Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4761) to provide for exploration, development, and production activities for mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending legislation on the basis that I am unwilling to vote against America's energy independence. This bill would continue to mortgage our Nation's future to a handful of multinational oil conglomerates. It demands a continued addiction to a petroleum diet. It would only further enslave us as a Nation, as a society, to the oily ways of the past, which do not bode well for our energy future.

It is telling that the so-called ``energy week'' proclaimed by the Republican majority consists only of this single piece of legislation that would only further shackle the Nation to the

whims and caprices of the petroleum industry. It is telling that this is their idea, as it has been all along, of what energy independence means.

As Paul Revere did on that famous midnight ride, those of us opposed to this ill-conceived bill are raising an alarm. The drumbeat that we hear pounds out a call of freedom. Freedom to be done with those who profit and plunder at the gas pumps throughout this country, freedom from the price gougers, freedom from the merchants of profit and power over our American values, and the freedom to devise new and alternative fuels to our petroleum dependency. It is time to stand up and be counted, to hoist up the flag and salute it, to strike a resounding chord that will reverberate across this great land of ours.

I say to my colleagues that truly today is Independence Day here in the House of Representatives, for we are being given an opportunity to vote against this outrageous bill and vote against it on the following grounds:

First, it would improperly and perhaps unconstitutionally delegate to the coastal States virtually all decision-making powers over the disposition of a Federal resource. It says to all of the other owners of our offshore water and energy resources, whether they reside in Ohio, Idaho, Arizona or my great State of West Virginia, so it should say to the owners of our offshore waters and energy resources, all of the American taxpayers, no matter what State that they reside in, that they have no say in this matter. No say whatsoever, that we are going to vest all of the power with a few, to the detriment of the many.

Second, it would grab the second largest source of income to the Federal Government after personal income taxes, yank this revenue out of the Treasury and redistribute it to those few. Let's be clear. This bill would reallocate existing revenue from OCS oil and gas leases to willing coastal States, not just future, potential revenue streams, but also those currently being dedicated to the benefit of the Nation as a whole.

It would rob the majority of the American people and bankrupt the Land and Water Conservation Fund so cherished by communities and localities across this great land. According to the administration, this is their figures, the revenue-sharing provisions of bill alone would constitute a $74 billion hit over the first 15 years. Envision this massive rate on America's resources and what it will mean to the average American.

Third reason for opposing this bill, it would deprive most of us of jobs and economic benefits in most of the regions of our country. Those of you from the Midwest, from the corn belt, you can forget about ethanol. This bill demands petroleum. Vote for it, and you vote against your interests. You vote against the jobs in your region and against economic benefits that the production of ethanol brings to your region.

Those of you from the coalfields, like myself, where we have sought for many years to broaden our employment base and to reduce our Nation's petroleum fixation with liquid fuels made from coal, vote for this and you are voting against the future of your coal miners.

As in the past, these so-called energy bills that come before this Republican-controlled Congress are nothing but a vote for further, as the President wants to wean us away from, it is nothing but a vote for a further addiction to oil.

With the Nation hard and fast on a petroleum diet for decades to come brought forth by this pending legislation, the widespread commercialization of coal-to-liquids technology to fuel our vehicles will continue to be an elusive goal and merely lip service only.

I have never forsaken the coal miners in my congressional district, and I am not about to do so now.

Fourth, Mr. Chairman, this bill simply is not necessary. Under the Bush administration alone, the Department of Interior has offered leases covering 267 million acres of the OCS. Industry has only sought to acquire 24 million of those acres.

Now, contemplate that for a moment. There are still 243 million acres available, currently available for leasing that the oil and gas industry has not yet seen fit to bid upon. In all, in total, over 40 million acres of the OCS are under lease and less than 7 million of those acres are in production.

Is there a crisis in the OCS? Is there evidence that legislation such as that before us today, which shreds long-standing moratoria is needed? The facts tell us not.

Those who bring forth this legislation represent an era that should now be in our past, seeking to place all of our eggs in a black basket woven of petroleum. They would defend the predominance of Big Oil, those with wealth and power over our energy destiny.

Those of us opposed to this legislation bring with us the conviction that there are limits to what the American people will suffer for the sake of profit and power. This is indeed a turning point for America.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the pending legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a true leader in this area who has devoted a great deal of time on this issue and has a true concern for our environment and what this issues means for us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), a valued member of our Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), who year after year after year has been a true leader on this issue and on its environmental effects.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who represents the coastlines of Florida.

Mr. Chairman, since the time is so tilted, I would hope that my chairman from California would use more time before I yield my next amount of time.

