Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1317 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during the consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1317.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1317 provides for consideration of H.R. 1286, the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule makes in order two germane Republican amendments that were submitted for consideration and are printed in the Rules Committee report.

The rule also provides for the adoption of a germane Rules Committee amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report to clarify that the bill does not in any way limit access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting along the trail.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

And, finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 1286, amends the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail.

The trail extends approximately 600 miles, spanning nine States and the District of Columbia, tracing the routes taken by the armies under the command of General George Washington and French Count Rochambeau on their march from Newport, Rhode Island, to face the British forces under General Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia.

After meeting in Philipsburg, New York, the combined armies traveled through New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and the future District of Columbia before arriving in Virginia.

With a French fleet blocking the Chesapeake, barring British reinforcements from New York or a sea escape for Cornwallis' troops, the combined Continental and French armies' 3-week siege at Yorktown ended with General Cornwallis' surrender to General Washington on October 19, 1781.

Historians regard the Battle of Yorktown as one of the most decisive events in bringing an end to the American Revolution and the beginning of a new and independent Nation known as America.

H.R. 1286 is the carefully considered result of years of study by the National Park Service, which found that the trail is suitable and feasible for designation as a national historic trail.

I would add that H.R. 1286 includes specific language protecting private property rights, prohibiting the Federal Government from acquiring any land or interest in land without the consent of the owner.

In fact, the Park Service study found that ``no Federal acquisition of lands or interests in lands is proposed or anticipated.''

H.R. 1286 also states that nothing shall prohibit or hinder the development, conveyance, or transmission of energy along the trail.

Finally, there is a Rules Committee amendment to the bill that would clarify that Federal designation of the trail has no impact on State and local laws governing hunting, fishing, or trapping, or recreational shooting. This language is nearly identical to language that has already overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives.

I would like to commend Chairman Rahall and Mr. Hinchey for bringing this widely supported legislation to the floor today so we can ensure that America's history is protected for future generations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my good friend, my colleague from Washington State, has once again leveled a litany of accusations and, as usual, the rhetoric does not equate with the reality that we see.

Let's take the attacks one by one. There were a total of five amendments submitted to this rule, all by Republicans. Three amendments were submitted by Mr. Bishop of Utah, one by Mr. Flake of Arizona, and one by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico. Two amendments were made in order, Bishop No. 1 and Pearce No. 4. Two amendments were not germane to the bill and ruled out of order by the Parliamentarian, Bishop No. 3 and Flake No. 5. The subject matter contained in amendment No. 2 by Representative Bishop was already being addressed by a self-executing provision in the rule which was based on language previously adopted in this House by a vote of 416-5, rollcall vote 171, with all Republicans, including my good friend from Washington, voting in favor of the amendment.

Let me take this opportunity to clear up what must be a further misunderstanding on the part of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Contrary to what my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, would have us believe, the amendment was not the modified Bishop amendment. And I can assure you that the Rules Committee did not hijack any portion of the amendment submitted by our good friend and former member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop). The provision in the rule was based on language passed on April 9, 2008 during consideration of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, and it was done to address a concern that a number of Members had about the bill. The amendment was offered by Mr. Altmire of Pennsylvania, was adopted with an overwhelming rollcall vote, as I said before, with every Republican voting in favor of the amendment. If you don't take my word for it, I would be happy to share the Rules Committee report from that bill, which contains the text of the amendment. And I have copies of the section of the Congressional Record that contain the debate and the vote on the Altmire amendment.

I also want to point out that the self-executing language in the rule is not an unusual or unprecedented procedure. It was done numerous times when the other side was in the majority, as my good friend from California (Mr. Dreier) alluded to in committee testimony on Tuesday. It's a legitimate tool available to address concerns in a bill.

The amendment that we are self-executing is nearly identical to the Altmire language. The Rules Committee believes that this language improves the bill. And it is entirely reasonable to self-execute language with a track record of overwhelming bipartisan support in the House. Those Members who don't like the language are perfectly able to vote against the rule.

Now the question of gas prices. Certainly this is an important issue that has been addressed by this House a number of times. We have seen oil climb to record $145 a barrel, and we have also seen big oil companies continue to post record profits. Let's go over a few of the points that have happened in the past years.

The President signed into law legislation including landmark provisions to make cars and trucks more fuel efficient and to promote more affordable American biofuels. That all happened because we passed it in this House and provided leadership on this. The new fuel standards will reduce our oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels a day in 2020, one-half of the current U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf, and will save American families $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump.

The House also passed legislation to suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And just this week, the Speaker called on the President to unilaterally start releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to try and bring down the cost of oil on the world market, a very responsible proposal.

We have also voted to invest in home-grown American biofuels in the farm bill. We voted to provide tax incentives for renewable energies and energy efficiency and plug-in vehicles, and creating hundreds and thousands of green jobs. We further voted to reduce public transit fares for commuters pinched by the pump. We voted to crack down on oil price gouging, and in fact we're looking into more of that. We've directed the CFTC to use its full authority to curtail excessive speculation in the markets and other practices which may be distorting the energy market. In fact, the Ag Committee, as we speak, is meeting to look into this matter and plans another hearing tomorrow. We have voted to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing, and we have called on the repeal of subsidies to profit-rich Big Oil so we can invest in renewable energy futures.

