[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18201-18205]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           DANIEL WEBSTER CONGRESSIONAL CLERKSHIP ACT OF 2008

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 6475) to establish the Daniel Webster 
Congressional Clerkship Program.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6475

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Daniel Webster Congressional 
     Clerkship Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Each year, many of the most talented law school 
     graduates in the country begin their legal careers as 
     judicial law clerks.
       (2) The judicial clerkship program has given the judiciary 
     access to a pool of exceptional young lawyers at a relatively 
     low cost.
       (3) These same lawyers then go on to become leaders of 
     their profession, where they serve a critical role in helping 
     to educate the public about the judiciary and the judicial 
     process.
       (4) The White House, the administrative agencies of the 
     Executive Branch, the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts, the Federal Judicial Center, and the United 
     States Sentencing Commission, all operate analogous programs 
     for talented young professionals at the outset of their 
     careers.
       (5) The Congress is without a similar program.
       (6) At a time when our Nation faces considerable 
     challenges, the Congress and the public would benefit 
     immeasurably from a program, modeled after the judicial 
     clerkship program, that engages the brightest young lawyers 
     in the Nation in the legislative process.
       (7) Accordingly, the Congress herein creates the Daniel 
     Webster Congressional Clerkship Program, named after one of 
     the most admired and distinguished lawyer-legislators ever to 
     serve in the Congress, to improve the business of the 
     Congress and increase the understanding of its work by the 
     public.

     SEC. 3. DANIEL WEBSTER CONGRESSIONAL CLERKSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Selection Committees.--As used in this Act, the term 
     ``Selection Committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
     Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on House Administration of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--There is hereby established 
     the Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Program for the 
     appointment of individuals who are graduates of accredited 
     law schools to serve as Congressional Clerks in the Senate or 
     House of Representatives.
       (c) Selection of Clerks.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Selection Committees shall select 
     Congressional Clerks in the following manner:
       (1) The Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate 
     shall select not less than 6 Congressional Clerks each year 
     to serve as employees of the Senate for a 1-year period.
       (2) The Committee on House Administration of the House of 
     Representatives shall select not less than 6 Congressional 
     Clerks each year to serve as employees of the House of 
     Representatives for a 1-year period.
       (d) Selection Criteria.--In carrying out subsection (c), 
     the Selection Committees shall select Congressional Clerks 
     consistent with the following criteria:
       (1) Each Congressional Clerk selected shall be a graduate 
     of an accredited law school as of the starting date of his or 
     her clerkship.
       (2) Each Congressional Clerk selected shall possess--
       (A) an excellent academic record;
       (B) a strong record of achievement in extracurricular 
     activities;
       (C) a demonstrated commitment to public service; and
       (D) outstanding analytic, writing, and oral communication 
     skills.
       (e) Process.--After a Congressional Clerk is selected under 
     this section, such Congressional Clerk shall then interview 
     for a position in an office as follows:
       (1) For a Congressional Clerk selected under subsection 
     (c)(1), the Congressional Clerk shall interview for a 
     position with any office of any Committee of the Senate, 
     including any Joint Committee or Select and Special 
     Committee, or any office of any individual Member of the 
     Senate.
       (2) For a Congressional Clerk selected under subsection 
     (c)(2), the Congressional Clerk shall interview for a 
     position with any office of any Committee of the House of 
     Representatives, including any Joint Committee or Select and 
     Special Committee, or any office of any individual Member of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (f) Placement Requirements.--The Selection Committees shall 
     ensure that Congressional Clerks selected under this section 
     are apportioned equally between majority party and minority 
     party offices.
       (g) Compensation of Congressional Clerks.--Each 
     Congressional Clerk selected under this section shall receive 
     the same compensation as would, and comparable benefits to, 
     an individual who holds the position of a judicial clerkship 
     for the United States District Court for the District of 
     Columbia within 3 months of graduating from law school.
       (h) Required Adherence to Rules.--Each Congressional Clerk 
     selected under this section shall be subject to all laws, 
     regulations, and rules in the same manner and to the same 
     extent as any other employee of the Senate or House of 
     Representatives.
       (i) Exclusion From Limit on Number of Positions.--A 
     Congressional Clerk shall be excluded in determining the 
     number of employees of the office that employs the Clerk for 
     purposes of--
       (1) in the case of the office of a Member of the House of 
     Representatives, section 104 of the House of Representatives 
     Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act (2 U.S.C. 
     92); or
       (2) in the case of any other office, any applicable 
     provision of law or any rule or regulation which imposes a 
     limit on the number of employees of the office.
       (j) Rules.--The Selection Committees shall develop and 
     promulgate rules regarding the administration of the 
     Congressional Clerkship program established under this 
     section.
       (k) Member Defined.--In this section, the term ``Member of 
     the House of Representatives'' includes a Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to the Congress.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     2009 and each succeeding fiscal year from the applicable 
     accounts of the House of Representatives and the contingent 
     fund of the Senate such sums as necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks in the 
Record on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6475, which would 
establish the Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Program. This 
program would bring the most talented law school graduates from across 
the country to Washington, D.C., and offer them the opportunity to be 
employed as congressional clerks in the House of Representatives or the 
Senate.
  This program is modeled after the judicial clerkships offered in the 
Federal courts. H.R. 6475 would offer no fewer than six 1-year 
clerkships in each Chamber. The clerks would be apportioned equally 
between majority and minority offices within each Chamber. H.R. 6475 
would give recent law grads invaluable insight into the functions and 
operations of the Federal legislature, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this program.
  I would also like to thank Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Lungren for 
introducing the bill in the 109th Congress,