Before I do that, I do want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana who has just spoken. Although we deliver on this issue, he has done his State and his district superbly. He has been patient, persistent and has worked with me on this issue, as has the chairman, I might add. I do want to salute Mr. Melancon for the tremendous work and patience he has had on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

May I have the time again, please?

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

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a very valuable member of our Resources Committee, and the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, has the chairman explained the amendment yet?

Mr. Chairman, as I understand, if I am on the right amendment, the pending amendment drops some provisions of the underlying legislation such as new royalty relief, which should never have been part of the bill to begin with.

On balance, however, the amendment consists of budget gimmickry designed to hide the true costs to the Treasury of the bill and to pacify CBO by pushing the spending beyond the 10-year

scoring window. Under the manager's amendment, State revenue sharing will cost the Federal Treasury $18 billion in the first 10 years under the CBO analysis.

According to the MMS, Minerals Management Service, which administers the offshore OCS oil and gas leasing program, this legislation's provisions for diverting Federal revenues to States will cost $74 billion over the first 15 years and a staggering $600 billion over six decades. So under the manager's amendment, the new gimmickry, as I understand it, the Federal spending is largely deferred until 10 years and then the costs escalate rapidly and continue permanently. So that is the basis for my opposition.

It is a new, permanent entitlement program with 80 percent of the diverted Federal revenue goes only to four States, as we have heard in previous debate, those States being Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi. This is revenue that is generated from the development of oil and gas resources owned by all the American people. All of our names are on the deed. And it currently goes to the Federal Treasury and is allocated by Congress for many, many national priorities that are getting slashed these days.

And despite assertions to the contrary, this is not new revenue to be generated by this bill, but rather it is existing revenue that is generated under current laws allowing for the development of oil and gas on Federal OCS lands, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico. The publicly-owned OCS resources are far beyond the State boundaries, and to grant the adjacent Gulf States a permanent entitlement to those revenues is to the detriment and at the cost of all the other States.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, continuing to claim my time in opposition.

I understand that the administration has just come out with their position on this legislation; and, as I understand it, much to everybody's surprise, it is in opposition. It is in opposition on budget grounds, as I understand the statement that has just come out from the administration, as well as their opposition to the revenue- sharing proposals that are contained inherent in this current legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement of the legislation. When the administration says they want to move the process forward, I hardly think that means that they will sign the current bill as written into law. And I have the administration's language here in front of me.

Yes, I will yield. Did they say that it was signed into law?

Well, it is hardly a ringing endorsement. I have been here 30 years, and I have seen administrations endorse legislation or I have seen where they wanted to move along the process.

Reclaiming my time, the way I read it, although I don't have my glasses, it is to move this process forward.

``The administration strongly opposes revenue sharing . . . '' I am reading now. My eyes just focused.

``The administration strongly opposes revenue-sharing provisions that do not incentivize production and that would reduce Federal receipts relative to current law and have a long-term impact on the Federal deficit. The administration's preliminary estimate is that the revenue- sharing provisions of H.R. 4761 would reduce Federal receipts by several hundred billion dollars over 60 years.''

Is that a ringing endorsement? Is that support of the legislation? Read the English language.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not begrudge the gentleman from Virginia or the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for their efforts to obtain additional funding for the transit system in this region. I have ridden it. It is a very valuable part of our infrastructure not only in our Nation's capital but in this country.

Quite honestly, I do not see any link here between OCS, oil and gas leasing, and funding a particular transit system. I have got some roadways in my State I wish I would have thought to include in this bill as well. But nevertheless, the only specific authorized use of these funds is for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, up to a total of 900 million each and every year. That is important to my State.

There is a linkage here with conservation of our land and water resources being financed with revenues obtained from the development of these resources in this bill. So if there is a linkage but here between OCS and WMATA, I see no linkage.

Second, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit, as all mature transit systems are, is eligible for funding and it does receive funding through the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. There I am happy to support it as well through my position on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. And I know that the authority is not really scratching for dollars these days, so that is why I claimed this time in opposition.

Again, I salute Mr. Davis for his dedication as well as the gentlewoman, Ms. Holmes Norton.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

Mr. Chairman, we have before us today an extremely important bill. Earlier in the day we had quite a bit of debate on the rule. Unfortunately, much of that debate had very little to do with this bill. Much of that debate had more to do with other issues that Congress has failed to address over the last several years; but we do have the opportunity today to move forward in terms of a national energy policy and taking a step in the right direction.

I look forward to a very active debate, a very insightful debate; and I hope that my colleagues can actually debate the bill that is in front of us today because that is what we are debating. I hope that we have the opportunity to have a full hearing on what is important to this country.

