[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15340-15348]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
   MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON S. 2062, NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING 
     ASSISTANCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Roskam moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the House amendment to the bill S. 2062 be instructed to 
     include in the conference agreement the provision in section 
     202(2)(A) of the Senate bill providing that development and 
     rehabilitation of utilities and utility services shall be 
     eligible affordable housing activities under the Indian 
     Housing Block Grant Program.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Roskam) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) 
will be recognized for 30 minutes each.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of full disclosure, my side 
of the aisle is looking at every conceivable opportunity under the 
House rules and in any reasonable parlance of conversation to talk 
about energy.
  So when we're beginning this conversation today, follow me along, 
because we're going to start about Native American housing, but 
eventually, the conversation is going to turn to energy. And why is 
that?
  It's true, Mr. Speaker, because that's what the entire country is 
talking about, and that's what the entire country, I would submit, 
wants the House to focus its, no pun intended, energy on. So follow me, 
if you will.
  When the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 
Act of 1996 was passed, it reorganized housing assistance for Native 
Americans by eliminating several disparate Federal assistance programs 
and replacing them with the Indian Housing Block Grant program.
  In the underlying statute, section 202 specifies eligible affordable 
housing activities for the block grant program, with the goal of 
developing, operating, maintaining, or supporting affordable housing or 
homeownership.
  Further, section 202(2)(A) of S. 2062 amends current law and expands 
the eligible affordable housing activities under the statute. The 
language of the aforementioned bill would give tribes more flexibility 
under the Act by allowing a recipient to utilize funds not only for the 
acquisition and new construction of affordable housing, but it would 
also allow tribes to utilize block grant funds for the development and 
rehabilitation of utilities and necessary infrastructure to achieve 
greater energy efficiency.
  Native Americans in this country are facing serious housing problems. 
Last Congress, the Financial Services Committee held several hearings 
to investigate the housing situation in Indian lands, which are the 
result of widespread poverty, high unemployment, homelessness, and a 
lack of affordable housing on Native American lands. In addition to 
reorganizing the program, the statute sought to provide Native 
Americans the right to self-determination and self-governance by 
allowing tribes to have greater freedom over their tribal housing. 
Reauthorization is an important step in addressing many of these 
issues.
  Like every American today, Mr. Speaker, Native Americans are 
struggling with the high cost of energy. Whether on tribal lands or in 
suburban America, families are grappling with the escalating cost of 
energy in today's economy and the effect it has on maintaining housing 
affordability. Rising energy costs associated with renting or owning a 
home and the transportation cost of traveling back and forth from home 
to work are having a devastating impact on everyone's budget, including 
families in Indian country.
  So the conversation then surrounds itself around greater flexibility 
and enhancing, literally, the opportunity for Native Americans to 
pursue energy solutions, particularly as it relates to utilities. And 
why is this important?
  This is important, Mr. Speaker, because we need to take a holistic 
approach. We need to pursue every conceivable, reasonable energy 
alternative, Mr. Speaker. We've got to make sure that we don't leave 
any solutions on the table and we pursue everything.
  So, for example, yesterday we had a hearing in the Financial Services 
Committee where the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke, 
came in and commented on a wide range of elements of the economy. But 
what was particularly interesting, I found, among other things, was the 
assertion that he made when he said this: that if we increase 
production of oil by 1 percent, he anticipates a 10 percent drop in 
price. Let me say that again. I'm going to say that two more times, 
it's so unbelievable. A 1 percent increase in production, according to 
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who we defer on many things in our 
economy, he said would create a 10 percent decrease in price. A 1 
percent increase in production would create a 10 percent decrease in 
price.
  That is a staggering assertion from the person that both sides of the 
aisle give a great deal of deference to, both sides of the aisle listen 
to and consult with and are very interested in his comments. And he 
says, again, a 1 percent increase in production creates a 10 percent 
decrease in price.
  So how does the motion to instruct weave into this? The motion to 
instruct is part of a broader conversation on energy, and I think what 
my side of the aisle is trying to assert in this and in other bills 
obviously that have come before the floor in the past several days, Mr. 
Speaker, is that when it comes to energy and when it comes to 
solutions, we need a holistic approach, and not to allow ourselves to 
be hidebound by an orthodoxy that has developed among some elements 
that are driving the other side of the aisle, to say, well, we're not 
going to pursue those things, those are not on the table, we're not 
going to pursue enhanced production, we're not going to pursue clean 
coal technologies, we're not going to pursue some of these other 
technologies that are so dynamic and are so vibrant.
  So I have done my best, Mr. Speaker, to weave the energy debate into 
this motion to instruct.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first, let me say that I 
think this is a very reasonable motion to instruct, and I urge all 
Members to vote for it.
  I do want to take a moment, since we are talking about the Native 
American housing benefit, to explain to people what the major issue is. 
It's not the subject of a matter of discussion. It wasn't that 
controversial in our committee, and it has to do with the action of the 
Cherokee Tribe.
  The Cherokee Tribe was one of several tribes that owned slaves in the 
19th century and fought on the side of the South in the Civil War. When 
the Civil War was concluded, treaties were signed, not just with the 
Confederacy. There was a treaty. Treaties were signed with these Indian 
tribes that were independent in which they agreed to incorporate into 
the tribe from that day forward the former slaves, known as the 
Freedmen, and their descendants.

[[Page 15341]]