[[Page 18202]]

and Ms. Lofgren for bringing it up and Mr. Lungren for being a prime 
cosponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6475, which would 
establish the Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Program within the 
House of Representatives.
  Instituting this program will create a talented pool of young 
attorneys within the House at a fraction of the cost of obtaining 
similar talent through the hiring process. Many of these exceptional 
individuals will become leaders of their chosen profession. By offering 
them a judicial clerkship, we may even inspire some to embark upon a 
congressional career in lieu of life in a law firm or corporation.
  For these young men and women, the ability to obtain a judicial 
clerkship in the very body where laws are created will be an invaluable 
experience. For the House, it will be a chance to tap into the best and 
brightest legal minds just as they begin their careers.
  While we cannot offer the same compensation package that many top law 
firms offer, we can offer an opportunity to experience the legislative 
process in a way that is only possible within the Halls of Congress. 
Whether they continue their careers in the private or public sector, a 
greater knowledge and appreciation of the legislative process would be 
enormously useful to the participants in this program as they become 
part of the fabric of our Nation's judicial system.
  I thank my colleagues on the House Administration Committee, and 
especially thank Congressman Lungren and Congresswoman Lofgren for 
introducing this bill.
  At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 
Ms. Zoe Lofgren to control the remaining time on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I would like to thank not only Congressman Daniel E. Lungren for 
cosponsoring this bill with me, but also note the important support of 
Dean Larry Kramer, the dean of the Stanford Law School, whose original 
idea this was, and we two California Members took it up. I think that 
our country will be enriched by the enactment of this measure.
  It has been mentioned, and we all know, the top law graduates of the 
top law schools in the country are recruited to serve as clerks in the 
judicial branch, and as a consequence of that experience, those top 
legal minds then go on to fabulous careers, understanding the law from 
the point of view of the judiciary. Well, there's nothing wrong with 
that, but we also want to have top legal minds that relish and 
appreciate the law from the point of view of the legislative branch, 
and that is really the grit and the intent of this measure.
  As has been mentioned I'm sure, the program created by the bill will 
have clerks chosen from a pool of exceptional law school graduates who 
have demonstrated commitment to public service. No fewer than six 
clerks will be chosen for each Chamber. The clerks will be divided 
equally among the parties, and they will receive the same pay and 
equivalent benefits as first-year law clerks in the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Columbia.
  As the dean of Stanford Law School, Larry Kramer, said, ``This bill 
will serve an important role by educating young lawyers and future 
leaders of the profession about the legislative process. It will be 
enormously beneficial for both the profession and the public if some of 
the Nation's brightest young lawyers begin their careers in the 
legislature and so develop and can convey to the public an appreciation 
of Congress and the legislative process equal to that lawyers have 
shown for courts and the judicial process.''
  I would like to mention that we were not able to include the 
Congressional Research Service in the legislation at this time. 
However, if there is a bipartisan effort to achieve that in the future, 
I would welcome that collaboration and understand we may yet have the 
opportunity to do that.
  So in furtherance of this bill, I would hope that our colleagues 
would support it. I would again like to thank my colleague, the former 
Attorney General from California, Dan Lungren, for his cosponsorship.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Michigan, I want to thank our chairman of the committee, 
I want to thank Ms. Zoe Lofgren, who's Chair of one of the 
subcommittees I serve on in Judiciary, for all the effort that they've 
put into this. This is a good idea.
  Some people who likely will review our comments here would ask the 
question: Aren't there enough lawyers in Congress? Actually, there are 
less lawyers now than there were 10 or 20 years ago, but I think that 
is an interesting question.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I'd be happy to yield.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I would just note that there's always 
room for good lawyers, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I understand that as well, but 
some would wonder why we need the influence of more law graduates here, 
and that's misunderstanding what we're attempting to do here.
  Right now both the judicial and the executive branches have clerkship 
programs which are accessible to those who are graduates of our top law 
schools. This is particularly pronounced in the area of judicial 
clerkships. It is considered quite prestigious and an honor for someone 
to serve a judicial clerkship.
  As the gentlelady from California mentioned, it was the dean of the 
law school of Stanford University, Larry Kramer, who first raised this 
issue with me and with her. It was interesting to hear from the law 
school dean because his message was not what I expected, and he has 
been quoted here on the floor.
  Let me give you a more extended quote of what he said, which is: 
Clerking for a trial or appellate judge provides young lawyers with an 
invaluable insider's understanding of the judicial decision-making 
process. Not surprisingly, judicial clerkships leave young lawyers with 
a highly court-centered view of the law and the legal system, and 
precisely because these are the top law school graduates, former law 
clerks go on disproportionately to assume leadership positions in the 
bar and in the profession--and again quoting Dean Kramer--explaining in 
part why the legal profession in this country is heavily tilted toward 
the courts.
  Now, we can argue about whether they are tilted to the right or to 
the left or they're tilted properly, but the fact of the matter is it 
is a court-centered view of the law which I think interferes with the 
delicate balance established by our Founding Fathers in the 
Constitution, which saw there were worthy and valuable distinctions 
among the three branches of government.

                              {time}  1600

  And we can bemoan the fact that this is the case; we can talk about 
judges on the bench and we can talk about people not taking their 
constitutional obligations seriously when they take their oath of 
office; but if we really want to get down to it, it seems to me this is 
one of the undue influences that's out there. And so the idea was, as 
Dean Kramer said, that it would be enormously beneficial for both the 
profession and the public if some of these young lawyers began their 
careers in the legislature and, as he said, developed an equal sense of 
the national legislature. We're not saying that is to disregard or in 
any way scale down their appreciation for the judicial

[[Page 18203]]