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

Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the majority whip, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent request to Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal), one of the chief authors of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

(Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 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 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to one of the chief authors of the legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

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

Well, it unfortunately hasn't been that enlightening of a debate because we have had a number of people come to the floor and debate things that either weren't in the bill or had nothing to do with the bill. Fortunately, they decided to close with Mr. Markey, who debated something that had nothing to do with our bill, which happens.

The truth of the matter is, when it comes to the cost of the bill, it is a net revenue increase to the Federal Government, $2.3 billion over 5 years, $900 million over 10 years. That is what the bill does. So all the numbers you heard about, 600 billion, 800 billion, how many trillion, they pulled them out of the air. The CBO score on the bill is $2.3 billion over 5 years in increased revenue to the Federal Government.

We also heard that 80 percent of the OCS is already leased. Eighty percent. That is strange because 85 percent of it is off limits. Eighty percent of it is off limits. And yet they claim 80 percent of it is already leased.

Talk about fuzzy numbers? That is about as fuzzy as it gets.

We also heard somebody come down here a little while ago, and I love this, oh, we are going to cure it with CAFE standards. We are going to raise CAFE standards. That is how we are going to cure our energy problems.

Let me let you in on a dirty little secret on CAFE standards. U.S. auto makers manufacture cars today that get 35, 40, 50 miles to the gallon. What they want to mandate is not that car companies make cars that get 50 miles to the gallon. They want to mandate that you have to buy them. They want to mandate that their constituents have to buy those cars because they are available today and they are not buying them. So they want to force them down your throat because you won't buy them.

Let's talk about energy policy. You know what our energy policy is in this country? Our energy policy is no, we are not going to develop domestic energy, period.

For 30 years, we have had the same people coming down here making the same arguments as to why we can't develop a domestic energy source. And it doesn't matter if it is natural gas or oil or hydro or solar or wind or what it is. It makes no difference. They are still a no. There is always a reason to be no.

We had the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, and they vote ``no.''

We had a bill last year on the floor that expanded wind, solar, geothermal. They voted ``no.'' We have had the opportunity five times to vote on an energy bill that put money into alternative energy, renewable energy, conservation, and they voted ``no.'' No, no, no. No domestic energy, nothing for our constituents, for our businesses, for our economy.

And what was the result of all of that? The result is that in the early 1970s and the mid-1970s, when we had our first energy crisis and OPEC cut us off and we had gas lines, we were dependent on foreign energy for 33 percent of our energy. In their 30 years of policy, today we depend on foreign countries for 66 percent of our energy.

You can't be no on everything. Everything that has been proposed, no matter what it was, the answer was no.

Now, you might think, well, they must have an alternative. There must be something else they want to do. Well, maybe it is, but they have failed to tell anybody, because they oppose everything.

This bill was a compromise. This bill was a compromise between the 24 different bills that have been introduced

in this Congress alone on offshore gas development, oil and gas development. Twenty-four bills. The two major bills, one was introduced by Mr. Peterson and Mr. Abercrombie, and it dealt mainly with natural gas. The other one by Mr. Melancon and Mr. Jindal. And we sat down and we tried to work out the differences between those bills.

And, obviously, the coastal States have something to say about what happens off their coasts. I don't care how many times you come down here and rant and rave, the coastal States have something to say about what happens on their coasts. And we had to include them in this. We had to include them in the negotiations and them in the debate.

And the decision was made that for the first time in our history that we would give the States, the coastal States, the ability to protect 100 miles off their coast. It would be up to the State legislature and the Governor for whether or not they wanted any kind of development. If they chose not to, they wouldn't get it. If they chose they want it, then it would be, the opportunity would be there for them to do it. And if they chose to, they would share in the revenue, exactly the way we do on onshore public lands. Exactly the same way.

I am telling you, it is time to stop saying no. It is time to move forward with energy policy that makes sense for all of America, not just a small group of special interests who want to destroy our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under House Resolution 897.

Mr. Chairman, I have a modification at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

If the gentleman will yield, I am yielding time on my time. You can yield time on yours.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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 the balance of my time.

I say that, regardless of how I describe the amendment, it really does not matter, because they make it up as they go along. And in terms of the message from the President, it actually says: ``The administration supports House passage of H.R. 4761 to advance the legislative process.'' They did not come out and oppose it.

The underlying manager's amendment was an agreement that we worked out with so many different people in order to take care of issues that they had.

