To amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I like a good demagoging just like anybody else, but this is not terribly relevant to everything we have said here to this bill or what has actually happened.

Mr. Miller a little while ago made an analogy to a loan that could be changed from time to time. The problem is if you have got a 4 percent rate for 10 years fixed and the bank comes along and says, it has been 5 years and I want to take that up to 8 percent, you are going to say forget you, I have got a contract that keeps me at 4 percent for 10 years, not 5. And then the courts are going to uphold what you are saying. Also if you say, well, I have got a way here where I can blackmail you and you will come across, the court is going to come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Now, we could do that that the gentleman suggests, but the problem is we are going to spend lots of money, the courts are going to uphold the law because the Constitution and the law are still in place in this country.

Now, a lot of people might not want it to be. I cannot remember and do not know why the Clinton-Gore administration overlooked this and did not put a rate after the rates rose a certain number and royalties were beginning to flow, but they did not. Now, that was caught and after that any drilling in that area is going to pay a royalty.

We have got a small period of time. We cannot do anything about it. If I sell my car for $200 and then later find out it is worth $600 and I have signed a contract, we have a law that says I have got to sell that car for $200. And if I try to get around that, I will pay twice because I will pay all my legal fees, I will pay any sort of penalties, any blackmail money, and I will still lose my car for $200.

So that is pretty much where we are now, and I would say we need to vote against this. We do not want to waste any more money from the mistake that was made in 1998 and 1999.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment requires Federal agencies to comply with the requirements of an Executive Order that deals with instituting energy efficiency improvements in Federal buildings and reporting on progress in that regard.

We have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we are talking about roads. The roads are used for many things, recreation, all those sorts of things. Over 90 percent of the Tongass is unroaded, won't be roaded and so forth.

It ought to be that forests in America, managed the best in the world, should be providing the resources for all over the world. For instance, if we don't have wood, we will have to rely on steel or plastic. Steel takes lots more energy, about eight times as much to make a steel 2 by 4 versus a wooden 2 by 4, and plastic, we know what that comes from.

Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

If the gentleman will yield.

The gentleman from New York is right, the National Park Service has notified the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee that due to its inability to complete an open bid before the expiration of the current extension in April 2007, the Park Service will have to temporarily

extend Circle Line's contract once again to prevent the disruption of service to Liberty Island.

I agree with the gentleman from New York that the Circle Line contract set to expire March 2007 should not be extended. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the authorizing committee and the ranking member of this subcommittee to ensure that the new contract is in place as soon as possible and those responsible for the current delay are held accountable.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we will accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand there is opposition being included in the Special Resource Study currently being conducted by the National Park Service.

Would the gentleman agree to work with the ranking member and myself to see if we can resolve that?

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of point of order and claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to oppose this amendment strongly. On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that there must be a significant and important connection between traditional navigable waterways and the wetlands or waters to be regulated by Federal agencies.

The EPA and the Corps of Engineers issued guidance to their field staff in 2003 clarifying that the Clean Water Act jurisdiction did not extend to isolated waters that are both intrastate and non-navigable. This guidance also clarifies that field staff should continue to assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands and their tributaries systems and adjacent wetlands. Field staff was directed to make jurisdictional and permitting decisions on a case-by- case basis.

The plain text of the Clean Water Act emphasizes that Congress constructed the statute in a manner that intended, as the Supreme Court has articulated, to ``recognize, preserve, and protect the States' primary authority and responsibility over local land and water resources.'' Misguided efforts to expand the geographical scope of the Clean Water Act will create and exacerbate local land and water resource decisions with burdensome and costly Federal controls.

I will give you an example. Right now the Clean Water Act is being used in farms, with livestock, cattle primarily, to try to clean the streams where cattle are grazing.

If we allow the situation we have here for navigable waters to be translated to ditches, small tributaries with an ounce of water, the soil conservation today, and we are providing grants for soil conservation to take those streams, provide drinking water for cattle, and then enable them to go back into a stream which is fenced off, if we rule according to what has been asked here, we will find that the soil conservation will be barred from doing any sort of work in cleaning water. We will actually get dirtier water. We could have up to six agencies get involved in trying to clean up water on a farm. Not only will the cost be prohibitive, but the bureaucracy, because many of those agencies do not agree in this thing.

