A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to offer the 181 Area of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas leasing.

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 claim the time in opposition.

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

By extending ``no leasing'' buffer zones to 125 miles away from the State boundaries, this amendment is I must admit an improvement in the current bill from the perspective of its Florida sponsors, and I certainly understand that and commend them for the effort here.

However, as is in the underlying bill, the amendment gives effective control over national resources to the States.

The OCS lands and oil and gas resources belong to all the people of America. The name of every West Virginian, the name of other citizens of our country are on the deed to these properties.

So these oil and gas resources belong to all the American people and not just to those who reside in the adjacent States; and, as such, Congress should retain the powers to make the decisions regarding those national resources on those grounds. It is for that reason that I object to the amendment.

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

If the gentleman would yield, in response to the gentleman, that was not an accurate statement. The mountains of West Virginia do not belong to all the people of this land.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what this bill is about. And there is one thing that Mr. Markey said that was actually accurate, and that is that it is about the money. We just saw recently in Canada, they announced they needed 100,000 new oil field workers, 100,000. And they are taking them from us. They are taking our jobs from us to produce our energy.

We also heard one of my colleagues from California, and I am just amazed by this, right now the State of California controls 3 miles off its coast. This bill gives our State 100 miles. We would control 100 miles off our coast. Not 3, 100.

If you really do oppose drilling off the coast of California or Florida or wherever your State may be, you have to support the bill and vote against the short-sighted, mean, callous Markey amendment.

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. Chairman, right now in America, 80 percent of all of the Outer Continental Shelf area where the oil and gas is already open to the oil and gas industry. The only thing that has stopped the oil and gas industry from going to much of the area in the Outer Continental Shelf where 80 percent of the oil and gas is, which we all agree they should be able to go to, today, under the law, with no changes, is that the price of oil was $30 a barrel. But at $70 a barrel, Shell and Exxon-Mobil are going there. So what is the debate about? Well, yeah, I don't want them drilling off of Massachusetts, in Georgia's bank, and the Floridians don't want them off their shore. But that is really not what it is all about.

Right now, according to the Minerals Management Service, we can expect $600 billion to go to the Federal Government for drilling right down here in Federal land on land which is already open to the oil companies. And that $600 billion is used and will be used to pay for our troops in Iraq, to pay for the education of poor children, to ensure that we can pay for Medicare benefits for senior citizens.

But what the majority is doing, what the Republican administration is doing is they are going to take that $600 billion that would have gone to the Federal Government, and they are moving it down here where only four States are going to get the benefit of it. Only those four States are going to be the beneficiaries.

Now, if you come from one of those four States, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi or Alabama, you vote for this bill and put out a press release tonight. You tell everyone back in your districts in those four States, we were able to convince the United States Congress to give us $600 billion today.

And by the way, Huey Long used to say, ``every man a king.'' Well, every man and woman will be a king in Louisiana after this. And God bless them if they can pull it off today.

This is the king of all earmarks. It will take 200 amendments a day from Mr. Flake for the next 50 years to get back this $600 billion. And the Republicans, of course, will oppose the cuts that he will propose out here on the House floor as well. So that is what it is all about.

It is about this shifting of money from all of the red States, 46 States, down to four States. And that is the game that is going on, because the oil industry is already drilling in the Gulf on Federal lands that we all agree they should go to today. And that is why the Minerals Management Service, the Bush administration says that $600 billion will be lost to the Federal Treasury because over 80 percent of all of the revenues that are going to be generated from this proposal will go there.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, if you are out there listening, this is, without question, also, nothing that can happen in your State that will make up for the loss of this $600 billion. If this was any other bill, we would be having a huge fight over what the formula should be for who gets this money. But instead, in one fell swoop, the Republicans are moving $600 billion from 46 States into four States.

Do not vote for this bill. This is a fiscal disaster. This money should remain in the budget for the troops in Iraq. It should remain in the budget for Medicare recipients. It should remain in the budget for the poor children of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

So the Bush administration has now checked in, and the Bush administration is saying they are very unhappy about $600 billion being taken from the Federal Government and given to four States. They are unhappy with this rip-off of the Federal taxpayers of 46 States. This transfer of $600 billion, down here. Yes, drill down here. Yes, drill tomorrow. Yes, at $70 a barrel, drill, drill, drill. That is 80 percent. But do not ship $600 billion from the red States, the 46 States, down to only four States.

That is what the Bush administration just said to you all. It will force him to cut the budget in Iraq. It will force him to cut Medicare. Even this administration does not want this additional $600 billion loss.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much, and I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia. He is amongst the most astute Members of Congress, and it is clear that there is a big gravy train moving through Congress this afternoon and he is one of the very smartest Members to figure out that he should attach his constituents' agenda to it. And rapid transit is a very important issue. Unfortunately, the majority decided that Mr. Boehlert's amendment on fuel economy standards for automobiles

was not important today. But I understand what the gentleman from Virginia is doing, and I congratulate him on his acute understanding of what this bill really is.