I urge support of the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Did they say that they opposed it?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

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

While I do support clean renewable energy, obviously we all have questions about this particular technology. We just heard an impassioned plea on the part of Mr. Rahall about the costs; and to go in and increase the cost does concern me, but I know this is something that Mr. Inslee has researched. He cares a great deal about it, and I tend to accept his explanation even though I do have some concerns.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Reclaiming my time, it does not impact it at all, and your State would be able to continue doing exactly what they are doing.

Yes, sir. Reclaiming my time, it actually gives the State the first 50 miles that they do not have to do anything, and they could ban anything within that first 50 miles.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, I will tell the gentlewoman that we have talked about her amendment and her

effort to expand the opportunities for smaller business, minority-owned and women-owned businesses. I fully support that and will continue to work with her to ensure that the revenue that is increased and the jobs that are increased because of this bill, we will give as much as we possibly can to small business and minority- and women-owned businesses because I support that goal.

In terms of revenue sharing, contrary to some of the rhetoric you have heard here today, every single State that has any kind of development off its shores will share in the revenue. It is not just limited to the four States. Although those four States would probably like that, it is not just limited to the four States. It is open to every single coastal State.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate Mr. Markey's kind words about at least one provision in the bill.

I do appreciate that he did not want to waste that sign, since he had his staff make up the poster and they put a lot of hard work into that. And even though it is inaccurate and really has very little to do with the bill that we are discussing, I do appreciate his effort to recycle and reuse his information, even though it is inaccurate.

For 30 years, opponents of American energy have cloaked their arguments in an environmental apocalypse. They have tried to make the argument that no matter what we do, it will destroy the environment. I remember 30-plus years ago they started talking about wind energy production.

And in my district we had one of the first windmill farms built anywhere in this country. And it produces today a sizeable amount of electricity: clean, nonpolluting electricity.

Those windmills are up for renewal, to have their permits renewed. And lo and behold, the environmental groups are filing lawsuits against renewing those permits. Because they produce energy. They do not like energy production.

And what this amendment that Mr. Markey brings to us does is it takes out all of the energy production. It does leave in the part about trying to fix the mistake that was made during the Clinton administration on royalties, but it takes out all of the energy production.

It is a callous disregard for the jobs, the millions of jobs, that have been lost over the last 30 years of following this kind of policy. It is a callous disregard for the men and women of this country who want a good job, who want the opportunity to feed their family on a family-wage job. It takes it away. It tells them no.

You know, one of the things that I have heard over the years is that, you know, union membership has gone down and tried to explain it away in so many different ways. And I hear people talk about it, and I think, you know, it is not about people not wanting to join the union; it is about that we exported all of their jobs. The people who used to work in the timber industry, their jobs are in Canada or Germany.

The people who used to work in the mining industry, their jobs are now in South America. The people who work in oil and gas, their jobs are in the Middle East or Canada. We have exported their jobs. And if the Markey

amendment passes, we not only do not get those jobs back, we are going to send the rest of them. Because we do not like people actually working producing energy. That is what he is telling us.

This amendment went down in committee. It was offered, and it was eloquently debated. But it went down big. And it went down big because the people on the committee who have spent the greatest amount of time working on this issue know how important it is to create jobs in this country, to create clean natural gas in this country, so that it can be the bridge to the future, so that things like Mr. Inslee's wave machine may end up producing enough electricity so that we do not have to be dependent on foreign oil any more.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 897 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

The Rules Committee granted a fair rule for consideration of H.R. 4761 providing for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled between the Chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Resources.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered read.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources.

The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution and provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

The rule provides that House Resolutions 162, 163, 181, 182, 393, 395, 400, 401, 468 and 620 are laid upon the table.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation faces an energy crisis that is impacting our constituents across the country. In my district of West Virginia, many lower and middle income citizens, especially our seniors on fixed incomes, are being impacted by the soaring prices at the pump and rising home heating costs. Not only does this blow a hole in the budgets of many families, it also has an impact on the Federal budget; and correctly, in my view, we sought to increase the funds for LIHEAP to help those in the lower and middle income range.

The crisis also impacts jobs. Energy prices make adding jobs more challenging for small business owners as their transportation and energy costs skyrocket. The impact has been felt by larger, community sustaining industries.

The Kanawha Valley in my district has long been one of the largest centers of the Nation's chemical industry. These chemical plants use natural gas as both an energy source and as a feedstock. The cost of energy is one factor that has led to job losses in this important industry and has decimated the large chemical industry in the Kanawha Valley. These jobs have gone overseas.