  To my great disappointment, the Cherokee Tribe has decided that they 
don't want to continue that arrangement. I think it is a violation of 
their tribal obligations, their treaty obligations. The Bureau of 
Indian Affairs agreed. They're a fairly small number of people. The 
question is not what blood people have but this treaty obligation that 
the Cherokees undertook.
  Our committee voted to exclude the Cherokees from the housing benefit 
as long as they are out of compliance here. Now, it's interesting, some 
defenders of the Cherokees have said, well, let's let it go to the 
courts. But I've read the Cherokee's brief on this subject. It's been 
in a court case, and they say to the court, stay out of this, it's up 
to Congress. Well, I agree with the brief, and that's an important part 
of this bill. And that's one reason why we have asked for the 
appointment of conferees, and the conferees are people who strongly 
believe it's a fairly small number of people to talk about, that the 
Cherokee Tribe should not be allowed to expel them.
  Now, as to the energy piece, we very much agree with this. I think 
it's probably the case that we have more to learn from the Native 
Americans about energy use and conservation than they from us, and it 
is, therefore, entirely appropriate that we say that the funding that 
is available be available for them to use in this way. As I said, I 
don't think this is a group that we have to force this on, but I think 
it's a useful one.
  Indeed, it's a principle that we think very important, and in fact, 
later this month, the Committee on Financial Services will be voting on 
a bill. The gentleman from Colorado is the prime author. The gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) has worked with the gentleman, Mr. 
Perlmutter, on it, and we very much agree with this principle, and 
indeed, we want to incorporate it in Federal housing policy in general.
  Essentially our view is that where the Federal Government is funding 
housing in a fairly direct way, then we ought to require energy 
efficiency, and where the Federal Government is not funding it but 
helping enable it, we ought to encourage it. Of course, as we know, if 
you do energy efficiency into the building of the housing, you may have 
an increase in immediate cost and a long-term saving, not just in 
energy efficiency but in funding.
  So I'm going to be yielding time to the gentleman from Colorado 
because we agree that this is a very useful, broad principle, and we 
agree with the approach of the gentleman from Illinois which is, since 
this instruction itself isn't controversial, we'll all use it to talk 
about other things that we want to talk about. That's perfectly 
reasonable. We have nothing else to do this morning.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the chairman's encouragement on this motion and the 
clarity with which he spoke and articulated the need for it, and I 
think I want to follow up on a couple of the things that he 
highlighted, and I think they're important, and I think they're a first 
step.
  But I would encourage all Members to take that first step and not 
stop walking, and I think the first step that the chairman talked 
about--and he mentioned the gentleman from Colorado and his efforts as 
it relates to energy efficiency and creating incentives, Mr. Speaker, 
in the Federal housing market, a tremendous goal, no question about it, 
pursuing efficiency, pursuing conservation efforts.
  This whole energy debate that we're having, it seems to me, is a time 
at which there should be a sense of unanimity within our country about 
moving forward. We should be now a Congress that is listening to the 
overwhelming majority of Americans that are just hamstrung by the high 
price of energy. It's having a disproportionate impact on the poor, who 
are very concerned about it. It's having a disproportionate impact, 
creating a disadvantage for American businesses as they're struggling 
to compete overseas.
  This should be the one issue that is able to transcend sort of 
regionalism. It should transcend other past alliances, frankly, because 
the crisis is so great.
  In past national crises, what happens is that legislative bodies tend 
to get over themselves, and rather than looking inwardly, they look 
outside of the walls of the legislative body and say we've got a 
responsibility here; 435 people, we can do this, we can move forward.
  Part of what the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about is part of 
that equation, that is, conservation, that is, energy efficiencies. But 
that's not enough.
  Part of what the gentleman from Colorado mentioned a couple of 
minutes ago in renewables in his 1-minute speech is part of the 
equation, too, but you know what, that's not enough.

                              {time}  1045

  If we choose to go to the Financial Services Committee hearing and we 
choose selectively to listen to what the Chairman of the Fed says, then 
I think we're deluding ourselves and we're not serving the public well. 
What we've got to do is listen to when the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve comments about energy production and the de minimis amount of 
production that has to be created and its impact on price. It was a 
staggering, staggering figure; 1 percent in increased production yields 
a 10 percent decrease in price. That is a bargain any day of the week. 
And the idea that this Congress, that somehow 435 people can't come 
together and come up with a plan to increase oil production by 1 
percent, that's just ridiculous that we can't meet that challenge. One 
percent increase in production, a 10 percent decrease in price.
  And so what you're seeing manifested here today, I think, is part of 
the conversation that this side of the aisle wants to have--wants to 
have on almost every conceivable bill--because what we're hearing back 
in our districts is I think what everybody's hearing back in their 
districts, and that is, the crushing weight of energy.
  When there is that much pressure, we've got to make sure that we are 
not the generation of a Congress that simply chooses to kick the can 
down the lane. As Americans, we have a history of doing this, don't we, 
Mr. Speaker? We have a history. When we got the wake-up call in the 
mid-1970s that our energy policy at that point was dysfunctional and we 
had a real vulnerability as it relates to manipulations by actors 
overseas who have a low view of us and want to put foreign policy 
pressure on us--that is, the OPEC oil embargo--rather than dealing with 
that, what did we do as a country in the mid-seventies? We kicked the 
can down the lane. Prices sort of receded a little bit, the lines for 
gasoline went away and shortened, and rather than dealing with it, we 
kicked the can down the lane. So here we are, decades later, not only 
in the same place, but, in fact, at a more vulnerable place.
  And so I sense that the country is hungry, Mr. Speaker, for this 
Congress to act, for this Congress to come together and say, you know 
what? There is not one side of the aisle that's got all the answers on 
this. You've got to completely move the ball. And I know it was sort of 
a foolish throw-away line that was quoted in the press by a Democrat 
staffer a couple weeks ago, but when he said the strategy is drive 
small cars and wait for the wind, I hope that that is not speaking for 
the majority.
  And I hope that the majority is willing to say, you know what? When 
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve comes in and makes an assertion of 
the relationship between production and price, we need to listen to 
that. We need to pivot off of the past orthodoxy that has said we're 
not going to allow new production, we're simply going to close our ears 
and not allow the conversation to shift to new production.
  There are some that say we're not going to drill our way out of this. 
Well, that's a thought. But certainly, responsible exploration has to 
be a part of this equation, Mr. Speaker, it has to be a part of this 
equation.
  Some of our colleagues, as the gentleman from Colorado mentioned a 
couple minutes ago, they're going to go