Eliminating this guidance will create confusion and could lead to the classification of ditches, drains, curbs, roads, gutters and erosion features as ``navigable water of the United States.'' Clearly, this goes beyond common sense, but it won't be the first time that the Federal Government has tried to force something like this.

Such an expansive regulatory reach would have the Federal Government interfering and frustrating local decisions regarding construction, operation, maintenance, management, transportation, flood control, and agricultural production.

For instance, soil water conservation, which would be working with the farmer, has an elected delegation inside the county, as well as the State delegations elected, and they are trying to do the right thing, and we are spending Federal money to help it. This could be stopped by the Corps of Engineers simply for bureaucratic action.

Eliminating this guidance would require Federal oversight of ditches, storm drains and sewers. These are local structures that are constructed and managed and maintained at the local level. We don't want the Corps of Engineers and all the bureaucracy that would be entailed to get down to a small storm drain or a small ounce of water on a farm. The cost would be prohibitive, and it would go against what the Clean Water Act is trying to do, and that is clean water for a special agriculture problem.

One critical consideration is the Supreme Court is expected to rule in two new Clean Water Act cases prior to the expiration of the current term in June. The decisions in these cases will provide important clarification of the geographic scope of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction. We should not act at this time on issues that are being actively deliberated by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, we have one more.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman ought to go talk to his farmers more, because if this passes the farmer will soon find out, Mr. Chairman, that he no longer can drain even a few drops of water out of his ditch and try to collect it or put it in a way that he can responsibly manage his farm, even if that has been done for years and years.

The Soil and Water Conservation has tried working with the EPA in this Clean Water Act to put common sense into these measures, to try to see that reality happens, that you can farm in a responsible way. In fact, they are doing more to clean up the water, especially in farms, by putting in systems that are drained into a central watering spot that is covered by fabric and stone, and then the cow will not contaminate the water that goes in it, rather than going into the streams themselves.

Now, there is much government money going into this. But the Corps right now will stop that any time, any time that they get a chance. And I know that in my home. And that is why the Farm Bureau is against this group, the Home Builders, the American Forest and Paper, the National Association of Realtors, the National Rural Electric Cooperatives, and the Edison Electric Institute, the National Grange, the National Association of Counties, the National Cattlemen, and the National Corn Growers, because it goes beyond common sense.

We have been successful. I worked with the EPA, and we have tried to fund the EPA for clean water. But what we find often is if we have a rule, some people think that if we double or triple that rule it will be better. Actually, after you start and get a certain distance with that rule, it becomes corrupting in the sense that it disrupts the whole purpose of the original rule.

And that is what we are about to have here. The individuals landowners and the taxpayers certainly know what they can do inside small watershed areas. And the Soil and Water Conservation would be directly against this type of program, because they cannot have six agencies trying to manage the farms of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would only point out that the gentleman's recommendation is entirely contrary to what is happening in a sense. The Soil and Water Conservation is trying to put small tributaries underground, put into a pond, a clean water pond, with fabric around it, and so forth, to cow's activities getting involved in the water.

Now that is what they are trying to do. The Corps is trying to oppose them in my own State, time after time. And we may have to get back and take money away that the Federal Government put forth for the Soil and Water Conservation, because the Corps bureaucratically says that one drop of water is in their control and the Corps has no authority.

Now, if you want to pollute streams, enact this bill and you will see on farms more and more activities that will be ignored. No farmer would get involved in this, and we will have to have a police state to go by every cow and every animal to see that there is any compliance.

Right now the farmer knows best and is the best steward of his lands. He is working with the Soil and Water Conservation, with elected members from that community, and they are doing a good job. Put more bureaucracy in it, we will bring it to a halt and create more pollution.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the clean water amendment offered by my colleagues Mr. Leach, Mr. Oberstar, and Mr. Dingell.

This is an important amendment for public health and safe drinking water, for hunting, boating, and swimming, for protecting homes and businesses from floods, and for our economy, much of which depends on a clean environment, especially clean water.

That is why the 1972 Clean Water Act is one of the nation's most fundamental and popular environmental protection laws. Clean water is vital to almost every aspect of quality of life in our nation.

The policy adopted by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers in 2003 undermines the Clean Water Act's promise of clean water for all Americans and is contrary to the letter and spirit of the law. It threatens to reverse decades of progress in cleaning up the nation's waters.