By the way, when I was a boy, my father was a milkman, and you looked at television to see what you can aspire to be and my favorite show was always ``Perry Mason,'' and I could never really figure out how Perry was going to get his client out of the mess. And then with about 5 minutes left to go in the show, every single week Della Street, his great assistant, would come into the back of the courtroom and say, I have new evidence.

Now, the case would always get solved and Perry would always win. So I have been charged all afternoon with making up numbers, that there will not be, as I say there is, a $600 billion transfer from 46 States down to 4 States. But now we have a Della Street-like letter from the President of the United States to the Republican leadership of the committee. Here is what the President says, ``The administration strongly opposes the 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 would reduce Federal receipts by several hundred billion dollars.''

So it turns out that the numbers I was quoting from the Bush administration, from its own Department of Interior, that this would lead to a $600 billion loss of revenues from 46 States going down to four States is now confirmed by President Bush's letter to us this afternoon.

So if you want to vote this way, Members of Congress, you can do it. And by the way, again I say this to Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, delegations: if you win this vote this afternoon, put out a press release. It is the greatest achievement of your career. It will be the greatest achievement you ever, ever have here in the House floor, moving $600 billion in one vote from 46 States to your States, a great victory.

And President Bush today is asking the Members of Congress not to do it. Now, Mr. Pombo will say to you, do not fix it now, we will fix it later. But the President is saying this is a big mess. We oppose it. Clean it up. And still we have a chance to clean it up.

Thank God we got the letter before we voted to create the mess. Now Mr. Pombo is saying, let's create the mess and we will clean it up when it gets to the Senate, which is, I think, an unnaturally great deference to a body that ordinarily does not receive that kind of respect from us.

Why should we wait for them to have the responsibility to deal with what we all now understand to be a complete mess? Again, I congratulate Mr. Davis, because if this is going to happen, I give you credit for understanding that getting $150 million for his district makes a lot of sense.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, what my amendment will do is to correct the problem that the President has identified, amongst other things that also need correcting in the bill, while leaving intact a wonderful provision that will ensure that we correct the problem that occurred in the 1990s during the Clinton administration, which allows for oil companies to escape paying the royalties which the American people should be receiving on leases which were given out during that period of time, 1998 and 1999.

I agree with the intent of the language which is in the bill that the majority has crafted. They did a good job on that section, although with the rest of the bill I have a problem. And my amendment will help to correct that problem.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining minute.

What the Markey amendment will do is to remove the provision which takes $600 billion from 46 States and gives it to four States, where oil and gas companies can already drill. If my amendment is adopted, according to CBO, my amendment will then generate $13 billion in new revenues over the next 10 years.

So your choice on the Markey amendment is lose $600 billion or gain $13 billion. Ladies and gentlemen, that is what this thing is all about. It is all about the money. Because 80 percent of the oil and gas that can be drilled for off our coast is already available. They might have a lot of additional coastline in America, but the geological service and the oil companies have said 80 percent of it is right here. By the way, it is already legal to go there.

And we, Ed Markey, liberal from Massachusetts, we want you to go there. I want you to drill there. Get the oil that is down there in the gulf. But the revenues should go to the Federal Government or else, as George Bush has just said to us in a letter this afternoon, we will lose hundreds of billions of dollars to the Federal Government and give it to only four States without any real understanding or debate here on the House floor.

Vote for the Markey amendment. Let's generate $13 billion worth of revenue for our country rather than lose $600 billion.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this is about natural gas. Natural gas not for Texas or Louisiana but natural gas for the entire country, Midwest, Southwest, east coast, for the entire country.

Energy imports now make up one-third of America's trade deficit. Through this bill America could improve the supply/demand imbalance, lower consumer prices, and increase jobs by producing more of its own energy resources.

I want to make sure that we do have an environmentally safe way of finding energy. I also want to expand the opportunities for jobs. And this manager's amendment creates petroleum and mining programs in historically black colleges and Hispanic-serving colleges. In addition, it provides consideration for programs dealing with energy and mineral resource programs to train future geologists so that we can be independent as well as look to alternative fuels. And then I would hope that this legislation, as it moves towards conference, can reinforce our commitment to giving competitive advantage to a certain extent to small minority-owned and women-owned businesses so they have equal access to oil and gas leases.

I hope we can work together as we move this legislation forward.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that two of my amendments to H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006, have been incorporated into the Manager's Amendment. In addition, I have another amendment which I will be introducing on the floor.