[[Page 15342]]

to Colorado and look at essentially the next generation of technology 
that is clearly part of this. But they're also going to go up to ANWR 
and begin to really see what that's all about. Had we not been in the 
situation where the ANWR bill was vetoed in the mid-nineties, it would 
be, by conservative estimates, now pumping and producing at least a 
million barrels a day. Can you imagine what that does to the price 
equation?
  Ultimately, what our job is, as Members of Congress, if we are united 
in our desire to get off of foreign oil, then what we've got to do is 
come up with 9 million barrels a day, or the equivalent, in terms of 
energy, or savings and conservation, efficiency and so forth. Nine 
million barrels a day. We can do this. We can absolutely do this. Far 
greater challenges have been laid out that our country has looked in 
the eye and has risen to, as the United States of America, and taken on 
that challenge.
  I think that we cannot let this Congress adjourn, we can't go home 
for the August recess until we wholeheartedly take this challenge on. 
And if it means discharge petitions, if it means all kinds of 
procedural things to continue to drive the debate, I think we really 
have no other choice.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, preliminarily I would say 
that not only do I agree with the gentleman that we should not rule out 
any new production, I know of no Member of the House who takes that 
position. And even later today we will be dealing with legislation that 
the Committee on Resources brings forward that tries to increase and 
encourage production.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a member of the committee and a leader 
in the committee on matters of energy, be allowed to control the 
remainder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Well, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Illinois, who has 
assisted me on what we call the Green Energy Act in the Financial 
Services Committee. And that really is an act--which we will hear in 
that committee in a week or 10 days--designed to improve energy 
efficiency and renewable energy in various housing across the United 
States. Because he recognizes, as do I, as do millions and millions of 
Americans, that if we save a Btu, if we save a gallon of gas, it's 
earned; a gallon of gas saved is a gallon of gas earned, a Btu saved is 
a Btu earned. We can do much better, Mr. Speaker, than we've been doing 
when it comes to energy efficiency and adding renewable energy sources. 
And that's what the Green Energy Act is all about. And it applies to 
Native American housing, as does the motion to instruct, so that all 
Federal housing that's underwritten, supported by the Federal 
Government will be improved to energy efficient standards.
  That's what we need to be doing, looking at efficiency, looking at 
renewable energy types of approaches. Because as the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve said yesterday to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Baca) when he asked the question, well, what do we need to do to 
improve our energy situation? The Chairman of the Federal Reserve said 
we have to be more efficient in the way we use our energy and we have 
to start with renewable energy sources.
  But I agree with my friend from Illinois, it's a comprehensive 
approach. We need to have drilling in the 68 million acres that 
currently is under lease by the oil companies and is not being used. 
And we have the bill that comes up this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, called 
the DRILL Act, ``Drill Responsibly In Leased Lands,'' that will go 
forward this afternoon so that oil companies take advantage of all the 
acreage that they have. Sixty-eight million acres is the size of New 
England plus, I think, New Jersey added on. It's a huge piece of 
property both on land and in the Outer Continental Shelf. That land and 
that water is already available for drilling.
  So part of it is drilling, in terms of what we have right now. And I 
would encourage all my friends on the Republican side of the aisle to 
support the DRILL Act this afternoon because what we want to make sure 
is that oil companies don't just hold the property, but they use it. So 
they use it or they lose the lease; and we get it on to somebody else 
who's willing to proceed with drilling. Because we know we need to have 
oil--that's really a transitional fuel for the next 10 years--but we 
need to then move to energy efficiency and renewable energy sources so 
we're not addicted to one commodity.
  This country has to have other ways to power itself. And as the 
gentleman from Illinois remarked, tomorrow some of my friends from the 
Republican side of the aisle are going to discover Golden, Colorado. 
It's the finest place on this planet. That's my home, that's my 
neighborhood. And I would recommend that everybody come visit Golden, 
Colorado, but the reason they're coming is to visit the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is the finest laboratory for 
alternative energy and sustainable development in energy efficiency in 
the world. And at that laboratory we are working on those next 
generation of energy and fuels and the way to power this Nation in 
solar, in wind, in biofuels, in hydrogen, in geothermal, and all sorts 
of other things. And I congratulate my friends for coming over to visit 
the National Renewable Energy Lab, which they really have never 
supported much until now.
  But I do see some unanimity coming among both sides of the aisle and 
a consensus coming among all of us that we have to really work on all 
phases of an energy plan, whether it's drilling, renewable energy, or 
energy efficiency.
  Now, I've sort of boiled it down to three things, and I call it the 
three P's: Produce what we've got. We haven't talked about this second 
part, which is punish the people who are hoarding and gouging and 
speculating. And the third P is promoting energy efficiency and 
alternative energy. We can do that. And this country will be better off 
because it will be good for national security, it will be good for the 
climate, and it will be good for jobs. Thousands and thousands and 
thousands of ``green energy'' jobs will be available through promoting 
renewable energy and energy efficiency.
  One of the things that my friend from Illinois just talked about, 
which is drilling in ANWR, which is a reserve, a refuge, that's 10 
years off. And the greatest projections are that that's 3 months' worth 
of United States supply of oil. So we're going to wait 10 years to 
drill for 3 months' worth of supply.
  Now, one of my friends who I just saw on the floor, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), calculated that an average American family 
will spend $57,000 on fuel costs before the Republican plan to drill in 
ANWR would ever take effect. We've got to be working on other things 
before that. And the first one is to drill on the 68 million acres that 
are under lease and ready to go today. The second is to punish the 
people who continue to drive up the futures prices if, in fact, there 
is speculating or gouging going on. And the third is to promote 
alternative energy and energy efficiency.
  But I support the bill that will come up before the House this 
morning, as does my friend from Illinois, and I would urge an ``aye'' 
vote.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time 
remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 17 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the motion to instruct conferees on S. 
2062.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?

[[Page 15343]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In response to the gentleman from Colorado, a slight word of caution. 
I think it was maybe an overstatement to say that the National 
Renewable Energy Lab didn't enjoy any support from this side of the 
aisle until now. I find that difficult to believe. I don't have any 
roll calls in my presence, but my hunch is that a program that big and 
that expansive didn't just get that way because of support from one 
side of the aisle.
  But be that as it may, I think there is an opportunity here, because 
the opportunity is a recognition of all Members of Congress that we are 
at a pivotal point as it relates to energy policy. And the pivotal 
point is one that should bring us together.
  Regardless of what one's motivation is, there is a desire to have a 
long-term energy solution. And part of that has to be an increase in 
our supply, Mr. Speaker; part of it has to be an increase in 
renewables. It has to be pushing new technologies, as the gentleman 
from Colorado talked about, conservation and efficiency measures.
  There is a whole host of bills that, unfortunately, the Speaker is 
not allowing to come to the floor. For the life of me I don't 
understand it when, at the beginning of her assuming the office of 
Speaker, she talked about really having a desire for a bipartisan 
solution to most problems. She was going to change the tone. 
Unfortunately, we just haven't seen that.
  Let me go through a couple of these bills that are literally pending 
that are bottled up in committee that the majority party, and its 
leadership, I sense--and I don't want to speak for the rank-and-file, 
but I do know several rank-and-file members of the majority that are 
terribly frustrated right now and have a desire to have some bills 
voted on that are sensible and that the overwhelming majority of the 
American public says would be a good idea.