This policy is leaving many wetlands as well as headwater and seasonal streams without federal limits on water pollution. The policy tells the agencies' field staff they must get permission before applying Clean Water Act protections to certain so-called isolated waters, although that term is not used in the Clean Water Act to exclude waters from the law, nor is the term even defined in the policy, leaving it unclear at best what is and is not protected. No permission is needed before the EPA or Corps staff can deny protections for waters, and leave them open to pollution from sewage and industrial wastes, or even destruction.

The total number of streams at risk across the country--and consequences for drinking water health and safety--are significant and potentially severe.

Maintaining safe drinking water requires protecting the sources of drinking water--both surface water and groundwater supplies--from pollution. The EPA recently concluded that the majority of public drinking water systems that rely on surface waters get their water from ``source water protection'' areas that contain headwater streams or seasonal and intermittent streams.

Again, these are the very types of streams both I and my colleagues offering this amendment believe are most at risk of losing federal Clean Water Act protections under the agencies' policy.

According to the EPA's letter:

In total, over 90 percent of surface water protection areas

contain start reaches or intermittent/ephemeral streams.

Public drinking water systems which use these intakes (as

well as other sources) are estimated to provide drinking

water to over 110 million people.

If this policy continues, some or all of these source waters could lose federal Clean Water Act restrictions against water pollution, and the people who rely on these waters will either pay the price: either with dirtier water or higher costs for safe drinking water.

I hope all of my colleagues will join me today in voting to reaffirm protections from all of the nation's waters, including streams and wetlands, as the Clean Water At has always done. Vote for the Oberstar- Leach-Dingell clean water amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the gentleman that the Federal regulations should be based on sound science, that rural communities should not be unfairly asked to pay additional, unnecessary costs for their drinking water.

I commend the gentleman for his efforts on the part of his constituents and for all the rural water users who are facing similar problems. I commit to work with the gentleman to see what can be done to fix this problem. The committee will be glad to facilitate a meeting with the EPA to address this important issue and see what can be done as we move this bill through conference with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is legal, it is simple, and it is fair. All we are asking is to preserve existing contracts but that those firms that fail to renegotiate fairly would then not be granted new oil or gas leases.

Not to accept this amendment is to take sides, is to choose to stand by an industry that has posted the highest profits of any industry in modern history by charging consumers about $50 every time they fill up their gas tank. Those profits are coming from our constituents. And not to support this amendment is to decide we are going to side against our constituents. We are going to give up as much as $80 billion, $80 billion over the next 25 years. That is money that should be our constituents' because it is their Federally owned land that the oil companies are drilling on.

We have a responsibility to represent the American people before we represent a very wealthy and profitable industry. And to decide that we are going to figure out a way to let them continue with these contracts that never should have been signed this way in the first place, that gives up $80 billion of American taxpayers money, is wrong. It is wrong.

It is wrong that our consumers are paying so much when these oil companies are making tens of billions of dollars more than they have ever made. Here is an opportunity, legal, fair and simple, to represent the interests of our constituents, the American taxpayer.

To turn down this amendment is to choose one of the major political contributors in this corrupt political system instead the interest of our constituents.

Pass this amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR or North Carolina. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this amendment to help save a national treasure--the wild horse.

The wild horse is known throughout the world as a symbol of the American West and we should be doing everything we can to protect it.

In the 1800s, more than 2 million wild horses roamed the American West. Today, that number is down to 35,000.

Due to a provision slipped into the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill, the sale of any wild horse that has been rounded up and is more than 10 years old is now allowed. This language was placed into law without any hearings or public debate.

This rider removed protections under the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act, which was passed in 1971 after the public demanded that something be done after the shooting of hundreds of thousands of horses and burros for pet food and meat in European restaurants.

Already, at least 41 horses have lost their lives due to this irresponsible language, and the lives of 8,400 horses now being held by the Bureau of Land Management are in jeopardy.

This is an inhumane slaughter against these majestic animals, and there is no need for it to continue.

There are other options we can explore.

The Bureau of Land Management could reopen over 100 herd management areas or use animal contraception methods to keep the size of the herds manageable.

There is simply no reason for these horses to be slaughtered for use as meat in other countries.

The American public want the wild horses protected. In my district alone, countless constituents have asked me to stop this senseless slaughter.