The American Chemistry Council estimates that since the price of natural gas began to spike the chemical industry has lost more than $60 billion to foreign competitors because investors are wary of expensive natural gas in the United States. This has cost over 100,000 jobs nationwide in the chemical industry, about 10 percent of that total industry workforce.

Last month, hundreds of employees from West Virginia chemical plants wrote me asking that Congress pass legislation to allow drilling in the

outer Continental Shelf as a means of preserving their jobs. Mr. Speaker, we must reduce our reliance on foreign oil and make commonsense use of our domestic energy resources in order to protect these West Virginians and others like them across the country.

H.R. 4761 takes a commonsense approach in making use of our country's energy resources along the outer Continental Shelf to help meet our vast energy needs. The legislation passed the Resources Committee by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 29-9, and I am proud to be one of the 112 cosponsors of this bill.

This legislation will impact the price consumers pay at the pump. I know every Member of Congress, and all of us, are feeling the pain when we go to the pump. Natural gas prices are set on a local, not a global, market. The United States pays the highest natural gas prices in the world, and it is no surprise that countries that make use of their own natural gas reserves pay the lowest prices. We can make a real difference for consumers by passing this bill.

Many of my colleagues will talk about addressing alternative fuels as a means to solving our energy crisis, and I certainly agree this must be part of the solution. The Department of Ag estimates that 20 percent of the corn grown in the United States this year will be used for ethanol production, but growing corn demands fertilizer, produced by the chemical industry, that uses natural gas as their feedstock and energy source. Passing this legislation today will make sure that ethanol producers have access to the fertilizer they need to increase our supply of this important alternative fuel.

Contrary to what some will say on the floor today, this legislation will not harm the environment. The Minerals Management Service reports that, since 1980, 4.7 billion barrels of oil have been produced offshore with a spill rate of one-thousandth of 1 percent. According to the National Academy of Science, these spills account for only 2 percent of petroleum put into North American waters, while 62 percent comes from natural seepage.

The legislation takes into account the legitimate interests of coastal States, and we are going to hear a lot of debate on this point as well. Any State will be able to stop production from occurring within 100 miles of its shores should it choose to do so. This will keep drilling further offshore than other countries. By comparison, Ireland blocks drilling within 45 miles; the United Kingdom and Norway, 40 miles; the Netherlands, 20 miles; Scotland, 10 miles. Our neighbor to the north has permitted drilling in the coastal waters for years.

If State officials decide to allow production, they will share the royalties. This revenue-sharing provision is appropriate, given the devastation many States suffered from hurricanes last year. Allowing them to share in the royalties from outer Continental Shelf drilling will benefit this devastated region, while at the same time helping to lower energy costs to consumers across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation's policy on drilling in the outer Continental Shelf is outdated, and many of those in the press have written editorials stating that. We saw last year the result of a policy that put all of our eggs in one basket, in the western portion of the Gulf of Mexico, when hurricanes knocked out one-quarter of the total domestic oil and natural gas production.

This will be an important debate today. We can support this legislation because it is important to protect the jobs, help families with heating bills, all the while protecting the environment and preserving States rights, or we can allow vast energy supplies to go untapped while we complain and seek and find no solutions about the cost and the supply of energy.

My colleagues should join me here in taking action by passing this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman that States will have the opportunity in this bill to opt out if they do not wish to have the drilling occur along their coastlines.

Also, I would like to remind the gentleman that I represent West Virginia. We value our mountains, but we dig coal from our mountains every single day so that people around this country can turn on their lights and use their air-conditioning.

We are talking about a Nation here in need of energy resources. And I am not sure if he has ever seen a natural gas well, but it is not like an oil derrick in the middle of a town. It can be done in a very disruptive and very clean way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield time now to my friend from Florida (Mr. Keller), 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the champion of this bill and a champion for rural America, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize and yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the previous speaker that the bill passed out of committee with large bipartisan support of a 29-9 vote.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Kansas (Mr. Moran), a leader in rural health care.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, Mr. Tiahrt.

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

We have certainly had a lively and spirited debate on this rule, and I am sure it will continue as we debate the legislation.

I would like to remind Members that for 6 years we did not have a comprehensive national energy policy, and the result has been higher prices for consumers and businesses. This underlying legislation is one component that will help ease the burden on consumers and manufacturers, and we all look forward to future debates on a myriad of energy solutions so we are better prepared for our future.

I see this as a jobs bill. I also see it as a helping hand to those seniors and those lower-income citizens who are having to pay the high cost of heating their homes and gasoline at the gas station.

This bipartisan legislation received the vast majority of votes in the Committee on Resources, and I encourage all Members to support an improved energy policy for the future.