                              {time}  1100

  For example, H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007. Here 
is what it does. It reduces the price of gasoline by opening new oil 
refineries. That's something we haven't talked about this afternoon or 
this morning. We've not had a new oil refinery put in place in the 
United States in 30 years. Investing in clean energy sources such as 
wind, nuclear and captured carbon dioxide and making available more 
homegrown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the 
Arctic Energy Slope and America's deep-sea energy reserves, that's one 
bill.
  Why isn't that bill on the floor in an open rule with amendments and 
with the ability to have a conversation about it? Well, unfortunately, 
the New York Times today gives us part of the answer, and the answer is 
not really a pretty one.
  According to today's New York Times, in a report, it says: ``Ms. 
Pelosi, who is now House Speaker, can prevent a vote on expanded 
drilling from reaching the floor.'' Further quoting: ``She and Senator 
Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, appear intent on holding the 
line against calls to approve drilling in areas now off limits.'' Then 
further--and this is actually, I think, the darkest part of this 
report--``In a private meeting last week, according to some in 
attendance, Ms. Pelosi told members of her leadership team that a 
decision to relent on the drilling ban would amount to capitulation to 
Republicans in the White House and that she was having none of it.''
  Is that what this has come down to? Is that what this has come down 
to? Depending on how you're calculating, 70-plus percent of the 
American public says, ``Give us more energy. Please, put these tools on 
the table.'' Then we have a meeting that this is about ``capitulation'' 
and not wanting to give someone a political advantage. Is that what 
this has come down to?
  I can't even tell you, Mr. Speaker, how incredibly disappointing that 
is to me that someone would say that it is a matter of political pride 
that's going to keep an idea off the table. Why can't we have the bill 
on the floor that I just mentioned?
  How about this, H.R. 2279, to Expand American Refining Capacity on 
Closed Military Installations. That is nothing but a good idea. We've 
got distressed military installations. They're not well utilized. Let's 
use them. It reduces the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery 
application process and by requiring the President to open at least 
three closed military installations for the purpose of siting new and 
reliable American refineries. We have not had a new refinery for 30 
years in this country, and this is our opportunity to change that 
dynamic.
  There is H.R. 5656, to Repeal the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels. 
It reduces the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to 
procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources such as 
oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid technology.
  In my State and in your State, Mr. Speaker, in southern Illinois, 
there are more British Thermal Units of energy in the coalfields of 
southern Illinois, in those gigantic fields, than in the entire Saudi 
oil fields. Imagine that. There are more BTUs of energy, more energy in 
southern Illinois, than in all of the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. Yet 
it is largely untapped.
  Why is it untapped? Well, it's untapped, in part, because it's high 
sulfur coal, and it's pretty nasty stuff to burn and to have emitted.
  I have referred to this word ``orthodoxy.'' There has developed this 
thinking that has become so hidebound that, regardless of the facts 
that are around, it eventually says we don't even want to have a 
conversation about coal. We don't even want to contemplate coal because 
certain interest groups have told us that all coal is always bad all 
the time. Well, maybe not so.
  Maybe this Congress should be part of the solution. This Congress 
could be part of the conversation that says no, no, no, that we're not 
going to listen to the bumper stickers. We're going to be policymakers, 
and we're going to unleash the potential to begin to transform a 
region.
  Mr. Speaker, you and I represent Illinois. You know southern 
Illinois, and you know how challenged that area is. Can you imagine if 
in this country we began to unleash resources and, with that, the type 
of dynamic social and economic change that could come about in an 
incredibly challenged rural area? It begins to transform everything. As 
a State legislature, we struggled constantly with diverting State money 
to those areas, to diverting Medicaid money to those areas. Why? 
Because they were devastated from an economic point of view.
  What do we have here? What is the opportunity here? The opportunity 
here is not only to create more energy but ultimately to transform 
regions to make them prosperous and to make them environmentally 
sensitive. Absolutely. It is to get them to the point where they're 
producing and where they're on their own two feet. We ought not to 
squander that opportunity.
  There is H.R. 2208, the Coal Liquid Fuel Act, which reduces the price 
of gasoline by encouraging the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology, 
authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with 
coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation fuels.
  These are all bills where there are discharged motions either pending 
or coming. A ``discharge motion'' is where 218 of us come together, 
where 218 of us come together and say: You know what? We're not going 
to be limited. We're not going to be limited to secret meetings where 
this is about capitulation and political agendas. We're not going to be 
limited to that. We're going to break free of that. Two hundred 
eighteen of us are all it takes for us to sign those discharge 
petitions. Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, it doesn't 
matter. All that has to happen is that 218 Members go down to the well 
and sign their names. Then you know what? The bills are on the floor. 
Then we can talk about them, and we don't have to whisper about them in 
the corridors. We don't have to be held hostage to secret meetings 
where agendas are about--and this is the characterization--
capitulation. I mean I can't

[[Page 15344]]