The horse is more than just an animal to our country. It is a beloved literary figure, a character in a movie or television show, a symbol of adventure, a friend of the cowboy, and an important part of our history.

Poet and author Pam Brown says, ``A horse is the projection of people's dreams about themselves--strong, powerful, and beautiful--and it has the capability of giving us an escape from our mundane existence.''

I cannot say it any better, and encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment and help save the wild horse.

Protect America's Wild Horses

After 34 years, protections for wild horses from sale to

slaughter were removed through an omnibus rider. No bill, no

hearings, no debate. Late in 2004 (and late into the night),

Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) attached this highly

controversial rider to the omnibus appropriations bill. The

amendment, passed with no hearings or public review, reversed

longstanding federal policy of protecting wild horses from

being sold at auctions and subsequently shipped to slaughter

plants. Representatives Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), Ed Whitfield

(R-KY), John Sweeney (R-NY), and John Spratt (D-SC) will

offer the Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt Wild Horse

Amendment to the FY 2007 Interior Appropriations bill. Just

last year, the House overwhelmingly approved an identical

amendment, as well as another similar appropriations

amendment to prohibit horse slaughter, but the Department of

Agriculture has thwarted Congress's will and used private

funding to enable the grisly slaughter of horses to continue.

``A public outcry has again begun across the United States

over the change in law that now allows the commercial sale

and slaughter of these animals, `` said Rahall. ``We need to

act before it is too late for thousands of these animals.''

It is already too late for 41 mustangs. On April 15, 2005,

six horses were purchased by Oklahoman Dustin Herbert. Only

three days later, these horses were sent directly to a

foreign-owned slaughter plant in Illinois. Mr. Herbert told

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that he intended to use

the horses for a church youth program. Another 35 were killed

at the same slaughter plant one week later after being traded

unwittingly by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe soon after they were

sold by BLM. By pure chance, another 52 were snatched from

the slaughterplant line in a last minute effort to preserve

their lives by fast-thinking officials. We have graphic

evidence in hand now that sale authority is not a workable

solution.

Horse slaughter is fundamentally inhumane. The cruelty of

horse slaughter is not limited to the slaughter itself.

Economic rather than humane considerations dictate transport

conditions, as horses are shipped in crowded trucks,

frequently over long distances, and are typically given no

food, water or rest. The truck ceilings are so low that

horses are not able to hold their heads in a normal, balanced

position. Heavily pregnant horses, horses with broken limbs,

and horses missing one or both eyes may be legally shipped

for many days to slaughter. Inappropriate floor surfaces

cause slips and falls, and sometimes even trampling. Some

horses arrive at the slaughter house seriously injured or

dead. Horses are required to be rendered unconscious prior to

slaughter, usually with a captive bolt pistol, which shoots a

metal rod into the horse's brain. Some horses are improperly

stunned and still conscious when they are shackled and

hoisted by a rear leg to have their throats cut. In addition,

conditions in the slaughterhouse are stressful and

frightening for horses. Death at the slaughterhouse is not a

humane end for horses. All three of the remaining horse

slaughterhouses in the United States are foreign-owned.

Congress acknowledged this in the strong, bipartisan votes

cast on the FY2006 interior and agriculture appropriations

bills in both the House and Senate (House Interior 249-159;

House Agriculture 269-158; Senate Agriculture 69-28), yet the

United States Department of Agriculture undermined the will

of Congress by constructing a private payment system

specifically to enable the continuation of this brutal

practice.

The number of horses in the US is dwindling. In the 1800s,

over two million wild horses roamed the American West. When

Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act

(WFRHBA), there were 60,000. Today, the combined number of

wild horses and burros is approximately 35,000. That

represents a nearly 50% reduction of wild horses out on the

range since Congress passed federal legislation to protect

them. The entire wild horse and burro populations of six

western states have been completely eradicated.

Wild horses and burros have been federally protected for

decades. In 1971, Congress

passed the WFRHBA in response to enormous public outcry over

the shootings of hundreds of thousands of horses and burros

and the slaughter of horses for pet food and human

consumption in European restaurants. The Burns rider removed

crucial protection under the WFRHBA by requiring that the BLM

sell wild horses over the age of ten or those offered for

adoption more than three times. The lives of 8,400 horses now

being held by BLM--and more in the future--are in jeopardy

due to this controversial rider and the law must be changed.