branch, but rather to raise up their appreciation of the understanding 
of how this place works--and by this place, I mean the institution of 
the House of Representatives and the institution of the United States 
Senate. It would bring them an understanding of the workings of 
Congress that they would then bring to bear as they move on in their 
careers, both within the legislature and other branches. And I don't 
see how that would not be beneficial to this country, healthy for the 
body politic, and probably end up with better legislation overall.
  So I would hope that Members would understand what we're attempting 
to do here. We're attempting to establish, on an equal footing, a 
clerkship for top graduates of law schools around the country that they 
currently have an opportunity to participate in in the executive and 
the judicial branch. It would be beneficial to us, it seems to me, it 
would be beneficial to them, but more importantly, it would be 
beneficial to the public.
  And for those who are concerned that this might cut into their MRA, 
by the terms of the legislation, it would not in any way affect the 
collective or individual MRAs that Members receive at the present time. 
As was mentioned before, it would be done on a bipartisan basis so that 
we would all have the opportunity to benefit from this. And similarly, 
these clerks would have the opportunity to benefit from exposure to 
both sides of the aisle.
  So I would hope that we would get a unanimous vote in favor of this. 
This is something that I think will improve the quality of the 
discussion and the quality of the work that we do around here. But more 
importantly, I would hope that it would have a lasting impact on the 
understanding within the bar itself of the proper workings and 
functionings of the legislative branch, and in fact the quality of work 
that is provided in the legislative branches. And so I thank the 
gentleman from Michigan for the time.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments 
made by my colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren). And 
indeed, this is not a measure that does harm or damage to the judiciary 
or to the executive branch, but it really is to elevate article I. 
Sometimes we see our colleagues with little buttons that say ``article 
I'' on them, and we want to make sure that the important role of the 
legislative branch is understood by these top legal graduates who will 
go on to careers in the judiciary, in public service, in law schools 
and the like.
  I want to make clear not only that this has bipartisan support, but 
that it will be administered in a totally bipartisan way. The name, 
``The Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Program,'' really selects 
somebody who was an honored ancestor of the legislative process, not a 
contemporary, but someone we can look back on with esteem.
  The Clerks will be selected by a selection committee that will 
consist of the committee of Rules and Administration of the Senate, and 
the Committee on House Administration of the House. And as was 
mentioned by my colleague and myself, six clerks will be evenly divided 
between the two parties.
  Just by way of example, and without mentioning names, sometimes the 
courts do not necessarily understand how we do business here. And I'll 
give three examples recently mentioned to me by judicial officers.
  Colloquies on the floor of the House. We know when we stand up to do 
a colloquy it is to set something in the Record for a purpose. It is by 
agreement, but it has a meaning that is meant to stand as the 
legislation moves forward. Courts don't always understand the meaning 
of a colloquy. And I think if we had some of these excellent law 
students here who helped to write a colloquy and were on the floor as 
it was being delivered, they would understand and be able to impart to 
the judicial branch the importance of a colloquy.
  Example number two, committee reports. There are things that 
