is not the pristine body that Captain John Smith first charted on his expeditions some 400 years ago. Indeed, earlier this year, the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program released the Chesapeake Bay 2007 Health and Restoration Assessment which found the overall health of the bay remains significantly impaired. In the 110th Congress, I have joined with my colleagues in successfully advocating legislation to improve the health of the bay. We've strengthened the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers to undertake bay oyster restoration, water pollution control, and environmental infrastructure projects in the 2007 WRDA bill. And, we've included approximately $438 million in mandatory funding to help Chesapeake Bay watershed farmers in their ongoing efforts to implement practices to prevent runoff and control shoreline erosion. H.R. 5540, the legislation we consider today, takes another important step forward in our efforts by permanently authorizing a program that has already done so much to raise awareness of the fragile health of the bay and directly engage our region's citizens and visitors to take an active role in fulfilling our shared goal of restoring the Chesapeake. The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, which includes more than 156 museums, State parks, wildlife refuges and other sites in 6 States and the District of Columbia, was established to link together these wonderful places in the hopes of enabling visitors to better understand and appreciate the role they can play in the bay's survival. The program enables sites to compete for grant funding--which must be fully matched--for projects that will help conserve, restore and interpret their roles in the bay's natural, cultural, and social history. The Gateways Program is a critical component to fostering a commitment among our citizens to restore the bay and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. I always think my friend from Arizona is so rational, and I thought he was today. I always appreciate his remarks. It's a shame that together we have not reached what I think we need to reach, whether it's on entitlements, which are obviously an extraordinary challenge, or on discretionary spending, or on taxes, on revenues, on paying for what we buy. The flower-strewn path unpricked by reason. Nineteen years of Republican Presidents during my term in the Congress of the United States have presided. They're the one person in the United States of America that can stop spending in its tracks. The only person. Nineteen years of Republican Presidents, $4.13 trillion of deficit spending and $1.68 trillion of that has been in the last 6 years. Eight years under Bill Clinton, $62.9 billion-surplus. That is the 27 years that I have been in the Congress of the United States. Now you can attribute that to all sorts of things, but I attribute it to the fact that Democrats have taken the position we ought to pay for what we buy and we ought to have responsible budgets. The Republicans have not passed a budget except for once in an election year. If we pass this one, as surely I hope we will, it will be a precedent. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Budget Committee, John Spratt. I also want to congratulate the ranking member, who I don't see on the floor, but who is a responsible Member of this body. I disagree with him on some things but he engages in the debate in a responsible way. I want to thank the members of the Blue Dog Coalition as well for their work, patience, and commitment to passing this budget conference report. This is the first budget adopted in an election year since 2000, the last time we were before this administration, and it is a signal accomplishment of this Congress and a demonstration of our ability to govern effectively. This conference report is the continuation of the Democratic majority's effort to turn away from this administration's failed policies. In fact, the most reckless fiscal policies in the history of our Nation. As the father of three grandchildren and as the grandfather of a great-grandchild, I am extraordinarily concerned about that. We have two young women sitting next to my colleague and friend, Congressman Rogers. I don't know whether they are grandchildren. They are grandchildren. We have put those young children who sit here, these beautiful young women, deeply into debt. This budget is about keeping them out of further debt. Let's remember, President Bush and the former Republican majorities in Congress turned a projected budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, and was that a real surplus? It was not. It was a projection for 10 years. Nobody really knows what's going to happen in 10 years. But it was a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion, on which the Bush administration relied, and in reliance on it, did some things that were extraordinarily irresponsible. We are now more than $3 trillion in additional debt in just 6 years. We went from $5.9 trillion of debt to now $9.8 trillion. Almost $4 trillion, which is to say an 80 percent increase in the indebtedness of this Nation in 84 months while the Republicans enjoyed 6 years of hegemony. Total, absolute control. Yet some of our Republican friends complain, audaciously so, that this budget conference report includes an increase in the debt limit. How soon they forget. They forget or, more accurately, they deliberately