John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Can the chairman tell me if this bill was subject to amendment in committee?

Mr. SHADEGG. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SHADEGG. Can the gentleman tell me where and when this bill was amended?

Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Has the majority been provided the text of the bill at this time, or can you tell me when it was amended?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, although the rules package contained a provision that said the majority would provide legislative text to the minority 48 hours before a vote, that is not, in fact, a rule; is that correct?

Mr. SHADEGG. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, is there a means by which I can appeal the ruling of the Chair in order to allow the Members of the minority the time in the civility clause that is 48 hours to see the language of this bill which was apparently amended within the last 45 minutes?

Mr. SHADEGG. Can the Chair tell me if this bill was reported out of committee?

Mr. SHADEGG. So it has not been reported out of committee?

Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to make three quick points. Sadly, this bill will increase our dependency on foreign oil, exactly the wrong public policy. It taxes the production of domestic oil and, therefore, encourages us to buy more foreign oil. The wrong policy. Second, this bill will increase the cost of gasoline and fuel oil for every American. Make no mistake about it, when you increase the tax, the producers will pass that tax on and our prices are going up. But I want to make a broader, more important point, and that is to discuss for the American people and for the record how this bill and the preceding five bills were brought to the floor. That procedure is a raw exercise of power, and I would like to ask my Democratic colleagues why they are afraid to allow discussion and dissent. This bill came to the floor allowing Republicans no amendments. Zero. This bill didn't go through committee. It couldn't be amended in committee and it can't be amended on the floor. Some people say this is a response to the Contract With America. I would like to make the point that in the Contract With America, we were allowed to set our agenda. You are entitled to set your agenda here. But in the Contract With America, for those bills we allowed Democrats to offer 154 floor amendments. To our Contract With America in 1995, you got to offer 154 amendments. We get to offer zero. In our Contract With America, in allowing you to offer 154 amendments in addition to the amendments in committee, 48 of the Democrat amendments to the Republican Contract With America were adopted and became a part of the bill. Zero Republican amendments will be adopted because you allow none. I do not understand and I do not believe that beginning this debate by not allowing the minority to express itself shows any pride. Let the minority speak. What are you afraid of?

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I think this debate comes down simply to: Do you trust bureaucrats, or do you trust the forces of competition which have already delivered a drug benefit under budget? To me, the answer is simple. But don't take my word for it. Last November, The Washington Post, not exactly a right wing newspaper, indeed one of most liberal newspapers in America, editorialized against precisely what this bill does. The Washington Post, not John Shadegg, said that the drug benefit in the current bill has turned out to be cheaper than projected. The Washington Post, not John Shadegg, said that most beneficiaries are satisfied with the current program. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Dingell and others, over and over and over and over again in this debate have cited the veterans program and said it is much better because they negotiate drug prices. But The Washington Post, not John Shadegg, said, and I quote, ``that is not a fair comparison.'' The Washington Post says that the Veterans Administration keeps prices down by maintaining a sparse network of pharmacies and a restricted formulary. Indeed, delivering three-fourths of its prescription drugs by mail. That's not John Shadegg; that's The Washington Post. Indeed, the Post points out that more than one-third of the veterans in America eligible to sign up for the veterans program instead take the Medicare prescription drug program. Why? Because Americans don't want to say goodbye to their local pharmacy, which is what my colleagues on the other side will make them do. If the program is so much better under the veterans, then why do a third of America's veterans prefer the current Medicare program? The answer for that is, it is a better program. The Washington Post answers that by saying, in their words, the veterans' programs restricted choice of drugs and restricted list of pharmacies is less attractive. Let me conclude the way the Post concluded. They said, ``A switch to government purchasing of Medicare drugs would choke off this experiment before it had a chance to play out and would usher in its own problems.'' I urge my colleagues to consider those problems. They went on to say, ``For the moment, the Democrats would do better to invest their health care energy elsewhere.'' I urge my colleagues who read The Washington Post regularly to follow its advice. This is a bad bill and bad for America's seniors.