BLM's current removal policy is costing taxpayers over $39

million a year. According to the U.S. Geological Service,

$7.7 million could be saved annually through the use of

contraceptive measures alone. Since 1988, seveeral wild horse

populations have been controlled under pilot programs using a

contraceptive vaccine (PZP) developed with the help of The

Humane Society of the United States. Additionally, there are

other, less expensive alternatives available. A 1990 GAO

Report states that, ``[r]educing authorized grazing levels

would likely be cheaper than wild horse removals to achieve

the same reduction in forage consumption.''

Cattle outnumber wild horses and burros at least 100 to 1

on public lands. BLM's private livestock grazing program

encompasses 214 million acres of public lands and costs over

$130 million to manage annually. Over 4 million head of

private cattle enjoy subsidized grazing on public lands. A

congressionally-mandated study by the National Academy of

Sciences found that, in one year, livestock consumed 70% of

grazing resources on public lands, while wild horses and

burros consumed less than 5%. The WFRHBA mandates that wild

horses and burros be provided 47 million acres of public

lands on 303 herd areas. Since 1971, the BLM has reduced the

number of herd areas to 201, taking approximately 13 million

acres of land from these federally protected animals.

Horses are not crusing rangeland degradation. The 1990 GA0

study detemined that (1) the primary cause of rangeland

degradation is poorly managed domestic livestock grazing, (2)

wild horse removals have not demonstrably improved range

conditions, (3) wild horse behavior patterns make them less

damaging than cattle to vulnerable range areas, and (4) wild

horse removals are occurring in some locations not being

damaged by widespread overgrazing (GAO/RCED-90-110, Rangeland

Management--Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse

Program).

Americans want wild horse protection. Support for the

Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt Amendment to protect our

cherished wild horses crosses all social, cultural, and

political boundaries. When it was revealed that wild horses

had been sent to slaughter since the enactment of the Burns'

rider (with widespread media coverage in Peole Magazine, CNN,

MSNBC, and dozens of papers across the country), Americans

made sure their voices were heard, resulting in BLM

temporarily suspending their sales program. Without the

passage of protective legislation, sales will resume.

The answer is simple. There is no need to sell off and

slaughter America's Western heritage. With the millions of

acres of public land in the US, we can surely make room for

35,000 horses. Americans do not wish to have their tax

dollars spent on the sale and slaughter of this last living

icon of our American heritage.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the chairman in opposition to this amendment. I have 8 years of local government experience, 30 years of small-town business experience, and 19 years of State government experience before I came here; and I can't tell you the time I have spent bringing reason to wetland designation in my district.

The problem we have had, and what I believe the creep here is, we are going

to bring EPA and put them in charge of wetlands in small-town USA neighborhoods that are not real wetlands; they are wet spots. They are spots where someone has put dirt in an appropriate place and water no longer drains, and we now have a few cattails and certain grass is growing, and it is determined a wetland.

I can't tell you the cases where companies who build a new building, when they did their soil movement afterwards, didn't get good drainage, had a wet spot, and when they went to expand their building, they couldn't because it was declared a wetland. It took a year or two for them to litigate it.

I have farmers who have had to stop farming fields because they were cleaning out the ditches and the corps came by and said you can't clean that ditch, a ditch your father put in with Federal support to drain so you could farm those fields.

I have one near Titusville, Pennsylvania where they stopped the construction of a new building. Do you know what the site was? It was wet. There was grasses and cattails growing there. There were three railroad tracks there where there used to be a factory. It was on top of a landfill. It was the old city dump.

Folks, it was not a wetland, but it was declared a wetland because it was wet on top. Drainage was no longer available. Water was standing there. Folks, our local soil conservation people are diligent in our rural areas in dealing with these issues. We do not need EPA officials and Corps officials boring down the backs and stopping what little growth and prosperity we have in rural America by regulating every wet spot and drainage ditch that has a cattail or certain grasses growing.

Mr. Chairman, we need to not expand their ability.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I will take 2 minutes to respond to the opening comments, and then I will share time.

Why are we here tonight on an appropriations bill? Because for 25 years we have had authorizing language placed in the initial draft of an appropriations bill that has nothing to do with appropriating, but has a lot to do with the energy policy of this country.