ignore that they increased the debt limit four times in 5 years. Under Bill Clinton's Presidency, during his last 4 years the debt was increased not once. Not once. The debt limit increase included in this conference report is a direct result, a direct and predictable result of the fiscally irresponsible, failed policies of the Republican party, policies that could not be changed overnight. Nevertheless, congressional Democrats have proposed a fiscally responsible conference report that returns our Federal budget to balance by 2012 and abides by the pay-as-you-go budget rules that we reinstated in January, 2007, which were abandoned in 2001. Why? Because you could not and did not have the courage to pay for your tax cuts. The only way you could pass your reduction of revenues was to waive PAYGO because you did not have the courage of convictions, nor the votes of your conference to cut spending by the amount you cut revenue. To-wit: Exploding debt. It's a budget that meets the critical needs of our people, making investments to keep America safe, to boost economic growth, and create jobs, to provide tax relief, and to help families struggling in the Bush economy. This budget matches the President's request for defense, while shifting funds to high priorities, such as nuclear nonproliferation programs. It increases homeland security funding over the President's request. And it rejects the President's proposed cuts to first responder-programs, who, in any emergency caused by terrorists or by natural events, will be the first responders. It increases funding for veterans health care by $3.7 billion, increases funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives so we can become energy independent, as well as funding for scientific innovation, education, training and social services to grow our economy, create jobs and make the lives of our people better. Furthermore, it accommodates an immediate and long-term fix to the alternative minimum tax and additional middle class tax relief. Middle class tax relief in this budget. Finally, this conference report rejects the President's harmful cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, State and local law enforcement programs, such as COPS, and to Environmental Protection Agency grants to protect public health. It also rejects the President's proposal to increase fees for veterans and military retirees by $18 billion. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat majorities in this Congress inherited a fiscal debacle last year. Today, through this budget conference report, we continue to address it and to meet the critical priorities of the American people. This is a budget that we can be proud of. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility, vote for the appropriate priorities for our country, vote for a brighter future for our children, vote for the conference report.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, today I rise as a proud sponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 311, legislation which will allow the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to hold the 67th Annual Greater Washington Soap Box Derby on the grounds of the United States Capitol on June 22nd. Soap Box Derby racing in our Nation's Capital has a long and rich tradition. In 1938, Norman Rocca beat out 223 other racers to win the Inaugural Greater Washington Soap Box Derby, which was held on New Hampshire Avenue. Over the years, thousands of the region's young people have participated in this great race. Although the location has moved from the original site on New Hampshire Avenue to Capitol Hill, with stops on Massachusetts Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue and Eastern Avenue along the way, the essence of the race has remained the same; homemade, gravity-powered cars, the spirit of competition, and the pure joy of racing. Community groups, police departments, fire departments and other sponsors sponsor children each year, children who may not otherwise be able to participate. The Soap Box Derby is not simply a race, Madam Speaker; it is an enriching way to reach out to our youth and teach them the importance of community, responsibility, hard work and innovation. The Soap Box Derby consists of dozens of drivers, both boys and girls, ranging in age from 8 to 17. These racers are divided into three divisions; stock, super stock and masters. The local winners of each division will automatically qualify to compete with racers from around the world in the 71st All-American Soap Box Derby in Akron, Ohio, on July 26th. Madam Speaker, this event has been called ``the greatest amateur racing event in the world.'' It is an excellent opportunity for contestants from the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia to learn basic building skills while gaining a real sense of accomplishment. Further, I hope that this year's winner from the Greater Washington area will have the same success as one of last year's participants, Ms. Kacie Rader. Kacie's win in Washington was only the beginning. Not only is Kacie a constituent and a neighbor, she also is the 2007 All- American Soap Box Derby Masters Division champion. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join with me and the other original cosponsors, Representatives Frank Wolf, Jim Moran, Eleanor Holmes Norton and Chris Van Hollen, in supporting this resolution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this rule. I suggest further, if we were all adults on this floor, everybody would say this rule, outside of the ambit of what amendments are made in order on the defense bill, is an appropriate rule. It is an appropriate rule to respond to a mistake that was made. As the gentleman from California observed earlier in debate, mistakes are made. Unlike the previous instance some years ago, which were discussed on this floor of the deficit reduction bill where the minority was not notified, the assertion the minority was not notified was absolutely inaccurate, and Mr. Goodlatte would say that. In point of fact what happened was Mr. Peterson learned of it, talked to Mr. Goodlatte about it, then discussed it with me, and they decided jointly and bipartisanly to proceed. Unlike the Deficit Reduction Act, the first thing that Mr. Peterson said in arguing for the override of the President's veto was, there is a problem here. He wanted all the Members to know what the problem was. There was not a Member on the floor who didn't know what the problem was. When they voted, a majority of the minority party voted to override the President's veto because they believed the policy proposed in that bill is a good one. The overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for that bill, and 316 out of 435 of us--there weren't 435 of us; there were 11 absentees. So 316 out of about 424 voted for this bill. This bill, unfortunately, included fourteen-fifteenths of the bill we passed, and really a larger proportion of that because in terms of pages it was probably 95 percent, 98 percent of the bill. Now, a mistake was made. It was not a venal mistake. It was not a conscious mistake. And the mistake was made, as everybody ought to know, by the Clerk of the Congress and OMB, and they both made the same mistake. And the mistake they made was reading from the printed copy as opposed to the parchment copy. OMB didn't read from the parchment copy, we didn't read from the parchment copy, because the belief was a decision made 10 years ago by the Deputy Clerk not to proofread the parchment because changing the parchment was too expensive, but to read from the printed copy which then, if found in error, could be corrected and reprinted and then programmed for the parchment to be printed from that. And both our side--our side, the Congress--and the OMB made the same mistake. They assumed, as normally is the case, that the parchment reflected exactly what the conference printed report said. Unfortunately, in this instance it did not. We still don't have a full explanation of how that happened. But obviously, notwithstanding the fact that parchment indicates that title III in the table of contents is included, when you go to page 169, the end of title II, and you turn the page to 170, you go to title IV. Now, one would have thought it would have been a pretty simple proofreading job if you read the parchment. Unfortunately, the print document which was used by OMB and the Congress to proof did in fact include title III. Okay. So we made a mistake. The administration made a mistake, we made a mistake, the bill was not whole. This is, my friends, not an unusual situation. In an 1892 case, which was relied upon in the budget case as well, the Court clearly said: Whatever the facts are internally to the House of Representatives, what the President signs is the statute, is the law. The Supreme Court says clearly, therefore, that what the President sent us back and the veto overridden is in fact what the court has found is the law. Now, unfortunately, it doesn't include title III. We want to pass title III. This bill took some 15 months, 18 months of deliberation. The farm bill expires tonight or tomorrow, Friday. So we can either do another extension, which is possible, or we can pass what was overwhelmingly passed in the Senate, overwhelmingly passed in the House of Representatives, and, as I said on the floor last night, was passed in exactly the same form without title III as was passed in both Houses. There were no changes. No alterations. That was not the case in the deficit bill that was referred to by Mr. Boehner yesterday. In fact, a very substantial difference was made in the bill without notice to the Democrats, a $2 billion change, I might add, changing from 36 months to 13 months the implications of the reimbursement of Medicare for implements. Now, that is all to say that this is not without precedent, number one. There are a number of cases that hold that what we did yesterday was exactly appropriate, and that law is not subject to question. Everything is subject to question, but not valid question or winning question. So what have we done? First of all, I discussed it with the Parliamentarian. I had not done so when we had the colloquy with Mr. Boehner. I then discussed it with the chairman. The chairman discussed it throughout the next few hours with Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Harkin and others. I discussed it with Mr. Reid to figure out, a mistake has been made, how do we correct that, in fairness to everybody, on a bill, that, by the way, the Deficit Reduction Act was passed by a two-vote margin in the House, and in the United States Senate was passed because of the Vice President's vote. And we were not informed, so we were somewhat concerned about the $2 billion mistake that had been made. In this case, that is not the issue at all, and it's a bill that was, in