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to express my concern about the tone of this debate. Let me make it clear: I compliment my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Ethics reform is needed here, and today you are making a good first step. But please listen carefully to those of us on this side of the aisle who will vote with you for this package when we implore you to go further and when we take some credit for the efforts of the past. It is true that we passed as a law through this House, sadly the Senate did not follow suit, a bill that corrected many of these things. Your bill, in some respects, goes further, but some of us are concerned that it needs to go even further. And it is not because we are revisionists. I have campaigned in this body and out of this body throughout my career for reform. I believe it is not enough just to do so-called lobbyist reform. We must direct our ethics reform at the Members of this institution. And one way to do that is a way that was recognized by our new Speaker a decade ago, and that is to say that the Hiss Act, passed clear back in 1954, which said a Member of Congress who was convicted of bribery would lose his or her pension, should be reinstituted, because it was repealed in 1961. Over a year ago, watching what I was disappointed in in the criminal conduct of some Members of this body, I introduced a bill with 57 cosponsors saying that any Member, any Member, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, convicted of bribery in connection with their office ought to, at an absolute minimum, lose their pension. And I believe that is the standard we owe the American people, and no less. My colleague says this is just a rules package, but this is your first hundred hours. There is no rule that says you could not have brought a statute, and I implore the gentleman and tell him that I will join with him, as will my colleague from Illinois and my colleague from Nebraska, each of whom had introduced bills a year ago or more seeking to prohibit Members from collecting a taxpayer-funded pension when they have, as the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, used this office not as one of public trust but one of public abuse to benefit themselves. There is no time for delay. Pass a reform now punishing Members who misuse their office. Take away their pensions and do it now.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I recommend to the American public an editorial by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and request that it be included in the Record. Published in the Weekly Standard on November 28, Mr. Gingrich's piece makes some very important points about the significance and necessity of our victory in Iraq. In comparing our current situation in Iraq to that which George Washington faced during the winter of 1776, Mr. Gingrich concludes that Washington's motto ``Victory or Death'' is the motto we must apply to Iraq. As we review the Iraq Study Group's (ISG) recommendations, Mr. Gingrich is wise to urge that we examine them closely and ask questions. Most essentially, we must ask whether or not the suggestions will ``make a real contribution in helping us win the war against the fanatical wing of Islam. Or will it be simply one more establishment effort to hide defeat so the American political system can resume its comfortable insider games without having to solve real problems in the larger world?'' As I have argued for some time now, Iraq is a pivotal juncture in the Global War on Terror. Iraq is about the larger global war against Islamo-fascists that want to destroy America. Like our former Speaker, I realize that our current approach to Iraq is not working. However, we must disregard any ISG recommendations to abandon Iraq or set a timeline for withdrawal, both of which will only serve to inspire violence from our enemies and distrust from our allies. This is not the time, nor the place to try to save political face. A retreat at this time would have consequences beyond what we can imagine. This is the time and the place to decisively win, to work together as Americans, and defeat terrorists on their turf before they can return the fight to ours. I urge my colleagues and the American people to read Mr. Gingrich's insightful piece. [From the Weekly Standard, Nov. 28, 2006] (By Newt Gingrich) Searching for Victory in Iraq--Why the Baker-Hamilton Commission Ought to Visit Mount Vernon. The Sunday before Thanksgiving Callista and I took some friends to Mount Vernon to see the new education center. It is an amazing tribute to George Washington and the creation of America. We watched a movie about George Washington crossing the Delaware on Christmas Eve and surprising the Hessians (German mercenaries) on Christmas Day in Trenton. As I watched, I wa struck by the amazing difference between the attitude of the father of our country and the current attitudes in the city that bears his name. General Washington had had a long and painful summer and autumn of defeat in 1776. His American Army had been defeated across New York--in Brooklyn, in Manhattan, and in White Plains--and then driven across New Jersey and forced to flee across the Delaware River into