This country is in an energy crisis, and the crisis in this country is natural gas. But natural gas is readily available in this country onshore and offshore. We are the only country in the world that has locked up its Outer Continental Shelf. That is from 3 miles to 200 miles. We are the only country in the world.

Now, my language that I placed in this bill, because it is all I could do in an appropriating bill; I can move authorizing language. I chose not to remove gas and oil because I think gas is the crisis that we can deal with. I removed the prohibition of natural gas only. I couldn't put my language in there from the bill I have that protects the shorelines for 20 miles. I couldn't do that. But we removed it for natural gas only. Still, we have a Presidential moratorium. Nothing can happen. We have a 5-year plan that anything that is leased, nothing can happen. We have to have authorizing language to allow gas leases only. Nothing can happen.

This is the beginning of a debate, folks, that you have all been avoiding. This debate has been avoided year after year as the gas crisis in this country has continued to skyrocket. We used to have gas for less than $2 about 6 years ago. Last year, the average price was $9.50 a thousand and peaked at 14 and 15 for 4 months. We have the petrochemical business moving away. We have lost half of the fertilizer business in the last 2 years. Polymers and plastics are moving away. Steel, aluminum, bricks, and glass cannot do business in this country with these gas prices.

It is important that we deal with this issue, and we start that debate tonight.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is the beginning of the debate. This is not the end. The gentleman from Florida knows, no drilling can happen. There is still a presidential moratorium. There is still a 5-year plan. We have to have legislation to allow gas only. Florida is rich in gas. They are not rich in oil. I am not about oil. We need gas in this country. We cannot drill our way out of oil.

We can help ourselves in other places, but natural gas is a richness this country has. It is the clean fuel. It has the least pollutants when you use it. It is the mother's milk of everything we make in this country. From women's face creams to every chemical we buy at the hardware store, the grocery store, polymers, plastic, carpet, drapes, it all is full of natural gas.

There is about 3 million jobs in those industries I have just mentioned, and every one of them are already moving offshore. They do not want to. They have to. We cannot put the disadvantage of $9.50 gas last year, $14 and $15, when South America is $1.80, Russia is about a buck, China and Taiwan 3-something.

This is about the economy of America. Drill only gas? Canadians have drilled 2,200 wells successfully, gas only. I grew up around the oil patch. I have never been in the oil business. I have never made a dollar off the oil business. They drill down through and they choose what they are going to produce. They mark it as they drill through it, and they produce what is there.

Florida is rich in gas. Florida uses 235 times more natural gas than they produce. They could be self-sufficient. They could have huge royalties, and there has never been a gas well that has polluted a beach. I have asked for examples. I was told the Santa Barbara spill. That was an oil well.

A gas well is a steel pipe in the ground. It is cemented at the bottom, and it is cemented at the top. It is open where the gas vein is, and you let gas out. In Lake Erie it runs underground onto shore. Citizens do not even know it is there.

Natural gas is not something to be afraid of. It is something this country needs. I am not for 3 miles offshore. I have legislation that protects us, but I cannot put that on this bill or I would. I can only start this debate tonight.

This debate has been put off. For 3 years I have been talking about this issue. From this day forward, we are going to debate this issue until we do what is right for the future of America.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, let us not confuse medical waste off New Jersey. That was medical waste dumped in the ocean.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

Mr. Chairman, I have been having this debate with the Florida delegation and other delegations for some time, and I really appreciate and like all and respect them very much, but I find recently that poll data show me that Floridians are ahead. Over 60 percent of Floridians in all the recent polls I have seen support production of energy off their shores.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, fear can be overcome with facts. And hopefully down the road here we will get the facts.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Our amendment restores the longstanding bipartisan ban that currently protects sensitive coastal and marine areas from new drilling. We support the current ban not just because the coastlines are beautiful; they are. And not just because we believe our coastlines provide valuable environmental habitat, and they do. We support the ban because we know our coasts are the economic engines of our communities, and that is threatened by new drilling. The people in these communities whom we represent know the value of their coastline, and that is why they are so against new drilling.

Under this bill, we could literally see the push for new drilling as close as 3 miles to our coasts begin almost immediately. The oil and gas companies, awash in profits from our constituents' pockets, would have you believe that all offshore resources are off limits today; that we are only talking about drilling for natural gas and not oil; and that today's high gas prices demand this new drilling. These arguments simply don't hold up to scrutiny.