I urge all Members of this fair rule and the underlying legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 897--Rule on H.R. 4761 The Deep Ocean

Energy Resources Act of 2006

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I agree with President Bush that an America now ``addicted to oil'' needs to reduce its dependency on petroleum and other fossil fuels.

And as a chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I strongly support legislation aimed at achieving that goal,

including greater investments in renewable energy sources (such as wind, sun, and biofuels) that also will boost our economy, create jobs, and revitalize rural communities.

Still, some additional development of the oil and gas resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) would be desirable to help meet our immediate needs, and I could support appropriate legislation to achieve that result.

Unfortunately, I do not think this bill is appropriate, and I cannot support it as it stands.

The bill's provisions dealing with the OCS are excessively complicated and costly, and the bill also includes a plethora of unrelated and unnecessary provisions, including changes in the rules for onshore leases and a section dealing with oil shale royalties that I think is particularly troublesome.

In the Resources Committee, I offered an amendment that would have made this a much simpler bill. It would have deleted all the complicated provisions dealing with State legislation, different rules for different parts of the offshore lands, and the disposition of Federal revenues--not to mention the section about oil shale. It would have replaced all that with a short and simple requirement for the Interior Department to lease within a year the lands within the so- called ``181 Area'' in the Gulf of Mexico.

My amendment was essentially identical to a bill--S. 2253--introduced by Senators Domenici and Bingaman with 28 cosponsors, from both sides of the aisle and already approved by the Senate's Committee on Energy and Natural Resources by a bipartisan vote of 16 to 5. Its groundwork has been laid by the Department of the Interior over a number of years, including completion of environmental reviews and consultation with coastal States and the public.

The amendment would have put only two limits on the requirement for leasing the 181 area.

First, it said that one part--the part east of a ``military mission line''--could only be leased if the Defense Department had agreed in advance that development there can be done without interfering with military activities. That responded to issues raised by Secretary Rumsfeld last year in a letter to the Senate's Armed Services Committee.

And, second, the amendment said there could be no leasing within 100 miles of the Florida coastline. That, of course, responded to concerns about potential adverse effects on that State's coastal areas.

According to the Mineral Management Service, the whole 181 area has about 930 million barrels of recoverable oil and more than 6 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. And the same agency's numbers show that even if the Defense Department were to say there would be no leasing east of the military mission line, there would still be about 800 million barrels of recoverable oil and nearly 5 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas in the rest of the 181 area. Thus, my amendment would have cleared the way for rapid development of significant new supplies of energy. And it would have done so without the complications that caused the Administration to testify that they have ``serious concerns'' about the bill as it stands.

If our goal is to get more energy from offshore areas, I think it would make more sense to start with simple and straightforward legislation that's based on sound science and that has some strong support, including from a significant number of our colleagues in the other body.

My amendment followed that approach--but, unfortunately, the committee did not adopt it.

As a result, we must vote today on this seriously flawed bill which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will ``increase net direct spending by about $900 million in 2007, $3.2 billion over the 2007-2011 period, and $11.0 billion over the 2007-2016 period.''

Those are sobering numbers. And even if the bill is revised along the lines proposed by some of its supporters, I expect any change in that estimate to be marginal, and will have no significant effect on the bottom line. I am not ready to support increased mandatory spending on the scale that will result from this bill while our country is at war and we are running persistent budget deficits that must be financed by increases in the national debt our children will be required to repay with interest.

And I think if anything CBO underestimates the potential costs of this bill to the taxpayers, because their estimate does not discuss all of the provisions not directly related to offshore leasing.

For example, while the estimate does discuss section 17's requirement that the Interior Department comply with lessees' requests for the government to repurchase and cancel leases (and compensate their holders) under certain circumstances, it does not note that the chances of such required payments are increased by section 19, which would impose a series of tight deadlines which the Interior Department must meet if it is to avoid a demand for compensation.

It could be that CBO isn't able to estimate how much money that might cost--and, even if they could, that estimate would not include other costs, including the likelihood that the deadlines will lead the Interior Department to put so much emphasis on speed that they will be less careful in the way they assess potential problems and will not ensure appropriate steps to mitigate those problems. This would not be good for the owners of private surface properties underlain by Federal minerals, for affected communities, or for the environment.

Further, the estimate does not even mention section 24, which would prohibit the Department of the Interior from adjusting the fees it charges for actions related to mineral leases. This applies to both offshore and onshore leases, and could result in requiring the taxpayers to shoulder the burden of paying for things that otherwise would be the responsibility of the mineral lessees.

And, CBO says nothing about Section 29, which deals with oil shale.