Pennsylvania. Washington's Night Crossing: ``Victory or Death'' Washington's forces had dwindled until he had only about 4,000 effective soldiers left. There were another 6,000 men present but they were so sick they were unable to go into battle. Faced with declining morale, rising desertions, the collapse of political will in the country at large, and a sense of despair, Washington decided to gamble everything on a surprise attack. It would require a night crossing of an icy river against a formidable professional opponent. But the most telling sign of Washington's mood as he embarked on the mission was his choice of a password. His men said ``victory or death'' to identify themselves. What if There Had Been a Baker-Hamilton Commission Advising General Washington? That night crossing, immortalized in paintings of Washington standing in the boat as Marblehead Fishermen rowed him across the ice strewn river, led to an amazing victory on Christmas Day. That victory led to a surge in American morale and a doubling in the size of the American forces under Washington within two weeks. And that gave Washington the strength to win a second surprise victory at Princeton. Within two weeks, Washington had gone from defeated, hopeless bungler to victorious American hero and personification of the American cause. Imagine there had been a Baker-Hamilton commission--the group charged with assessing our options in Iraq--advising Washington that cold Christmas Eve. What ``practical, realistic,'' advice would they have given him? Eleven Key Tests for the Baker-Hamilton Report. Will the Baker Hamilton Commission make a real contribution in helping us win the war against the fanatic wing of Islam? Or will it be simply one more establishment effort to hide defeat so the American political system can resume its comfortable insider games without having to solve real problems in the larger world? Here are some key things to look for in its report: (1) Does the commission have a vision for success in the larger war against the dictatorships and fanatics who want to destroy us? If Iraq were only a one-step process, the answer would be to leave. But the reality is that Iraq is a single campaign within a much bigger war and within a power struggle both over the evolution of Islam and over the rise of dictatorships seeking nuclear and biological weapons to enable them to destroy America and her allies. If the Baker- Hamilton commission does not take this into account, it is a dangerously misleading report. (2) Does the commission recognize that the second campaign in Iraq has been a failure? This is the hardest thing for Washington-centric bureaucracies to accept. There was a very successful 23-day campaign to drive Saddam out of power. It used America's strengths and it worked. The second campaign has been an abject failure. We and our Iraqi allies do not have control of Iraq. We cannot guarantee security. There is not enough economic activity to keep young males employed. If the Baker- Hamilton commission cannot bring itself to recognize a defeat as a defeat, then it cannot recommend the scale of change needed to develop a potentially successful third campaign. (3) Does the commission recognize the scale of change we will need to be effective in a world of enemies willing to kill themselves in order to kill us? We need fundamental change in our military doctrine, training, and structures, our intelligence capabilities, and our integration of civilian and military activities. The instruments of American power simply do not work at the speed and detail needed to defeat the kind of enemies we are encountering. The American bureaucracies would rather claim the problem is too hard and leave because being forced to change this deeply will be very painful and very controversial. Yet we have to learn to win. Learning. to win requires much more than changes in the military. It requires changes in how our intelligence, diplomatic, information, and economic institutions work. It requires the development of an integrated approach in which all the aspects of American power can be brought to bear to achieve victory. Furthermore this strategy for victory has to be doubly powerful because for three years we have failed to build an effective Iraqi government and we now have a shattered local system with many players using violence in desperate bids to maximize their positions. The plan has to be powerful enough to succeed despite Iraqi weaknesses and not by relying on a clearly uncertain and unstable Iraqi political system. (4) Does the commission describe the consequences of defeat in Iraq? What would the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq look like? Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute recently offered this chilling picture: ``The pullback of U.S. forces to their bases will not reduce the sectarian conflict, which their presence did not generate--it will increase it. Death squads on both sides will become more active. Large-scale ethnic and sectarian cleansing will begin as each side attempts to establish homogeneous enclaves where there are now mixed communities. Atrocities will mount, as they always do in ethnic cleansing operations. Iraqis who have cooperated with the Americans will be targeted by radicals on both sides. Some of them will try to flee with the American units. American troops will watch helplessly as death squads execute women and children. Pictures of this will play constantly on Al Jazeera. Prominent 'collaborators,' with whom our soldiers and leaders worked, will be publicly executed. Crowds of refugees could overwhelm not merely Iraq's neighbors but also the [Forward Operating Bases] themselves. Soldiers will have to hold off fearful, tearful, and dangerous mobs.'' (5) Does the commission understand the importance of victory? Winning is key. We are in a power struggle on a worldwide basis with dictators who want to defeat us (Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea) and with fanatic organizations that want to kill us (al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.). In a struggle like this, the goal has to be to win. Anything less than victory is very dangerous because it allows our enemies to gather more capabilities and prepare for more dangerous campaigns. Time is not on our side. Time is on the side of those seeking nuclear and biological weapons to use against the civilized world. (6) Does the commission define what it means to win or simply find a face-saving way to lose? Winning is very definable. Can we protect our friends and hurt our enemies? Are they more afraid of us or are we more afraid of them? The recent Syrian assassination of a Lebanese Christian leader who was pro-Western is a signal that they are not afraid of us. The North Korean decision to launch seven missiles on our Independence Day and to set off a nuclear weapon were signs they have contempt for our warnings. The statements of Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez indicate how confident they are. Today the enemy thinks they are winning and our elites seem to be seeking face-saving cover behind which to accept defeat. Does the Baker-Hamilton commission have a proposal for victory or a proposal for accepting defeat gracefully? Will it offer a diplomatic deal allowing us to pretend we are okay while our enemies gather strength? (7) Does the commission acknowledge that winning requires thinking regionally and even globally? In Afghanistan we are engaged in an Afghanistan-Waziristan war in which our enemies retreat into Waziristan in northwest Pakistan and rearm, reequip, retrain, and rest before coming back into Afghanistan. We will never win that war by engaging only in Afghanistan. In Iraq, the problems may require much more direct confrontation with Iran and Syria. In Lebanon, it is impossible to create a stable democratic government and disarm Hezbollah as long as Syria and Iran are deeply involved in killing Lebanese leaders and supplying Hezbollah. (8) Any proposal to ask Iran and Syria to help is a sign of defeat. Does the commission suggest this? Iran and Syria are the wolves in the region. They are the primary troublemakers. You don't invite wolves into the kitchen to help with dinner or you become dinner. The State Department Report on Terrorism in April 2006 said: ``Iran and Syria routinely provide unique safe haven, substantial resources and guidance to terrorist organizations.'' It went on to say, ``Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism.'' It noted that in Iraq the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (an arm of the Iranian dictatorship) ``was increasingly involved in supplying lethal assistance to Iraqi militant groups which destabilize Iraq.'' How can the Baker- Hamilton commission seriously suggest that two dictatorships described like this are going to be ``helpers'' in achieving American goals in the Middle East? (9) Does the commission believe we can ``do a deal'' with Iran? The clear effort by the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons, and Ahmadinejad's assertion that it is easy to imagine a time in the near future when the United States and Israel have both disappeared, should be adequate proof that the Iranian dictatorship is the active enemy of America. Couple that with the fact that the Iranians lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency for 18 years while trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Either this is a dangerous regime we need to fundamentally change, or it is a reasonable regime with which we can deal. Presidential speeches and State Department documents clearly indicate it is a dangerous regime yet, there is a permanent Washington establishment desire to avoid conflict and confrontation by ``doing a deal.'' In the 1930s, that model was called appeasement, not realism, and it led to a disaster. We need a Churchill not a Chamberlain policy for the Middle East. (10) Does the commission believe we are more clever than our enemies? The al-Assad family has run Syria since 1971. Hafiz Assad arranged for his son Bashar to succeed him. This family and its Alawite supporters represent a small minority of the Syrian people, but they maintain a relentlessly tough internal dictatorship which keeps power in their hands. In some ways, there are parallels between Bashar Assad and Kim Jong Il-- they both maintain family dictatorships with the support of a key system of internal controls. After 35 years of defying the United States, there is no reason to believe our diplomats are more clever than their ruthlessly survivor- oriented systems. Negotiating with them is an invitation to be taken to the cleaners