committees agree on completely but are not actually part of a bill. And 
they don't need to be part of a bill because they can be implied by the 
legislation. A committee report doesn't have the force of law, but it 
should be enormously persuasive to a court looking for the meaning of 
legislation if the parties--sometimes fractious parties--can agree to 
language in a committee report, that means something. And I think if we 
had some of these excellent law students here helping in the committee 
process to understand how that comes about and the import that it has, 
it will help them to tell a judge--or if they are a judge later--what 
that means and how to interpret the law.
  And legislative findings, the role of legislative findings; you know, 
obviously they're precursors to the language itself.
  These are just three small examples of how the Congress and its will 
is not always upheld by the courts, not through any chicanery, not 
through any deviousness, but just a lack of full appreciation for how 
the legislative process works.
  And so I think this bipartisan measure is a step forward in seeing 
that that trend in American law interpretation does change, both in the 
courts, and also in the teaching of law in the Nation's top law 
schools.
  So while this may seem not an earth-shattering measure in some ways, 
it will have import long after the Members here are retired and reading 
about the Congress in the paper. What we do here with this clerkship 
bill will improve the law in America. And therefore, I hope, as Mr. 
Lungren does, that we will have a unanimous vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the gentlewoman from 
California and the gentleman from California on this bill. I think it's 
an excellent idea. And I have good grounds for saying that because, as 
I mentioned earlier, I'm a scientist, and the scientific societies of 
America, for a number of years, have been supporting fellowship 
programs in which scientists will come and spend one year in the House 
of Representatives, and thereby learn something about how laws are 
made. And it has had a profound effect on the scientific community in 
this country and it has also had a profound effect on the Congress. 
Some of my best employees have come from that program. If they have 
worked in the Congress for a year, either in my office or another 
office, and I have an opening, they fit in beautifully because so many 
of the issues I deal with are scientific. So I'm sure this clerkship 
proposal will be an outstanding program.
  And I, frankly, think six clerkships is too little, especially for 
both Chambers. And I hope that some day we're talking in terms of 
perhaps 20 or 30 for the two Chambers together because I'm sure it is 
going to be successful.
  With that, I yield what time he may consume to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  And again, I appreciate the comments of the gentlelady from 
California. However, I would be remiss if I didn't respond a little bit 
to what she said about colloquies and committee reports.
  We at least ought to enter into the Record the Scalia view of things, 
which is, law is what is in the law, not what's in the committee report 
or the colloquy.
  One of the important things he tries to point out is that in some 
ways it would be unfair to members of the public to pass a law with 
intentional ambiguity that can only be interpreted by a committee 
report since the average citizen probably doesn't have access to that. 
And his commonsense notion is that Members should strive to make laws 
understandable by the language that they have in them. And it is often 
misunderstood as to his interpretive analysis of law and the 
Constitution when he talks about original understanding.
  What he is basically saying is that when you have a law or 
constitution that is presented to the people, they can only be held to 
the usual and customary understanding of the words as they are in the 
law, otherwise you basically are fooling the people.