even begin to tell you how disappointing that is.
  There is H.R. 2493, the Fuel Mandate Reduction Act of 2007. It 
reduces the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend requirements and 
onerous government mandates if they contribute to unaffordable gas 
prices.
  Mr. Speaker, our constituents are in crisis. They are crying out to 
us. They want us to lead. They want us to get over past grievances. 
They are tired of this place. Haven't we all seen the polls? Haven't we 
all seen the low view that they have of the United States Congress? 
Why? Because of meetings like this that characterize solutions as 
capitulations. We can do much better than that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might 
consume for a couple of comments.
  I want to respond to my friend from Illinois concerning the support 
of the National Renewable Energy Lab. We'll start with that one.
  I would concur that there certainly has been some support, but the 
two things I would point out to my friend are one, last in 2007 was the 
first time, really, the budget had been increased to the National 
Renewable Energy Lab in years and years and years under a Democratic 
majority. My friends who are going to go visit the National Renewable 
Energy Lab all voted against that, number one.
  Number two, in the prior Republican Congress, there were cuts to the 
National Renewable Energy Lab where, in fact, scientists and engineers 
were going to be laid off. They were, in fact, laid off until the 
President went out to visit the National Renewable Energy Lab, and the 
department scrambled and reinstated those engineers and scientists who 
were going to be laid off in the face of the need for coming up with 
other ways to power this Nation. So I know that my friend from Illinois 
and I are in agreement that we need to change the way we power this 
Nation, and there is a transition to get there.
  Then we need to be efficient in the way we use our energy, and we 
need to come up with other ways so we're not beholden to just one 
commodity. When we're beholden to one commodity, oil, we're beholden to 
eight oil countries, many of which don't like the United States, and to 
five oil companies. We have to change that picture or we're always 
going to face this problem. It's time for us to learn from our past.
  The other thing I'd like to say in response to my friend from 
Illinois is that he talked about secret meetings. Well, the secret 
meeting that we really need to be talking about is the secret meeting 
held by Vice President Dick Cheney to create the energy policy that now 
has resulted in $4-a-gallon gasoline.
  When the Bush administration took office, the price of oil per barrel 
was less than $30. Today, it's $150 or thereabouts. Maybe it has come 
down a little bit in the last few days, but is it any wonder that that 
happened with two oilmen running the White House? I don't think so.
  With that, I'll yield 5 minutes, or such time as my friend may 
consume, to Congressman Yarmuth from Kentucky.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I appreciate 
his excellent work on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the one thing that's encouraging about this debate is 
that we all agree in this Chamber that we need to do something about 
high gas prices. We need to do something to reduce our dependence on 
oil. We need to do something pretty quickly because the American people 
are hurting. The economy is feeling the impact of these prices, and 
immediate action is required.
  Now, let's consider the two options that we have before us. We have 
the option that has been put forward by our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, which basically is to open up new areas of potential 
oil reserves for drilling, which everyone agrees is a solution that 
will not manifest itself until years down the road. The Bush Energy 
Department, itself, says no appreciable reduction in gas prices will 
occur from drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf or in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge until 2030.
  As attested by my colleague from Colorado, the average American 
family will spend $57,000 on gasoline before the Republican plan saves 
them a penny. That is hardly the kind of relief that the American 
people are looking for.
  There was a very wise man once who said the significant problems we 
face today will never be solved by the same level of thinking that got 
us into those problems. That was Albert Einstein, a pretty smart guy, 
and that's what the Republican plan is. It's to do more of the same to 
solve the problems that we're now in. I think the American people are 
much smarter than to fall for that type of proposition.
  On the other hand, the Democratic majority has a plan that can reduce 
oil prices virtually immediately. We call it Free America's Oil because 
we do have plenty of oil at our disposal to use to bring down prices 
immediately. That is only half the problem, though, because, as my 
colleague from Colorado mentioned, we've got a long-range proposition 
to deal with. We don't want to find ourselves year after year after 
year in the same dilemma in which we find ourselves now. We've got to 
look in a different direction. I'll return to that in a second, but 
let's talk about the immediate action we can take.
  We have 700 million barrels of oil right now that the United States 
owns that are sitting in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 700 million 
barrels. When we invaded Iraq, we took that down to 600 million. When 
we had the Katrina disaster, we went to about 600 million barrels. We 
have far more oil in the Reserve than we will ever need for any 
eventuality. If we were to release just 10 percent of the oil in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 70 million barrels, into the market over 
the next few months, history has shown us that we can immediately 
impact the price of oil.
  There are three times in the last 17 years that we've done it. The 
first was in 1991. The most recent was in 2005. Each time we did it, 
the price of oil dropped, in 2005 by 10 percent, in 1991 by a third. 
Wouldn't it be great to have oil down under $100 a barrel. Again, it 
seems hard to imagine that we're actually thinking that would be a 
desirable goal, but at $140, it would be very desirable.

                              {time}  1115

  We can do that if the President just uses his authority to release 
that oil. We own it. It's ours. We have paid for it. We can use it to 
benefit the American people and get action now.
  Two other things we're proposing can bring relief in the relatively 
short term. First, we have 68 million acres onshore and offshore 
already under lease to oil companies. They can drill virtually 
immediately. They don't need to do exploration. They don't need to 
clear environmental hurdles as they would in these other areas they 
want to drill. They can drill tomorrow. We have a proposal. We call it 
``use it or lose it.'' It's part of our ``free America's oil'' proposal 
that if we pressure the oil companies by threatening to take those 
leases away if they don't make a good-faith effort to produce on them, 
we can encourage them, again, to use the resources we already have to 
get oil onto the market, increase the supply and bring the price down.
  Finally, we have in Alaska, west of the area that they want us to 
drill in, the wildlife refuge, 23 million acres that are already 
available for drilling. It's called, ironically enough, the National 
Petroleum Reserve area because there is petroleum there, estimates up 
to 10.6 billion barrels of oil, more than would ever be in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. We want them to drill there, not in a 
pristine area where we don't know how much oil exists. So again, we 
have options. We have oil on American soil. We have oil we own that we 
can use to bring prices down in the very short term. And we ought to be 
embracing that policy.
  One other mention about the long-term effects. President Bush said 
the other day that the reason we need to open up all these other oil 
areas, potential oil areas, is because of the psychological effect, 
because if the oil speculators know that down the road there is this 
massive supply coming on, the price will drop. If that is what we are

[[Page 15345]]