First, the industry already has access to the vast majority of natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. Indeed, according to the Bush administration, about 80 percent of the known reserves are located in areas where drilling is already allowed.

Furthermore, the oil and gas industry already owns drilling rights to more than 4,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of Mexico alone.

Second, there really is no such thing as gas-only drilling. Drilling for natural gas means drilling for oil. Even the Bush administration and energy industry honchos have dismissed the so-called gas-only drilling as unworkable. This is the president of the American Petroleum Institute on gas-only drilling:

``We are somewhat concerned about some gas-only leasing proposals that have been embraced by people who don't know how the industry works.''

And this is the head of MMS:

``Natural gas seldom comes totally by itself. Do you want to drill a well offshore that will cost anywhere between $20 million and $80 million? And then, if you find oil with it, what will you do? I do not know how successful it will be.''

Finally, new drilling 3 miles off our coasts will not lower gas prices today or anytime in the near future. It would take an estimated 7 years for natural gas for new leases to come online. Serious energy efficiency measures and more use of renewables would reduce demand and bring down prices much faster.

Mr. Chairman, the grand energy plan President Bush unveiled 5 years ago is over 95 percent implemented according to his own energy department; yet, with this plan in place, energy prices and industry profits are at record highs, the predictable result of a strategy of increasing supplies and ignoring demand.

The Peterson amendment to drill within 3 miles off Florida, California, and other coastal States is just more of the same. With 3 percent of the world's resources, 25 percent of the world's demands, shouldn't it be obvious that we can't drill our way out of this problem? We need to be using energy smarter, develop renewable and alternative energy, and use the one resource which we do have in abundance, our creativity. I urge my colleagues to vote to protect our coasts.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to a previous speaker.

According to an Army Corps of Engineers report on the drilling in the Great Lakes, ``Routine drilling is known to be hazardous to human health. Discharges and accidental spills of toxic chemicals from drilling can also contaminate the water of Lake Erie contaminating a primary drinking water source for millions of people.''

Drilling, either in the Great Lakes or offshore, is a dirty process.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I respond to my colleague, Mr. Peterson. I lived in Santa Barbara in 1969. I saw that devastation with my own eyes, beach closures, fish kills, air pollution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to a couple of statements that have been made.

First, LIHEAP has been underfunded for years, high natural gas prices or not. Yesterday's price of natural gas was $5.91 per million Btus. That was about 8 percent less than it was 1 year ago. There is a better way to respond to today's high prices than by drilling. We can start by making our homes, our buildings, and our cars more energy efficient.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I remind the gentleman that there is production off my district as well. Several coastal State Governors are voicing concerns about the proposal to allow drilling as close as 3 miles off our coast, including California's Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger; New Jersey Governor, Jon Corzine; North Carolina Governor, Mike Easley; South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford. And this is what our former colleague, Mark Sanford, had to say: ``Energy independence is something we are all after, but we think it makes more sense in the long run to pursue that goal through focusing on alternative forms of energy rather than fossil fuels. Tourism is our State's number one industry, and we don't think it makes sense to undertake something that could potentially damage our coast.''

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Peterson wants to discuss the facts, so here are the facts:

Most of the natural gas off our shores is already available. In February MMS released its inventory. This is the copy right here that was required by our energy bill. It says that 80 percent of the Nation's undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf is located in the central and western Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska where drilling is currently allowed and well under way.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I will make three points. First, the Poe amendment and the Peterson amendment are the same thing. Two hundred and seventy-four Members just voted ``no'' on the Poe amendment. If you voted ``no'' on the Poe amendment, you should vote ``yes'' on our amendment.

Drilling for gas is drilling for oil. The American Petroleum Institute says as much, as does MMS. Second, it is simply untrue to say that we do not have access to the vast majority of resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. The Bush administration itself says that we currently can drill in areas where 80 percent of the natural gas is located.

Finally, this is more of the same failed energy strategy that has gotten us record high energy prices and record high profits for the oil companies. We need a new direction on energy.

Vote for the Putnam-Capps amendment, protect our coasts, and take a step into the future.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, since 1982 the Forest Service has lost $850 million subsidizing private timber in the Tongass National Forest. That is a $40 million annual loss. If anyone wonders why our national debt is as large as it is, and it is currently $8.3 trillion, by the way, one needs to look no farther than taxpayer boondoggles like this one. They really add up.