[[Page 18204]]

  Now, if there is a necessary ambiguity, obviously a colloquy or a 
committee report aids in the interpretation of understanding what it 
was in terms of the meaning of the words at that time. But I understand 
the gentlelady may have a slightly different view of the Constitution 
than Justice Scalia, as some do, but I thought it important that we try 
and understand that we, as legislators, ought to strive to put the 
precise words we want into the law because too many times on this floor 
I've heard people say, don't quibble about those words, we'll let the 
courts decide what it is. And having been a trial lawyer--not 
necessarily a plaintiff's lawyer, although I have done that in my time 
as well--the difference between one word, two words, or three words, or 
a clause or a sentence in a statute can make all the difference in the 
world. And I would just hope that we would be attentive to our 
responsibilities and disciplined in our actions such that we try and 
choose the words precisely that carry the meaning that will give the 
average citizen an understanding of what we're doing here.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would be happy to yield to the 
gentlelady.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. As the gentleman knows, I have 
substantial disagreements with Justice Scalia and his interpretation of 
the Constitution.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Somehow I thought that might be 
the case.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. You thought that might be the case. 
But the point I was making on colloquies and committee reports is this: 
Justice Scalia says--and I think properly--that the role of the 
judiciary is to interpret the Constitution and the law, not to make it 
up themselves. And so to the extent that there is unintended ambiguity 
in a law that is written by the Congress where the committee report or 
colloquy can give the court some insight into what the intentions were 
on the part of the legislative body, then that is a helpful thing. And 
understanding how that develops would be enormously useful.
  There are times, as the gentleman knows, where ambiguity is the oil 
that makes the legislative process work. I remember Wilbur Mills 
suggesting there could not be an agreement on what Medicare would 
cover, that it would cover a ``spell or illness.'' And maybe that was 
necessary in 1965, but it was not the kind of ambiguity that could have 
been resolved through a colloquy.
  And I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Reclaiming my time, I would just 
say I remember an instance about 25 years ago on the floor here dealing 
with a matter, the Bankruptcy Act. And the late, great chairman of 
judiciary, Peter Rodino, got up and gave his interpretation of it which 
was contrary to the interpretation we had. So every time he would get 
up to give his colloquy I would get up to give ours to make sure that 
when the judges looked at it they would see there were two contrary 
positions so they could decide, as they should, under the words we 
actually used in the statute. And I thank the gentlelady.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I was expecting one 
person here to be a speaker, that person has not shown up. So maybe I 
will just make a few additional comments in the hopes that their 
elevator can get to the second floor. And that would be that, in 
addition to the Dean of the Stanford law school we were advised that 
the progress of this bill is being watched by law professors and deans 
throughout the United States who have really resolved that this is 
going to be a very positive thing for the development of American law.
  I would just note also, as Mr. Lungren has pointed out, we do these 
things sometimes very quickly. I think the addition of six top law 
students in each body--as the ranking member of the full committee has 
suggested, as time goes on maybe we will find that it works so well it 
should be expanded--I certainly do think, however, it is appropriate to 
start at this level, do an assessment. And I think our committee, the 
Administration Committee, will be in an ideal position to do an 
assessment.
  But no doubt, if we have some of the smartest young lawyers in the 
United States here in this institution, they will not only bring the 
knowledge of this institution out to the world after they become top 
lawyers, but they will also help us become even more excellent 
legislators. So I think that this is a benefit that really there is no 
down side to it. So it has really been a pleasure to work with the 
bipartisan cosponsors of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, let me say a few more words about energy, and perhaps 
your speaker will be here by that time.
  But I first want to say, I think your clerkship program is an 
excellent idea. And I think it would have been wonderful if your clerks 
could have heard this discussion that you just had with the gentleman 
from California.