relying on, I say we have a much better chance to affect the psychology 
of the market if we change our emphasis from oil to alternative and 
renewable fuels, alternative sources of power. We know the technology 
is there. We just have to invest in it, develop it and refine it. But 
that is the kind of psychological effect, the knowledge among 
speculators not just that there will be more oil on the market 20 years 
from now, but we won't need any oil 20 years from now because we're 
going to go in another direction. The psychological effect of that will 
be compelling and will be devastating to oil prices.
  So I say we have a plan both for short-term and long-term energy 
policy that does make sense, that is not the same old rhetoric and that 
is not the same level of thinking, as Einstein said, that we had that 
got us into this problem. And I think the American people know that 
this is the direction we need to go on. And I think that by responding 
today, by passing the DRILL Act, that we can take the first step 
towards energy independence and toward helping the American consumer 
deal with these incredibly high prices.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 11 minutes. 
The gentleman from Illinois has 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard about this rise in oil 
prices that is related to this meeting. And I would like to yield to 
the gentleman from Colorado to tell us about this meeting that took 
place and why he can make the accusation that George Bush and Dick 
Cheney as a result of this private meeting have raised oil prices. That 
meeting took place years ago. I would like to hear about this.
  I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I appreciate my friend from Texas yielding to me. If 
people knew what happened in this secret meeting, we might know today 
why oil is at $4.35 a gallon, why it has gone from under $30 a barrel 
to almost $150 a barrel. But the Vice President has refused to provide 
any information to the public or to the Congress about that meeting.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, it is obvious that the gentleman 
made a statement saying gas prices have risen because of this private 
meeting. And now the gentleman has not only no clue what took place in 
the meeting, as I don't either, but now makes the leap of assumption 
that 8 years later that gasoline is going to rise in price.
  The facts of the case are this. The facts of the case are that this 
Congress refuses to provide the energy companies, the oil companies, 
with what they need where they say the oil exists. And this Democrat 
Congress is refusing to help consumers. And since this Democrat 
Congress, this new Democratic Congress has taken over, prices have 
risen dramatically.
  There is not some plan that exists. There is no secret plan. There is 
no plan because the plan that is happening is what the Democrat plan 
is. It's working exactly as the Democratic Party wanted. Prices are 
rising significantly. And that is their plan. What I think would be 
disingenuous is to say, oh, my gosh, we wish prices would go down. That 
is just disingenuous if you don't back it up with facts of the case of 
how that could be done.
  To go to the emergency petroleum reserves would be a disaster. And it 
would be a disaster because that is there in an extreme national 
emergency. We've heard this morning, we can think of no reason why that 
would not be used. Well, there are people who can think of reasons. And 
it's called if a group of terrorists wiped out every tanker that was 
coming to the United States and our military did not have any energy or 
oil. That could be a good reason not to go to the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, is the new Democrat majority 
does not intend to do anything to help the American consumer to get 
more oil supplies and thus reduce the price of gasoline.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas has 
expired.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The fact of the matter is that this entire body, on 
virtually every single piece of legislation, sees where the energy and 
oil issue comes up because the Republican Party is trying to get the 
new Democrat majority to change the rules that are hamstringing 
consumers all across this country.
  And what we're trying to say, whether it be an appropriations bill up 
in Rules Committee or here today, is that the American consumers, the 
American people deserve and want this Congress to act. And all we hear 
are excuses. We hear about all this land that is available out there. 
There sure is. Oil companies don't want to drill dry holes. They want 
to drill where the oil is. And we are coming here to the floor, 
virtually every piece of legislation, every single committee in this 
House of Representatives is asking for the opportunity to be for the 
American consumer as opposed to some special interest group.
  And what we're told is that we need to change the way we do business 
and we need to be more like Europe. Well, being more like Europe is not 
an answer for America. We're not just a country. We're the greatest 
nation on the face of this world. And we need the ability--and the 
American people are asking all over this country for the new Democrat 
majority to quit what they're doing and allow our free enterprise 
system and the oil companies to bring to bear those oil resources that 
we have. And arguing all day every day that they have all that land is 
not the right answer.
  What is the right answer is we need to go offshore. And we need to be 
able to go to ANWR. The amount of the acreage is 19 million acres in 
ANWR. But all they need is 2,000 acres. They don't need the other 18\1/
2\ million. They need that 2,000. It is one-ninth the size of DFW 
Airport, my airport that I land at every week. That is all we need. We 
will not rest our case.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  First, I would just like to say to my friend from Texas that with two 
of them in the White House and both Houses of the Congress in 
Republican hands up until 2006 when we started changing the direction 
of this nation, we saw that oil price going up and up and up and up. 
And it didn't change under them. If we always continue to drill and 
don't look at that as a transitional fuel and move to alternative 
energies, we're going to be in trouble. And we're going to have to 
learn this lesson over and over and over again.
  With that, I will yield 4 minutes to my friend from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, today's impossible prices for oil have 
finally forced America to ask the essential question: ``Where's the 
plan?'' We're in a situation where every business, every homeowner, 
every retiree, every local and State government and every United States 
citizen is being forced to live under crisis management which is a 
recipe for failure.
  To become an energy-independent nation, the first step we must take 
together is to develop a plan, but not behind closed doors, but to do 
it right here in the open. So let's stop pointing fingers and start 
holding hands. Let's join hands. Let's begin to think together because 
we're really all in this together.
  And let's agree. Let's begin by agreeing that a successful energy 
plan must begin to include three essential elements. First, drill for 
new oil right here in America with any such oil obtained from within 
our territorial waters or national boundaries being sold to American 
citizens first. And the Oil for America Act will do just that. 
Secondly, we must invest in every form of renewable energy available 
and provide the tax incentives for wind, for solar, geothermal, 
biomass, cellulosic and every form of clean, home-grown energy. We have 
to provide those incentives so private industry will take charge and 
take the lead. And third, we

[[Page 15346]]