and to extend the power and prestige and influence of our mortal enemies in the region. Recent talk of reaching out to Syria has been met by the assassination of a Lebanese minister and the intensifying of the Hezbollah blackmail tactics in Lebanon. Weakness from America leads to greater aggression from our enemies. The Baker-Hamilton commission should focus on how to contain or defeat Syria not on how to rely on them for help. (11) Does the commission recognize the importance of working with the Democratic majorities on a strategy for victory? The Democratic victory in the 2006 election should not be used as an excuse to do the wrong thing. The Democrats are now confronting the responsibility and burden of power. Given the right information about Iran, Syria, and Iraq there is every reason to believe a bipartisan majority can be formed in both the House and Senate for a rational strategy for victory. Opposition to continuing the failed second campaign should not be translated into opposition to an American victory. The Bush administration should reach out to moderate Democrats and forge a bipartisan agenda for victory and by March 2007 pass a bipartisan resolution for victory in Iraq and for stopping Iranian efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will then set the basis for appropriations to continue the effort. The passage of a solid bipartisan bill in March would send a signal to the world that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of defeating terrorism and defending America. That will dramatically lower the morale and confidence of our enemies. These 11 steps would be a powerful basis on which to move forward in Iraq and in the world. What's more, they reflect the spirit of General Washington when he chose ``victory or death'' as the motto of the campaign which led to the founding of America despite overwhelming odds.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the sponsor of this measure and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we are blessed by great staff who give tirelessly. But I would suggest this is not a debate about whether or not we should have an appropriate severance plan for employees who lose their jobs because one party or the other loses the majority. It is not that debate at all. Indeed, we will be back here on the 4th of January and we can deal with the issue of an appropriate severance package at that time in a thoughtful way in the sunlight of day when the American public can watch what is going on, when it is not, as the gentlewoman who spoke just before me stated, near 11, approaching midnight, on the last day. I would say that indeed, it is inexcusable for us to have brought this package to the floor at this late moment. We have been here all this week. We came in on Tuesday; we could have proposed this idea then. I only learned of this notion literally less than an hour ago. And as I got on the elevator to come to the floor to vote on the measure we voted on just 30 minutes ago, I chatted with several people on the elevator, not a one of them was aware this was up for debate or consideration. I think it is very, very important to understand that we have an obligation to be stewards of the public's money. It was noted earlier in the debate that this parallels the Senate plan; but I would suggest that the Senate plan was not adopted in the middle of night on the last day of the session without notice to the public and without hearings. The Senate plan, as the other side and as the sponsor of this measure have pointed out, the Senate plan has been in place for months. By all means, we should carefully consider an appropriate severance plan for our employees. But we ought not to do it in the middle of the night. As the gentleman has pointed out, there is a fundamental unfairness in this proposal which I would suggest would not be there if we had debated this in the daylight with hearings as we should. That is that this severance package is reserved to leadership staff and committee staff. They are the best paid staff. Unfortunately, Americans across the country don't know this, but those of us who work here do, leadership staff and committee staff, those are the best, most sought- after jobs on the Hill. They are the best paid jobs on the Hill, and we are going to give them severance pay but not severance pay to the individual employees who work in a Member's office? It is fundamentally unfair and indefensible.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering S. 418, the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act. At a time when so many of our brave men and women are deployed across the world defending our freedom, this bill is a small step to ensure that our military personnel to not fall victim to deceptive financial practices at home. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill includes provisions that reach beyond just our military personnel to protect all investors. I would like to thank the Chairmen of the Financial Services and Banking Committees for including language from H.R. 1077, the Realtime Investor Protection Act, which I authored and which passed as a stand alone bill last year. This language will require the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) to make its database of complaints against brokers publicly available on a secure Internet site. This is extraordinarily simple and extraordinarily efficient. The result will be more informed investors with greater trust in the markets. Although the NASD already maintains this database, BrokerCheck, the organization is prohibited from making it available online. The current system requires potential investors to submit a request for broker/ dealer information via telephone or e-mail The investor must then wait for a response. In today's high tech world, this procedure is outdated and highly inefficient. BrokerCheck is an invaluable tool for investors, through which they can learn about the professional background, business practices, and conduct of NSD-registered firms and brokers, free of charge. Specifically, an investor can discover: Whether or not their broker has a criminal record; whether or not they have been subject to a regulatory action by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC); and, whether or not they had customer complaints filed against them. This bill will bring investor protection up to speed with investing technologies. Interestingly, of the 4.4 million requests NASD received through BrokerCheck for information in 2004, 99 percent were through the Internet e-mail request system, only 1 percent were by telephone. Clearly, investors prefer using the Internet to request information. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill to protect military personnel, and the public at large, by prohibiting abusive practices and encouraging investor education.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I compliment him for his hard work in this effort at earmark reform, and I also compliment the leaders of this House. Mr. Speaker, just a year ago, I think no one would have believed that we would have been standing here now on the verge of adopting very far- reaching earmark reform. I compliment everybody engaged in this debate, from my Democrat colleagues to my Republican colleagues, all of the people involved, including the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who has engaged in this vigorously. This is a milestone. This is a step forward for the American people. This is a day in which we are saying the American people get to know how their money is spent. Importantly, when we passed similar language several months ago, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee said it is wrong to single out a single committee. This should apply to all committees, and he was right then, and he is right now. It is important, indeed, I would argue it is vital that the American people be able to know how every dollar they send us in taxes gets spent, and this legislation will allow that to happen. It says that every earmark and every Member who requested an earmark must be openly acknowledged in the legislation itself. By shedding the light of day on the earmarks that move through this Congress, we are being open and straightforward. Those who have what they consider to be a good earmark for the country can come to this floor and defend it and explain it, and the American people can examine it. I believe this is a tremendous step forward. I want to caution people listening to the debate. What you will hear in the debate here today is that this bill isn't right, because it is not perfect. It doesn't go far enough. The definitions aren't quite precise. We just heard the minority say it is not a good bill because there has been an explosion in earmarks. So, somehow, since there has been an explosion in earmarks, we should not do anything. That is outrageous. No bill that I have voted on in my career in this Congress has been perfect. No bill has had every definition exactly right. This is a tremendous step forward. This is a vote for sunshine. This is a vote for openness in our government, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I compliment our leadership and the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4893, the Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act. The bill before us improves upon the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) by restricting the interstate expansion of Indian gambling and including states and local communities in the application review process at the Department of Interior. I intend to vote in favor of this bill as it does improve upon the existing law, however I believe IGRA is deeply flawed and in need of more far-reaching reforms in the future. Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 in reaction to an ongoing expansion of casino-style gambling on reservations. Following the Supreme Court's Cabazon ruling that states did not have the authority to regulate tribal casinos, Congress elected to establish a framework for Indian gambling in an effort to control its growth. Despite IGRA's passage, or some would say because of it, annual Indian gambling revenues exploded from $100 million in 1988 to over $23 billion in 2005 alone. Today, there are over 410 tribal gaming operations in 32 states. IGRA requires states to negotiate compacts with tribes wishing to establish casinos. If a state refuses to negotiate, the tribe can sue or the Secretary of Interior can unilaterally grant a casino license to the tribe. In other words, tribes are free to operate casinos in states or communities that do not desire such enterprises. H.R. 