                              {time}  1615

  It's just exactly the sort of experience that they should have, and 
it will certainly benefit them. But I have always been impressed with 
the court clerks that I have encountered over the years, some of whom 
are good friends of mine whose entire career changed and was shaped by 
their experience in clerking for someone, whether it was at the State 
court of appeals level or the Federal judgeship level. So this without 
a doubt is going to be a very important bill.
  I also would like to make a few concluding remarks about the energy 
issues, as I outlined a little while ago. This time I want to mention 
two sources that are wonderful energy resources, and that we should use 
more often and more wisely. They are energy resources, that have been 
in this Earth for many, many years, ever since its creation. First is 
nuclear; second is geothermal. Both are ample sources of energy if used 
properly. Both are essentially free in the sense you're not paying 
anyone for the energy; you're just paying for the equipment and process 
to extract the energy. And when nuclear energy fell on bad times in the 
United States almost 30 years ago and basically no one was going to 
build another reactor in the United States, I said this is going to 
last one generation because it's a decision based on emotion, not on 
reality or on the facts. And that's precisely what is happening now. 
After one generation, we are recognizing that we made a mistake at that 
point, whereas France has put 80 percent of their electrical power in 
the hands of the nuclear reactor business and India has done 90 
percent. They have been using nuclear power successfully at reasonable 
cost with no dangers, no accidents, and this indicates that we can do 
the same. I think that would be immensely useful.
  I am particularly perturbed with the current trend to use more and 
more natural gas to generate electricity. You can imagine what this is 
going to do to the price of energy for homeowners who heat their homes 
with natural gas, who are going to have to pay more as natural gas 
becomes in shorter supply because the power plants are using such 
copious amounts of it. In addition to that, I note that natural gas, 
frankly, is too valuable to burn. It's an invaluable feedstock for the 
petrochemical industry, and the more we use it for other purposes, the 
more we increase the price of natural gas for manufacturing purposes, 
we reach a point now where almost all the new fertilizer factories in 
the world are being built in other countries, not in America, because 
the price of natural gas here is getting so high that it's too 
expensive to make fertilizer out of natural gas in our Nation, so it is 
manufactured in other countries.
  We have made a number of mistakes in our energy policy. I would hope 
this Congress, before the end of this session, would resolve this, set 
us on a new track, so that we would once again return to an era of 
cheaper energy, and that our Nation may prosper and our people may be 
able to keep warm.

[[Page 18205]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have said really all I 
have to say on the Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Program of 
2008. As mentioned, this will be a tremendous improvement to the 
development of American law, and I have given the support that has been 
expressed for the measure here today on the floor. I am hopeful that we 
will have a unanimous vote for this important measure.
  I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Brady, for his tremendous 
support on this and in every way, as well as the ranking member, Mr. 
Lungren. And I don't know if Mr. Brady has anything further to add.
  If not, I would simply say please vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6475.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6475.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________