must act to prevent any price manipulation anywhere in the world in our 
oil marketplace.
  Now we have already passed legislation. We passed H.R. 6377. This was 
to direct the CFTC to do immediate oversight to prevent manipulation. 
We passed a farm bill that moves us towards energy independence, 
towards home-grown ethanol and energy. But we can't grow our way out of 
this problem. We also closed the Enron loophole, guaranteeing that the 
marketplace will work more effectively.
  Drill for new oil in America, invest in renewable forms of energy and 
prevent energy price manipulation. But our economy is still dependent 
on fossil fuels today and foreign sources of energy, unfortunately. But 
oil is still one of our most precious assets. So let's make certain 
that the more than 140 billion barrels of oil that are underneath 
America go to Americans first.
  Now you have a choice here. We have to work together. Under your 
approach, we will have a solution 10 years from now. Under our 
approach, we will have a solution in 10 days, because the SPR, 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, was opened up several times in the past. 
In 1991 there was a 33 percent decline in the price of oil almost 
immediately. In 2000, it went down nearly 19 percent. The oil price 
went down 9 percent in 2005. We can bring about rapid short-term relief 
even as we plan for the future. But we cannot solve this problem by 
drilling alone. We cannot solve it by growing corn alone. We have to 
work together. We have to drill for new oil, invest in renewable 
sources of energy and prevent any marketplace speculation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I have no other speaker seeking recognition. I will 
reserve the balance of my time and have the right to close.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I had to come to the floor when I heard the gentleman from Texas and 
he talked about the Democrats' plan is working. No, actually, we're 
living under the Republican energy plan. Remember that in 2001 Dick 
Cheney had secret meetings with all the executives in the oil industry 
and other energy producers. And in 2005--the gentleman has a short 
memory--the Republicans, after 4 years, passed an all-Republican energy 
policy written by Dick Cheney, passed by the Republican House and the 
Republican Senate and signed by George Bush.
  And it is working exactly as some of us predicted. We said it would 
make us more dependent on Saudi oil. It did. Fifty-two percent imports 
when George Bush took office, 58 percent of our oil is imported today. 
We said it would raise the price. It did. When George Bush took office, 
gas was a $1.47 a gallon. Today it is $4.39 a gallon in my district.
  But it raised one other thing that is vitally important to the 
Republican Party. Their friends in the oil industry have made a pile of 
money since George Bush took office. Five hundred eleven billion with a 
``B'' dollars profit for the oil industry since George Bush took 
office. So, yes, this is intentional. And yes, it was designed, signed, 
sealed and delivered by the Republican Party when they controlled all 
of Washington, D.C. We are living under their energy policy.
  We are trying to set a new, sustainable energy future for this 
country. And in the interim, yes, we want to develop domestic resources 
with the DRILL Act to help us with that transition. But we want to 
break the dependence. You don't. You made it worse.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I would like to refer people to the photograph that was just on 
display when the gentleman from Oregon was speaking. It showed the 
President of the United States hand in hand with King Abdullah as they 
were about to go into a meeting to discuss oil. And the President of 
the United States had a mission, and it was to ask the leader of 
another country, not particularly a friendly country to us, to solve 
our problem by increasing production of oil in Saudi Arabia in order to 
get us out of the jamb we are in here in America.
  The question that we face in this country is whether or not we are 
going to address in the manner of a confident country, of an ingenious 
country, of a country willing to take on its own problems, the 
challenge of changing our energy future.
  The President's approach, as was described by Mr. DeFazio from 
Oregon, is to drill yesterday, to drill today, to drill tomorrow, and 
to drill forever. And the news is in. Oil is not in infinite supply. 
And if we need any better authority about the limitations of oil, think 
about Mr. T. Boone Pickens who made a very successful career as a Texas 
oilman, and he points out the obvious: if you have 87 million barrels 
of oil consumed today, you have production at 86 million, the proven 
reserves are limited, the capacity to actually get more out of the 
ground is somewhat limited, it can be expanded but not at infinite 
levels, it is time to begin yesterday to plan an alternative energy 
strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, a self-confident country does not put its head in the 
sand and ignore the problems that it faces; it challenges them. It 
accepts the burden of responsibility. It has the confidence that we 
have the people, the talent, and the political will to make that 
transition to an alternative energy economy.
  The American people have that figured out. They know if we are going 
to create jobs and strengthen our economy, we have to know that green 
jobs are good jobs and that taking on the challenge of filling up the 
gas tank in a way that uses alternative energy and creates jobs is the 
pathway to the future.
  So this debate is really a fork in the road. It is between two very 
clear choices. The oilmen in the White House, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, 
believe that the fuel of the future is oil. They think that we can 
drill our way out of the situation we are in. Americans, I believe, 
have come to the conclusion that is wrong and will fail and that the 
pathway to the future is alternative energy.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to return the Chamber to 
what this bill is, which is Native American housing and the motion to 
instruct conferees, which we are all in agreement upon, and I would 
urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion to instruct.
  We have gotten into a great debate over energy. And as I said 
earlier, the gentleman from Illinois and I and a number of people that 
sit on the Committee on Financial Services have worked on a bill which 
we call the GREEN Act. It is Green Renewable Energy Efficiency 
Neighborhoods. The purpose of that bill, similar to the motion to 
instruct with respect to Native American housing, is to provide energy 
efficiency incentives and renewable energy incentives with respect to 
housing across America. It creates a green mortgage market so there is 
a market to buy mortgages of homes that are energy efficient or have 
renewable energy features. It also helps to upgrade 50,000 of the 3 
million units that the Housing and Urban Development either own or 
underwrite so that people in low to moderate-income housing have 
energy-efficient homes and lower utility rates.
  One of the things that we and the gentleman from Illinois were 
talking about at the outset of this bill, was about trying to reduce 
utility costs in Native American housing, and that goes across the 
board for all low to moderate-income homeowners.
  It has a number of other things involving residential energy 
development grants, as well as utilizing the services of the banks in 
particular areas, low-income housing areas to add energy efficient and 
renewable energy features to homes in various areas in cities and towns 
across the country.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion to instruct. I look forward to 
this bill going forward, and I look forward to

[[Page 15347]]