Colorado has lots of oil shale, so we have a special interest in the subject. But it's important for the whole country, as an energy resource, and it's important to all taxpayers because most of it, as Federal property, belongs to them.

That means that all the taxpayers have an interest in how it is developed and what return they the taxpayers, will get for this resource. And both those interests--in oil shale as an energy source and in fair treatment for the taxpayers--are reflected in current law.

Specifically, section 369(o) of the 2005 Energy Policy Act says the Secretary of the Interior will set royalties and other payments for oil shale leases at levels that will do two things--first, ``encourage development'' of oil shale; and, second, ``ensure a fair return to the United States,'' meaning to the taxpayers.

I was not a big fan of most parts of last year's energy bill, but I think that provision is good policy. So, I am troubled that part of section 29 of this bill would repeal it and replace it with what can only be described as legislative price fixing.

The relevant part of section 29 starts by telling the Secretary of the Interior to ``model'' tar sand and oil shale royalties on the royalty program now used in one Canadian province. But then it goes on to say that the Secretary would have to reduce the actual rates in accordance with ``a sliding scale'' based on a complicated formula based on the monthly average price of ``NYMEX West Texas Intermediate crude oil at Cushing, Oklahoma.''

I'm not an expert on oil prices, but it's easy to understand what is involved here. It's Congressional micromanagement in the form of legislating a formula for royalty rates.

It's an attempt to have Congress--not the Secretary--decide a very technical issue that could affect a lot of money. And it's the kind of thing that should raise suspicions in anybody who cares about making sure the taxpayers get a fair shake, especially because the supporters of the bill have made it clear that they put more emphasis on encouraging production than on ensuring that the Federal Government-- and the local Governments with whom the revenues are to be shared--will get a fair return.

As the Interior Department proceeds to implement the current law, there will be ample opportunity for all of us to weigh in if we think the Secretary is not doing a good job in setting royalty rates. In the meantime, I think Congress should not try to set the rate through legislation.

That was why I opposed including a similar provision in the reconciliation legislation when the Resources Committee debated it earlier this year, and why I was glad when it was finally dropped from that legislation. But, like a bad penny, it turned up again in this bill--and is still the same bad idea as before.

So, in committee I offered an amendment to strike this attempt at long-term political price-fixing, and to replace it with the language of the current law that says the Secretary is to set royalties that will encourage development and ensure a fair return to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, that amendment was not adopted, either, which is another reason I cannot support the bill.

In fairness, I should note that the bill does include some worthwhile provisions. One example is the provisions aimed at closing OCS royalty- rate loopholes that have unduly reduced the return to the taxpayers. Another is section 23, which deals with support for accredited petroleum and mining schools, applied geology and geophysics programs, and individuals pursuing degrees in petroleum and mining engineering and related subjects.

Overall, though, the bill's good parts are so outweighed by its defects that I cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend Mrs. Capito for the time.

I ask two questions of my colleagues here today. One, what is the emergency and can anybody that supports this measure tell me that it is going to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump? If we already own all of this, and we do, and if 80 percent of it is under lease and drilled as it is, then what is the emergency? Why can we not wait until such time as there is either a national or a military emergency?

Gas prices, you bet, but ask Jane Lunch Bucket, is this going to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump?

Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it is better for others to speak for you; and in this case I choose to let the editorial boards representing the newspapers across my great State of Florida, which have universally, universally come out against this dangerous bill. These are papers which represent views of Floridians from the Panhandle to the Keys and in all parts in between. From Orlando to Opa Loka and from Pensacola and Panama City to Pahokee to Key West and Kissimmee, Floridians agree that this would be bad for the environment, bad for tourism, bad for business and a black eye for generations to come.

The Orlando Sentinel said this week about this bill: ``House Members from Florida who support this bill are portraying it as the best deal the State can hope for, given the growing pressure to drill for oil and gas at home. Never mind the fact that the United States has only a small percentage of the world's reserves of those fuels. Congress could do more to solve the Nation's energy crunch with stronger measures to conserve energy and promote the development and use of alternative fuels. It doesn't have to imperil Florida's environment and economy. Florida's two U.S. Senators, Democrat Bill Nelson and Republican Mel Martinez, say they are reserving the right to filibuster the measure if it reaches the Senate. But it needn't come to that. Florida's House delegation and other Members in that Chamber who support an environmentally and economically sensible energy policy need to kill this bill.''