a bipartisan basis, passed by a majority of the Republicans and overwhelming majority of Democrats. So what solution did we come up with? Resending the bill that, under the Supreme Court's edict is, in fact, law if it is overridden in the Senate, so that fourteen-fifteenths of what is the Congress's intent will be accomplished. The rule then says, but in an abundance of caution, we'll also provide for the passage of the entire bill and send it over to the Senate, as has been passed overwhelmingly in both Houses. In addition to that, we said, the bill does not include title III that is going to be in the veto message that's sent to the Senate. I know for the public, this is pretty esoteric, and they don't really care. What they care is the substance. But the point that I'm trying to make is, we are trying to correct a mistake and serve the agricultural community, serve those millions of people who are relying on the nutritional aid, serving those people who are relying on the conservation assistance throughout this country, to have this bill, after 18 months almost of consideration, serious bipartisan working and overwhelming bipartisan votes in both Houses, enacted into law. But we are also providing separately for the passage of title III. In other words, we're doing title III twice, once as the full bill so we can repass the full bill. If the Senate decides, as I hope it will, to pass that again, then we will not only have passed fourteen-fifteenths, we will have passed fifteen-fifteenths in another bill, and they will be reconciled and they will be consistent with the law and with the will of this body representing the American people. Now at about 7 p.m. last night, those of you who heard the colloquy, I indicated to Mr. Boehner we ought to talk about this. I went by Mr. Boehner's office to explain to him what I thought the solution to this problem was and discuss it with him. He was not at his office. I left a message and my phone number at 7 o'clock last night. I have not yet received a response to that visit. I went to his office to suggest that, pursuant to my representation on the floor, we discuss that. I have not yet received a phone call. I did talk to Mr. Blunt last night. I've talked to Mr. Blunt this morning. I frankly am offended, I will tell you, by the mischaracterization of what we are doing here by the representatives of the minority leader's office. There are no games being played here. There was a mistake made. And if we were adults and nonpartisan and wanted to deal with this in a responsible way, I suggest we would have agreed on this proposal. Now, unfortunately, we didn't get to an agreement. I don't allege that anybody on your side has agreed to this. But to suggest that it hasn't been discussed, informed, and I called as soon as I came in this morning, the leadership on your side, to explain exactly this procedure. Now you can disagree with the farm bill or not disagree with the farm bill. I understand that additional games are going to be played, as it was my perception last week were played. On Thursday, 131 or 132 of you decided, notwithstanding the fact that I am sure you are for funding the troops in Iraq, you voted ``present.'' That was your decision. It's my understanding now that perhaps you're being urged, some of you who are for this bill, to deny the two-thirds on the suspension of a bill that has gotten essentially three-quarters of this House and 80 percent of the United States Senate supporting it. Ladies and gentlemen, at some point in time the American public expects us to act as adults, not simply as partisan protagonists, to conduct business, notwithstanding the fact because we are humans, and those who work for us are humans and are under great stress. They have to work around the clock. They work 15-hour days, sometimes longer days. And we expect them to act without ever making a mistake. That is unreasonable. And when they make mistakes, and when we make mistakes, it is appropriate for us respond in a way that will correct those mistakes and, at the same time, carry out the policies that are overwhelmingly supported by this body. My friends on both sides of the aisle, I would hope that we could do that. I regret that the minority leader has not called me back. I regret that he has not sat down and, with me, had the opportunity to discuss this. I had a discussion with him before the vote last night. It was a very calm, reasonable discussion, Mr. Lawrence and I, outside the middle door. We knew there was a problem. We knew we had to solve it. I think this does, in fact, solve it from the standpoint of adopting the policy overwhelmingly supported by this Congress of assuring that title III is addressed, and assuring us of the opportunity to make sure that it's not subject even to any lawsuit question by, again, passing the entire bill supported by, as I said, over 75 percent of the Congress of the United States. I understand there may be questions about which amendment was allowed in order to the defense bill and which wasn't, so on that case, you may vote differently on the rule. But on the addressing of the mistake that was inadvertently made, and I stress again, by the Congress and by the Office of Management and Budget, same mistake apparently was made, that we can correct this as adults treating one another in a way that each of us would want to be treated to act so that we adopt policies that are supported by this Congress.

Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend, Mr. Blunt, if he wants time.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. I thank you. I hope I didn't imply that. What I said, what I meant to say, if I misspoke, not that the--we, first of all agree and, as I've said, we're going to do what you suggest in an abundance of caution to assure us, ourselves, and I would hope that we would all, or least those who are for the farm bill would vote for it, the entire bill will be put on suspension. In light of the fact we had 75 percent of this House support that bill, that would be more than enough to pass it on suspension. We're going to do that in an abundance of caution. In addition, we're going to do title III separately so the Senate can have that option as well, so if on the veto override they do fourteen- fifteenths of the bill, they can do the one-fifteenth, that is, title III at the same time so they would contemporaneously move forward. When I refer to, and if I offended the gentleman, adult behavior, this is not a political problem. It is a procedural problem that we need to cure, and we've been working to cure it. You and I have had discussions about it, very positive discussions about it over the last 12 hours. And I would hope that we could proceed on that basis. And I yield back some time.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I simply rise to say that this rule accomplishes exactly, in my opinion, what the minority whip wants to accomplish. It provides for the full passage of this bill under suspension, which the gentleman was for when it passed before, which I was for, and I will vote for. And that suspension accomplishes exactly that objective, so that any defect caused by the mistake will be cured. Secondly, it's not blame. I, frankly, think the decision that was made 10 years ago was a rational decision. The decision was not to use the parchment copy as a copy to mark on to correct. There was no criticism there. It was simply that's when the decision was made. I think it, frankly, was a good decision. The problem was, neither OMB nor ourselves used the parchment copy. We used the printed copy. The printed copy did, in fact, have title III in there. And obviously both the President and ourselves thought that the bill that was signed was the full bill. It ended up not being so, so we're going to correct that. I think we're correcting it properly. I would urge all Members to vote for the rule, vote for the full bill, the farm bill which, as I said, got over 75 percent of the House and over 80 percent the Senate. Vote for title III so that, frankly, that can be passed more quickly by the Senate under its rules, and the leader has already indicated he will move forward on that. If you have a disagreement, you won't vote for that. I understand that. And I think we will, therefore, cure the issue at hand. I congratulate the Rules Committee for adopting this rule. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule, and if we do so, we will adopt a farm bill that I think will be good for the country. I think we will enact a farm bill which will be unimpeachable in either aspect, and I think we will have done what the American people expect us to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I first want to recognize Congressman Ike Skelton, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I know how tirelessly he's worked to put this authorization bill together; and more than that, I know that no one in this House is a more dedicated advocate for our men and women in uniform. This bill passed out of committee unanimously, and I expect it to pass the full House overwhelmingly, as well. That's because it's a bill that begins to repair our military while putting the needs of our troops first, a bill that responds to the Armed Forces' immense challenges while keeping them on the cutting edge. Let me touch on a few of its key provisions. First, it authorizes $70 billion for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism. No doubt, an overwhelming majority of the American public would agree that our mission in Iraq has been marred by gross errors of judgment from our highest-ranking civilian officials, unending bloodshed, and a chronic lack of political progress. But at the same time, 150,000 American troops are still on the ground in the midst of that violence, they have done everything our Nation has asked of them, and I believe they must have the resources they need to defend themselves and try to stabilize Iraq. This bill recognizes that reality, and it includes funds to keep our troops safer under fire: funds for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, up-armored Humvees, and personal body armor. Second, this bill acknowledges the tremendous debt we owe our troops in this time of war. And the bill's military pay raise--a higher raise than the president requested--is a small way of beginning to pay that debt back. It also protects their access to health care by keeping down medical fees for our troops and retirees. Third, this bill begins to restore our Nation's military readiness. With our forces stretched to the breaking point, Army National Guard units have, on average, less than two thirds of their required equipment. Army Vice Chief of Staff Richard Cody has testified that the Army ``no longer has fully ready combat brigades on standby should a threat or conflict occur.'' That is simply too dangerous a risk to take. I'm glad that this bill takes some steps to mitigate it, authorizing nearly $2 billion for unfunded readiness initiatives, $800 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment, and larger active duty forces: 7,000 new soldiers, 5,000 more Marines, and more than 1,000 new sailors. Fourth and finally, this bill's investments in high-tech equipment will keep our military the world's most advanced. It includes funding for next-generation fighters, like the F/A-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; for advanced Navy vessels, from small littoral combat ships to new attack submarines; and for the initial deployment of a national missile defense system. At the same time, I realize that spending on this scale always opens the possibility of waste and abuse; that's why I'm grateful that this bill also comes equipped with increased congressional oversight of Defense acquisition programs. Mr. Speaker, never in recent memory has our military been so worn down. The road back to readiness will be long and hard--but it can begin today. I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation--vital for our troops and our families, and equally vital for our Nation's security.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we come to the end of an 8-week series. This motion is a little bit like voting ``present.'' On the one hand, you say, Yes, let's be for veterans; yes, let's be for energy independence. On the other hand you say, But let's not pass the bill. The American public must be very confused by that kind of action. But I am convinced that this night we will stand with our troops, we will stand with our Armed Forces, we will stand with the national security of our country. Reject this motion which sends this bill back to committee; and once having done that, vote overwhelmingly for this bill and honor Mr. Hunter in the process; and honor a great leader of this House, as knowledgeable about national security as any Member of this House, the great Ike Skelton of Missouri. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, reject this political ``promptly'' motion. Pass this bill and be proud to go home and tell America that you stood up for our national security and our troops.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Well, as I said, everything that we voted on was passed by the House and the Senate in exactly the same form. Obviously, I agree with your premise that the bill as passed out of Congress was not the exact same bill because of the deletion of title III, apparently by error. Title III, as I understand, is not particularly controversial. I understand that from the discussion between Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Peterson. So a mistake was made. A deletion was made. The President and the White House did not catch it. We didn't catch it. The President vetoed a bill. The bill that he vetoed, he sent back here. We have now said notwithstanding the veto, we believe the provisions that we both passed should in fact become law. Now the gentleman is correct, which is self-evident, and I can't disagree with your proposition that the bill was not in exactly the same form, and as I indicated at the beginning, because I only learned about this about an hour and a half ago, these are off-of-the-top-of- my-head opinions, and are probably worth that much.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will my friend yield?