having this conversation on the GREEN Act with my friend from Illinois 
in a couple of weeks when that bill comes for markup.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to join everybody that has joined in this debate today. It has 
been robust and transparent. But I think there have been some false 
choices placed out here, and I want to clear that up.
  I think I am speaking for a majority on this side of the aisle that 
says, Let's do it all. Let's have an all-of-the-above approach.
  Our side has not come to the conclusion that simply enhanced 
production is going to get out us of this because it is not going to. 
But enhanced production has got to be part of the solution. So you 
would find a great deal of support, Mr. Speaker, for conservation 
efforts on this side of the aisle, at least from this Member, for 
increased efficiency efforts, and for renewable efforts. But all of 
those things by themselves don't do American consumers any good really 
in the short run.
  Even the call by the Speaker of the House to release part of the 
strategic oil reserves, that only amounts to, one suggestion is selling 
75 million barrels out of the strategic oil reserve, about 10 percent 
of the reserve, so about a 3-day supply of oil. That doesn't do much 
for anybody. So let's not fall into that trap; although it is an 
admonition on the Speaker's part, ironically, that supply does affect 
price.
  But here is the real point. The other side of the aisle has 
controlled 30 minutes this morning, and did you notice something? Did 
you notice that there was no answer to what the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve said yesterday? The Chairman of the Federal Reserve--and this 
is now the fourth or fifth time that I have put this out on the House 
floor today--said simply by increasing production by 1 percent, Mr. 
Speaker, that has an impact of dropping the price by 10 percent.
  We have heard some of the best and the brightest, absolutely the A 
team, some of the folks who came through in the 2006 election, we have 
heard from the best and the brightest, and yet no answer. They didn't 
even pick it up. This is not some fact that I trotted out 2 minutes 
ago, this is a fact that I put out two or three or four times, and yet 
the silence on the other side of the aisle has been absolutely 
deafening. Why, because it doesn't fit into the orthodoxy that has 
absolutely bound this leadership and has taken this debate from what 
should be a national security debate, what should be a transition time 
in our public life, what should bring us all together, Mr. Speaker, and 
has devolved into simple pettiness and capitulation. We can do better. 
We know what we need to do.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to statements made 
referencing the Cherokee Nation and the Freedmen citizenship issue in 
discussions on the NAHASDA bill. The Cherokee Nation is the second-
largest Indian nation within U.S. borders with 280,000 citizens. I 
represent the largest number of Cherokees in any Congressional 
District--more than 95,000--and I am proud to serve as their 
Congressman.
  I believe that, regardless of what one thinks about the merits, this 
is an issue for the courts, and Congress should stay out of the 
litigation. A current federal court case in Washington, D.C. involving 
these issues was filed five years ago. Last year, more than 300 people 
filed suit over these same issues in Cherokee Nation tribal courts. We 
in Congress need to let the courts do their work without interfering. 
The Bureau of Indian Affairs similarly has said it will take no action 
until the courts decide. I cannot help but note the irony that we in 
Congress or any legislative body generally do all we can to avoid 
getting involved with litigation until it is finally resolved. This 
issue should be treated no differently.
  That is why I have worked with Chairman Frank and others to craft 
compromise language that would allow the Cherokee Nation to continue 
receiving federal funds until the courts decide. It is not a perfect 
solution, as I would prefer this Congress avoid establishing the 
precedent that it is permissible to punish a single tribe for an 
internal decision. That is a dangerous slippery slope that will 
ultimately undermine the very meaning of sovereignty when it comes to 
all Indian tribes.
  There is another sad irony here; if the Cherokee Nation were to lose 
these funds, thousands of my constituents would be hurt, including the 
Freedmen descendants who have been recently reinstated in the tribe and 
who are also my constituents. I appreciate the fact that efforts have 
been aimed at helping them, but the reality of the legislation falls 
short of that goal if funding were ever to be cut.
  The consequences of losing this federal housing funding would be 
real, damaging and lasting. In 2008 alone, this would mean more than 
$30 million. Without it, more than 7,000 low-income Cherokee families 
would lose their federal housing assistance. Many would lose their 
homes, precipitating a housing crisis in eastern Oklahoma. The State, 
which is already stretched, would be forced to pick up the slack. How 
tragic it would be if the U.S. Congress were once again responsible for 
removing Native Americans from their homes. Truly, the most responsible 
and prudent thing we can do is wait for the tribal and federal courts 
to decide these issues first.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the remarks of 
my colleague from Massachusetts, as the only Native American currently 
serving in this Congress, I would like to clarify a few of his 
assertions.
  As you know, the Federal Government's relationship with Indian tribes 
over the first couple hundred years of our history was tragic. 
Continually, it was the policy of the Federal Government to not only 
exclude Indians from American society through broken treaties, but also 
to completely eradicate their culture. It would be nothing short of a 
tragedy for this Congress to carry on that policy.
  During the early 19th century, the Cherokee did hold slaves, like 
thousands of other individuals throughout America at the time. Of 
course, there is no justification for such a barbaric practice. When 
the U.S. Government forced the tribe to relocate on the Trail of Tears, 
to Oklahoma in the 1830s, many slaves accompanied the Cherokees on this 
journey. After the Civil War, though the Government did not sign any 
official treaties with the Confederacy, the Federal Government did sign 
a Treaty with the Cherokee Nation. The Treaty of 1866 states that all 
the Freedmen and their descendants should retain the rights of Native 
Cherokees. At no point did this treaty use ``citizenship'' as the 
fulfillment of that provision. However, the important point is that the 
Cherokees honored this treaty and even exceeded the terms by amending 
their Constitution of 1866 to grant Freedmen, members of other tribes 
and inter-married whites tribal citizenship. The Cherokee have not 
failed to keep their part of the bargain.
  Even so, Mr. Speaker, this 1866 treaty, which my colleague from 
Massachusetts insists the Cherokee have broken, was actually broken by 
the United States several times. For example, the Curtis Act of 1898, 
The Five Tribes Act, The Dawes Act, and the Enabling Act of the State 
of Oklahoma all violated the Federal Government's side of the Treaty of 
1866. More significantly, however, this Treaty was once again rendered 
moot, in 1902 when Congress passed a law that fully changed the nature 
of tribal citizenship in its entirety and eliminated tribal citizenship 
across the board. Furthermore, the Dawes Commission, which was assigned 
to change tribal land into Indian allotment land removed the Freedmen 
from the Cherokee, but still gave them separate allotment land.
  When the Cherokee Nation decided to reconstitute itself in 1975, it 
did so with a new Constitution and a new vision to return to its 
roots--a family of descendants of Indians. The Cherokee could make this 
decision because they were unconstrained by the Article IX obligation 
of the past. It was now up to the Cherokees to begin an era of Federal 
policy that promoted self-determination under the leadership of 
President Richard Nixon.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the courts have continually recognized that 
one of an Indian tribe's most basic powers is the authority to 
determine its own citizenship, for they are independent political 
authorities. That being said, the Cherokee have one of the smallest 
blood quantum requirements in Indian Country. To be a citizen of the 
Cherokee Nation, an individual has to simply prove that they have only 
one Indian ancestor on the Dawes Rolls of 1906. To that end, the 
Cherokees are one of the most racially diverse tribes in the Nation, 
with thousands of African-American members. Because of the pending 
court litigation, the Cherokee have allowed the Freedmen to retain the 
benefits of tribal membership and have even hired genealogists to 
assist this group in finding an ancestor on the Dawes Rolls.
  Mr. Speaker, it disturbs me that some in this Congress would accuse 
this tribe of breaking a treaty that was made long before the Federal 
Government eliminated the Cherokees as a tribe altogether. Their story, 
like most tribes

[[Page 15348]]

throughout the Nation, is one of astonishing perseverance and 
determination. To limit Federal funding on the grounds that the 
Cherokees have supposedly broken a treaty that was in fact abrogated by 
official Government policy is absolute ridiculous. Congress should 
allow this issue to be settled in tribal and Federal court. It should 
not impose opinions on the Cherokee Nation. To do so violates tribal 
sovereignty, ignores history, and misuses and abuses legislative 
authority. The Cherokees have not broken their treaties with the United 
States. It is the United States that has consistently violated its 
treaties with the Cherokee Nation.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                        Appointment of Conferees

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Ms. Waters, Messrs. 
Watt, Al Green of Texas, Cleaver, Bachus, Mrs. Capito, and Mr. Pearce.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________