First and foremost, I must admit that I do have reservations about certain provisions in this bill and the process with which this bill has arrived on the House floor. I think many of us would agree that the issues central to this bill, the future of energy exploration off of our Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf coastlines, deserves more time for deliberation and debate. Also, I would have preferred if this bill would have included more careful consideration of the environmental impact offshore drilling would have on our Continental Shelf Activities. However, this bill is about helping the production of clean natural gas cheaply for all of America.

Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, and greater economic and national security. However, the U.S. is more than 60 percent dependent on foreign sources of energy, twice as dependent today as we were just 30 years ago. Although energy is the lifeblood of America's economic security, this growing and dangerous dependence has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of good American jobs, skyrocketing consumer prices, and vulnerabilities in our national security.

Energy imports now make up one third of America's trade deficit. Through this bill, America could improve the supply-demand imbalance, lower consumer prices, and increase jobs by producing more of its own energy resources. With my district of Houston being the energy capital of the world, I support the efforts that this bill makes to recognize state stakeholders and incorporate their interests in revenue sharing.

According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), America's deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) contain 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (the U.S. consumes 23 TCF per year) and 86 billion barrels of oil (the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year). Even with all these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion (and countless American jobs) overseas every year for energy we can create at home.

In some cases, the U.S. is facing much-higher energy prices than other countries. Natural gas, for example, is as much at ten times more expensive in the United States than it is in foreign nations. This fact alone has led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying American jobs, as natural gas-dependent factories are forced to close their doors and move overseas in search of more affordable energy. The outsourcing of American jobs is an issue of central importance to me and my constituents, and I believe this bill is a step in the right direction of bringing jobs back to hard-working Americans.

Yet the present issue I would like to speak on addresses the fact that contracts and leases, as considered in this bill, engage fierce competition from national and multinational corporations, in addition to domestic businesses. The share of businesses owned by minorities rose from 6.8 percent of all U.S. businesses in 1982 to 15.1 percent in 1997, yet this is far below representative of the proportion of the minority population today.

Historically, minority and women-owned businesses have been disadvantaged in seeking and winning these contracts. According to a survey by the Small Business Administration, minority-owned employer establishments had lower survival rates than non-minority-owned employer establishments between 1997 and 2002.

During 1997-2001, the business expansion rates of three minority business groups were higher than that for non-minority-owned businesses. While 27.4 percent of non-minority owned establishments expanded during this period, 34.0 percent of Hispanic-owned employer establishments expanded, as did 32.1 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander owned establishments, and 27.8 percent of American Indian/ Alaska Native-owned establishments.

There may be inherent disadvantages for these businesses, but it is clear their potential is tremendous. This amendment ensures that these businesses have the ability to compete fairly for these lucrative opportunities.

I am very proud that my district, Harris County and Houston ranks sixth and Texas ranked fifth in the country for the largest number of African-American owned firms, following New York, California, Florida, and Georgia. Minority and women-owned businesses across the country will appreciate the effort to preserve their opportunity to compete for these contracts.

I encourage the esteemed members of the committee to remember that there are a great many barriers to minority and women business professionals, and provisions such as these preserve equal access and open opportunities.

In addition, we must continue to safeguard equal opportunities in fields of study and professions that have far too low of a minority ratio.

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, Americans who are African-American, Hispanic, and Native American make up only 9.7 percent of the science and engineering workforce, compared to 16.8 percent of the entire U.S. labor force.

The National Science Foundation contends that although the proportions of women, Blacks, and Hispanics in science and engineering occupations have continued to grow over time, there are still fewer numbers in science than their proportions of the population. In addition, the representation of African-Americans in science and engineering occupations increased from 2.6 percent in 1980 to 6.9 percent in 2000. The representation of Hispanics increased from 2.0 percent to 3.2 percent. However, for Hispanics, this is proportionally less than their increase in the population.

With these provisions, the door should be opened a few more inches. We want America's youth to find their way to engineering and the sciences.

I encourage the esteemed members of the committee to remember that there are a great

many barriers to minorities and women pursuing degrees in the sciences and in advancing their small businesses. Accordingly, my amendments which have been incorporated into the Manager's Amendment and my amendment regarding minority serving institutions which I will introduce on the floor provide provisions which preserve fundamental American values of equal access and opportunities.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and final passage.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Inslee amendment which we have accepted and I thank you, but I wanted to ask these two questions: one, the issue of revenue sharing perspectively does not limit itself just to States that names have been called. It does expand to the potential of revenue sharing. And secondly, the commitment that we would have to give advantage or give an opportunity for small, medium, women-owned, and minority-owned businesses in the granting of leases as we move toward conference and be able to develop expanded opportunities for jobs.