Mr. HOYER. We hope to have, again, as result of discussions between Mr. Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte, either by unanimous consent, which may not be possible, or under suspension because, again, I understand from Mr. Peterson that title III is not a controversial title. Clearly, title I was controversial. Other titles were controversial. But if that is the case, then we can pass this by suspension tomorrow with suspension authority and send that to the Senate and hopefully they will then in turn send that to the President that title which has not yet been enacted or, frankly, acted on by the President, would either be signed by him or vetoed by him and we would consider it in that context.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, clearly, what we are dealing with is an unfortunate situation. The unfortunate situation is that apparently-- and again I just learned about this about an hour and a half ago when Mr. Peterson, the chairman of the committee, told me he and Mr. Goodlatte were discussing this problem and how to proceed. Apparently what happened is title III, which I understand is not very controversial, but in any event, title III came up on the screen for the printing on the parchment that is sent to the President, but, unfortunately, for whatever reasons, it was not printed out and it was not caught in the proofing of that. Apparently, as well, the White House did not catch the fact that the bill was not inclusive of title III. Frankly, I have not looked at the bill to see whether there's a title I, II, and then goes to IV, which would have been self-evident that there was a missing title. In any event, without having researched it or talked to anybody about precedents, what has happened is that the House and the Senate passed in exactly the same form that which was vetoed by the President. Now, we passed more than that, but that which we have just voted on was passed in both Houses in exactly the form we just voted on. The vote, therefore, superficially, off the top of my head, without having researched this, is that what we have done is we have passed that which we originally passed through the House and the Senate and sent to the President, notwithstanding the President's veto, and something that we did also pass, which was incorporated in that bill, was neither vetoed nor signed by the President because, unfortunately, as a result of a clerical error, it was not included in the bill. I, in discussions with Mr. Peterson, understand that he and Mr. Goodlatte were in discussion on this issue when they first learned of it, and I don't know how long they knew about it before I found out about it; that, as I thought, their agreement would be that we would pass, subsequent to passing the initial bill, the title III either by unanimous consent or under the suspension calendar. I don't know the conversations that occurred between Mr. Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Peterson is on the floor, I know. I don't know exactly where he is. But it was his understanding that that would be an acceptable way to proceed. That was where I thought it to be.

Mr. HOYER. My suggestion will be that we have another vote. We are going to have some other business coming. We discussed this briefly in the hallway. My suggestion is before we make any motions, that we take the time, your leadership and our leadership, let's sit down and discuss this and then we can come back and do whatever each decides to do.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, I want to say how much respect I have for Mr. McCrery. I think he is one of the most positive Members of this body. I think he has worked productively with Chairman Rangel, and I have great respect for my colleague. He will be leaving, and that will be a loss for the Congress. I wanted to say that before I begin. Let me say that we have disagreements. However, and on the overall issue that he raised in closing about paying for this, he is accurate. Now, some of these extenders even pre-date the time when the Republicans were in the majority in 1995 and through 2006. But I think there is consensus on extending them. The difference is, should we pay for them? There are only a number of options, a few options available to us. We can pay for them, or our children can pay for them. Somebody will pay for them. There is not a free lunch. My view is this supply side economics pretends there is somewhere out there where the tooth fairy is going to deliver the money. There is not a tooth fairy. It is the parent who delivers the money under the pillow when the tooth is lost. But we are the parents, and we need to act as adults. We need to pay for what we buy. And if what we buy is giving somebody a tax incentive because we believe that they will do something good that will advantage our community and our country, then that is fine. I am supportive of that. But we ought to pay for it, because that is our decision. One of the gentlemen spoke about his two children. I have three children. I have three grandchildren, and I have one great- granddaughter. I'm equally concerned. I'm concerned about the $4 trillion in debt that we've added over the last 6-plus years, and now some $400 billion this year alone. But that is the general philosophy. The specific philosophy here is we need to be energy independent. We need to be sure that our policies that we pursue do not continue to make us hostage to those who have petroleum products. Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend Chairman Charlie Rangel and all of the members of the Ways and Means Committee for their hard work on this very important, farsighted legislation, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act. This week the American people are paying, on average, $3.79 per gallon for gasoline. Mr. Hensarling observed that I was laughing when he said the Democrats have been in charge and look what's happened to gas prices. I was laughing because the absurdity is rejected by the American public, that somehow policies that we've adopted over the last year, when the President vetoes anything he doesn't want, has affected those gasoline prices to me is patently absurd and clearly rejected by the American people. It was, I thought then and think now, a laughable proposition to make. Motorists are paying $4 per gallon, more than $2.50 per gallon more than they were paying when the current administration took office. To show you the difference, when Bill Clinton was President from 1993 to 2001, gas prices rose from $1.06 to $1.46, 40 cents, or a nickel a year, a nickel a year during those 8 years. During this President's administration, prices are rising a nickel a week. There is no doubt that this explosion in gasoline prices is squeezing hardworking families who live in every one of our districts who also are coping with the rising costs of food and groceries, health care and education. This legislation is not a panacea to those immediate concerns. Would that we had one. But it does represent an important step in our continuing effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Among other things, the bill will establish a new tax credit of $1.01 per gallon for cellulosic biofuel production from now through 2015, so that we can rely on the Middle West and perhaps other parts of our country, rather than the Middle East. It will extend this $1 per gallon biodiesel tax credit, and makes it available to all potential sources of diesel that can be made without petroleum. And it allows jet fuel produced from biomass to qualify for the credit as well. Furthermore, this legislation will reduce our dependence on imported fuel for our electricity sector by extending and expanding tax incentive for sources of renewable energy including wind, solar and biomass. It also will encourage the use of plug-in hybrid cars and provide incentives for energy conservation in residential homes, commercial buildings and appliances; all of which, I think, the American public applauds. Additionally, this bill will help create hundreds of thousands of ``green jobs.'' It will spur American innovation and business investment, which will strengthen our economy today and in the future. And it will provide tax relief for millions of Americans, expanding the child tax credit for the families of 13 million children, helping 4.5 million families better afford college through a tuition deduction, and saving 3.4 million teachers money with a deduction for classroom expenses, so when they buy something for their classroom, like a business expense, they'll be able to deduct it. Now, many on the Republican side object to this bill because the Democratic majority, in keeping with our commitment to fiscal responsibility and pay as you go budget rules, insists that this legislation be paid for and not add to the national debt. That's a fundamental difference between our two sides. One believes that tax cuts somehow pay for themselves. Mr. Bernanke doesn't believe that, Mr. Greenspan doesn't believe that, but our Republican colleagues clearly believe it, and they've pursued that policy, which has, as I said, put us over $3 trillion in additional debt over the last 82 months. To them I simply say: It is long past time that the Members here insist that our Nation pay for the things it buys. To not do so takes the discipline out of the democratic process, because if we can simply charge that which we buy, there will be no discipline on the part of the electorate to say no, we don't want to be taxed to buy that. And I guarantee the system would stop buying it. But if there is no discipline, if we're not paying, my grandchildren will not be able to vote and exercise that discipline. History, I suggest to my colleagues, is littered with the stories of formerly great nations that began their demise through fiscal profligacy. It is within our power to ensure that the United States of America is never added to that list. The method by which Chairman Rangel and the committee have paid for the cost of this bill is laudable. Important. This legislation closes loopholes that allow corporations and executives to avoid U.S. taxes by shipping jobs and investments overseas. And because our obligations do not stop, average working Americans, therefore, must pay more if the wealthiest among us who can seek tax havens do not pay their fair share. This legislation is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill that will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect our environment, create thousands of jobs and strengthen our economy, and provide tax relief to millions of hardworking Americans. I commend Mr. Rangel, Mr. McDermott, the members of the committee, and I commend Mr. McCrery for his responsible stewardship as the ranking member and his working to try to bring consensus. We have not reached it in this instance, but I do commend him for his efforts. And I urge my colleagues, support this important legislation which moves us towards energy independence and a fair and equitable tax system.