The Tongass National Forest was established in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt. It is America's largest forest, about the size of West Virginia. Located along Alaska's southeastern coast, it is often referred to as ``America's Rainforest'' and is home to abundant wildlife: bald eagles, grizzly bears, wolves, and salmon; as well as old growth trees such as the giant Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and yellow cedar.

There are thousands of miles of roads in the Tongass right now. The Forest Service acknowledges that existing roads are ``sufficient to satisfy local demand for roaded recreation, subsistence, community connectivity needs and demands in most districts.'' Yet year after year the Forest Service spends millions of tax dollars building roads for private timber companies that by the agency's own admission are not really necessary. To make matters worse, the Forest Service has a nationwide road maintenance backlog of about $10 billion, tens of millions of which are in the Tongass. Incredibly, the Forest Service is not maintaining existing roads; yet they want to build more, even though they admit there are enough already.

The timber program is not a profitable business in the Tongass the way the Forest Service is currently running it. Nobody argues this. The Forest Service concedes that 90 to 95 percent of all existing timber sale contracts in the Tongass are unprofitable. Nearly half of Tongass timber contracts go unsold. Of those that are sold, the majority have only a single bidder, resulting in a bargain basement, discounted sale.

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward amendment. It would simply prohibit the Forest Service from building logging roads for timber companies subsidized by the American taxpayer in the Tongass. It does not prevent the Forest Service from building roads to connect communities, to provide recreation, or to otherwise manage the forest. It does not stop timber companies from building their own roads. I know that there are some who want you to believe differently, but this amendment has nothing to do with the roadless rule. It has everything to do with good government.

Opponents of this amendment will argue that the massive losses in the Tongass are due to litigation, that taxpayer dollars are ending up in the pockets of trial lawyers. Mr. Chairman, I am not often accused of being a darling of the trial lawyers.

As some may know, the Freedom of Information Act request was filed with the Forest Service in 2002. Although the request was to be for the years ranging from 1991 to 2001, the Forest Service could only provide numbers from 1998 to 2001. During that time the Forest Service spent $121 million on its timber program. Litigation costs amounted to $1.6 million. That means only 2 percent of the total cost were spent on appeals and litigation. Just 2 percent.

Opponents of this amendment will say that the National Environmental Policy Act requirements also increase costs, and they are right. The NEPA process needs reform, and I supported legislation to do this, as many of us have. But whether we like it or not, NEPA is on the books. To gouge taxpayers year after year and justify it by pointing to burdensome environmental requirements is just wrong.

Some say this amendment is an attempt to take away jobs in Alaska. It is not. In fact, as timber subsidies have increased, timber-related jobs have decreased. Taxpayer subsidies per Tongass timber job have risen from $12,000 in 1996 to over $150,000 per job now. Think of that. Every job, $150,000 in taxpayer subsidy for that one job.

Finally, according to a 2003 National Forest Service publication, there is enough timber available off the current road system of the Tongass to meet demand for several years.

Mr. Chairman, let us restore some fiscal sanity to the Tongass timber program. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the American taxpayers and support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points I would make. First of all, it certainly is not an attack on any Member of this body nor an attack on any State. I would just note that those jobs that are being paid for and the $48 million paid out last year alone, those tax dollars come from New Jersey and they come from Ohio and they come from Pennsylvania.

I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, since 1982, there has been almost $1 billion, $850 million in all, spent for this. And relative to jobs, back in 1996 there were 1,500 jobs. It is down to below 300 right now. So every one of those jobs is basically being subsidized by the American taxpayer to the tune of $150,000 per job. So what we are trying to do here is be responsible to the taxpayers of my State, Ohio, and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Texas and New York and Vermont and all the other States who right now are donor States who are sending these dollars up to Alaska to sustain those few jobs.

Now, I am all for timbering, I am all for allowing roads to be built; just not at taxpayer expense, not when the taxpayer is getting ripped off.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just note there are very diverse groups on all sides of the political spectrum that strongly support this amendment, group likes Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers For Common Sense, on the one hand; the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and many others; and I would strongly urge my colleagues to take a vote here which is in the best interests of the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.