The St. Petersburg Times had this to say: ``The oil industry's,'' and I am paraphrasing, ``minions in the U.S. House are still scheming to open Florida's coast to offshore drilling. That is not surprising, considering their disdain for environmental protection. What is unforgivable,'' unforgivable, the St. Pete Times says, ``is that some Florida Representatives appear to be in league with them and are more atuned to the politics of Washington than the realities of Florida. Some other Florida Republican Members seem to think defeat is inevitable, so they might as well cut a deal that would undermine the protection of our beaches. Unfortunately, saying so could make it so. If Floridians value their beautiful beaches, clean coastal waters and tourism economy, then the time to give in to the hysteria to drill is never.''

The Palm Beach Post added this: ``Protecting Florida's coasts under the bill wouldn't be enough. Because oil spills could be carried on ocean currents, what happens in States that opt to allow drilling closer to shore could affect other States with stricter rules. A spill in the eastern gulf, for example, could travel to Panhandle beaches, to Florida's Keys, or to east coast beaches as far north as Cape Canaveral. The cover story is that disruption from Hurricane Katrina showed why the Nation needs new sources of energy. But why put new sources in the same storm path? The majority's bill, or the bill as authored, and some of them as sponsors, has one of the worst environmental records in Congress,'' according to this newspaper.

``Florida's tourism industry places the State in a unique position. Opposing this bill isn't good just for the environment. It's good for business.''

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to continue quoting from other Florida newspapers, but I think the point has been made and made and made again. While we are here now debating whether we should open up Florida and California, and maybe New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, and Maine, to oil drilling, we already have debated Alaska, and doubtless others are to come.

But it was our colleague, Mr. Boehlert, who has pointed out that through 18 months of this Congress we have brought up all sorts of ways to drill in this country but not one, not one bill that would look at alternatives

or do anything about conservation. Pretty telling, don't you think?

I asked one of my Republican colleagues last night what his opinion on this bill would be if it meant drilling in the heart of his district, one of the most environmentally unique ecosystems that we have in this country. I give him credit for consistency. We were on the elevator leaving the Rules Committee at midnight, and he flat-out told me if there was some oil or gas to get there, so be it.

Wow. This is truly frightening. I hope the American people are listening. A Member of Congress, and there are others like him, potentially thinks that we should put oil derricks on every street corner, I gather, in the country if there is even a chance we might get a teaspoon of oil out of it.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are others who want to speak on this irresponsible bill, so I am not going to use more of my time. But trust me, as a fifth-generation Floridian, as a person deeply concerned about our environment in this world as well as in Florida, and a Member of Congress that represents more small businesses than all but two other Congresspersons in this body, according to the Small Business Administration, I oppose this rule for the bill we will soon consider, which I consider to be reckless.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Rules Committee with the distinguished gentlewoman, my good friend, Ms. Matsui from California, Sacramento and that area, who understands environmental consequences. I am pleased and privileged to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to my good friend from Maine, a gentleman who has some understanding of fisheries and coastlines, 2 minutes to Representative Allen.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from California (Mrs. Capps) who knows a little bit about the coastline, being from Santa Barbara.

As I recall, my friend from Pleasantville and Happy Valley wanted drilling 3 miles out, he perceives it as such an emergency.

I find it strange that people that live so far away from the potential problem have all of the correct answers. If we were drilling in Happy Valley outside of Penn State, you would be down here concerned, as I am, and Ms. Lee, who comes from San Francisco Bay in Oakland, California, who understands something about drilling.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). He is a former ranking member of the Resources Committee, and has, in my judgment, extraordinary clarity regarding the issue of the day here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman, my classmate, Ms. Woolsey.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Hawaii, and he is my good friend, knows that I love his volcanic State that has no Outer Continental Shelf. If we were drilling in Oahu or on the road to Hana, I would hear a different perspective. But I understand that dynamic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield at this time 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) who also has a district that has environmentally sensitive areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will take up legislation to do as Mr. Stupak just rightly said, stop price gouging at the gas pump and provide some immediate relief for the American consumer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider this bill today that further opens up our precious coastal resources to the oil industry, should we not also be talking about how those oil companies treat Americans at the gas pump? Should they be allowed to drill the oil that belongs to the American people and then turn around and sell it to us at unconscionable prices?

They did not drill 3 years ago because the price of a barrel of oil was $30. Now it is $70, and they are ready to go drill. By that time, it will be $80, and then turn around and sell it to us at prices that are unconscionable.

If the previous question is defeated, I will ask the House to take up H.R. 3936, Representative Stupak's bill.

Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of H.R. 4761 and it will not affect any of the amendments that are in order under this rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to vote on something to bring real relief to the American people and not degrade the environment in our Outer Continental Shelf.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.