4893 attempts to address this problem by requiring tribes applying for a casino license to enter into a memorandum of understanding with local communities regarding shared infrastructure needs, such as roads or utilities, and by requiring the concurrence of a state's governor. However, these provisions only apply on a prospective basis, exempting 23 pending casino applications from the additional requirements. I believe the bill should have applied to these applications as well. Furthermore, the underlying IGRA requirement on states to negotiate compacts or else have a compact dictated by federal officials raises serious constitutional and federalism concerns as a possible violation of the 10th Amendment. I strongly support the RIGHT Act's ban on so-called ``reservation shopping,'' preventing a tribe that already has land in trust from acquiring non-contiguous lands for gaming purposes. I also applaud the bill's ban on out-of-state off-reservation casinos. Mr. Speaker, the RIGHT Act is a good bill. While I would like to have seen a stronger bill that undertook more basic reforms of IGRA, the RIGHT Act does take several steps forward by involving local communities and states and installing limits on the expansion of tribal gaming off-reservation and across state lines. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and continue to work toward further reform in the future.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2730) to establish a grant program to fund eligible joint ventures between United States and Israeli businesses and academic persons, to establish the International Energy Advisory Board, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. It is a constructive suggestion. And I am sorry to say that at least at one point in this debate it was proven that any issue, sadly, any issue that is brought to this floor can be made partisan. It seems to me that the famous quote by Roosevelt applies here, and that is that it is always easy to point out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. It is always possible to come in and say, well, this isn't good enough. You should have done this. You should have done that. But, as that quote suggests, the credit belongs not to the critic but to the man who is in the arena struggling and trying to do the right thing. In this case, Mr. Speaker, that is my colleague, Mr. Conaway of Texas. Now, some people say facetiously, oh, this is energy week for the Republicans; and they criticize that we haven't done enough. I would note that some of those people oppose drilling in ANWR where we might find additional resource. They oppose even rational proposals to do offshore drilling. They oppose rational proposals called for by the industry to incentivize additional refineries. Indeed, I worked very hard to increase hydroelectric energy; and the same people who are today here criticizing this bill opposed the construction of additional hydroelectric production facilities. Indeed, they say we should tear down existing dams that produce hydroelectric energy. One of the speakers on this bill said, well, this really is unnecessary. Indeed, it is a waste of time. Because in point of fact there is already an Energy Department Web site which tells consumers this information. Well, unfortunately, that misapprehends what this bill does. This bill doesn't just create a Web site. This bill calls for a cooperative effort to advertise to American consumers what they can do. Perhaps the gentleman who made that argument knows that every single person residing in his congressional district understands already that using their cruise control on the highway can help maintain a constant speed and save gas. Perhaps the gentleman understands, or in his congressional district every single consumer understands, that aggressive driving can reduce mileage by 33 percent. Presumably, in that particular Member's district, every single member observes the speed limit and understands that for each five miles per hour over the 60 miles an hour that you drive, you are increasing the cost of gasoline by 21 cents a gallon. Perhaps, indeed, I assume, every single consumer in that congressional district understands that a single 100 pounds of extra weight in your vehicle can cost you an additional 2 percent each year. Perhaps in that congressional district every consumer understands that fixing a car that is not timed properly can save you 4 percent of the gasoline you need to consume. Indeed, fixing a serious maintenance problem can save you 40 percent. And perhaps every consumer in that congressional district understands that if you keep your tires properly inflated you will save 3.3 percent. But I would suggest that not all Americans do understand those things. I would suggest that this is good legislation. I would suggest that it is indeed the right thing to do, to help educate consumers; and I am, quite frankly, stunned that an opponent would come to the floor and say we do not need to educate America's consumers on the cost of excessive consumption of gasoline. This is good legislation. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) for his effort. I appreciate the support of some of my colleagues on the other side, and I urge that all of the Members pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the author of this legislation.