Further, I think it's important for us, as Members, to look at who, in fact, is moving to block the lowering of our prices at the pump. A general blanket statement that we can make, that I have observed, is you put oil people in the White House and you can expect oil prices to go up. President Bush and Republicans have blocked virtually every step that we have tried to make to lower gas prices for the American people. Some of these steps have been:

Cracking down on oil price gouging, which was opposed by 140 Republicans the first time and 145 Republicans the second time, including all the Republican leadership.

The Democrats in the House proposed ``use it or lose it'' for oil companies holding permits and not drilling. There are 68 million acres that are available for lease right now and to be drilled upon. That use-it-or-lose-it provision that was sponsored by House Democrats was opposed by 176 Republicans.

The motion to hold OPEC accountable was opposed by 67 Republicans the first time and by 82 Republicans the second time, including most of the Republican leadership.

The proposal repealing subsidies to profit-rich oil companies and investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency was opposed by 174 Republicans, including every member of the Republican leadership.

Increasing Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight authority to prevent manipulation of energy prices, which was in the farm bill, was opposed by 94 Republicans.

The Bush administration has vetoed or threatened to veto each and every one of these price control bills.

In addition, the Republicans have initially opposed suspending the Strategic Oil Petroleum Reserve. And while the President signed it into law, it was only after issuing veto threats.

The President vetoed the farm bill twice, which included the CFTC provisions and the historic investment in American biofuels.

I mention all these in the context of my good friend from Washington bringing up that Mr. Clinton vetoed in 1995 a bill that was put forward on energy. The Republican Party in this House is

still blaming President Clinton for problems 13 years after the fact when they have been in control of this House and the Presidency for the last 7\1/2\ years for the Presidency and almost 14 for this House before we took over in 2006. I think it's time for us to understand who truly has culpability with this energy crisis that is at hand today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would love to point out to the gentleman that there were a number of self-executing provisions put into bills while the current minority was in the majority in the 109th Congress. There were a total of 44 rules with self-executing provisions.

Let me read just a few examples of the self-executing rules that the Republicans did when they were in the majority just to show that this is not a unique practice:

H. Res. 75, the rule on H.R. 418, the REAL ID bill, self-executed major changes in the bill to gain votes on the bill and the rule.

H. Res. 151, the rule for an Iraq/Afghanistan/tsunami relief bill, self-executed the totally unrelated REAL ID bill to the supplemental after final passage.

H. Res. 248, a rule on the budget resolution conference report, self- executed a new budget point of order against appropriations bills in order to get the conservative Republicans to vote for the conference report.

H. Res. 258, a rule on the conference report on the Iraq/Afghanistan/ tsunami emergency supplemental, contained a self-executing provision that authorized the Judiciary Committee to file a supplemental report on an extremely controversial report that had grossly mischaracterized votes taking place in the Judiciary Committee markup.

H. Res. 351, one rule, provided for separate consideration of four OSHA bills, each under a closed rule, and then self-executed language for two of the bills adopting the committee-reported substitutes. The rule also had a self-executing provision that combined all four bills into one text after passage of each bill separately.

H. Res. 365, a State Department authorization rule, self-executed an amendment that struck a section of the bill.

H. Res. 369, the PATRIOT Act reauthorization rule, made in order an entirely new substitute as base text.

H. Res. 387, a China trade rights enforcement rule, self-executed a new text that was considered under a closed rule.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that my colleagues doth protest too much.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to observe once again that this Congress has approved and authorized 66 million acres for exploration and leasing throughout this country. Now, that may be hard for some folks to visualize that amount of property, so let's talk about it in something that people understand, the size of States.

Sixty-six million acres is virtually the size of New England, including New Jersey and Maryland and Delaware. That is the size of land that we have opened up to exploration. Can we do more? Possibly. Are there other alternatives? Absolutely. The Speaker this week proposed trying to bring down prices by opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That might actually bring down the cost of oil, and all we've gotten from the White House is a blanket ``absolutely not.''

Madam Speaker, there are a number of measures that this House has moved to try and bring down oil prices and bring relief to the American people. We started in our 6 for '06 with H.R. 6 that tried to bring down oil prices before it was ever even a crisis because we anticipated that this might be a problem. I would also suggest that it has been said that over 90 percent of the Bush-Cheney oil energy policy has been implemented by the prior 109th Congress and the Republican Congresses before that. Mr. Bush got 90 percent of what he wanted for American energy and we have this crisis. I submit to you what we need is a change at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to try and regain energy independence and with a change there we may just do that.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

We have no more speakers.

I am, Madam Speaker.

I would just like to clarify for my colleague from Washington. Once again, he sort of mischaracterized what is happening in the House of Representatives with regard to the work that we are doing to lower gas prices.

I would invite the gentleman to join me in the Ag Committee as I leave this chamber today and go to hearings that will be going on all afternoon in the Ag Committee to get to the bottom of the trading issues that might be leading to increased speculatory problems that are possibly causing increased gas prices and the hearings that we are going to have in the Ag Committee all day tomorrow with regard to the same subject. There are a number of us that will be working very hard the next 2 days to try and resolve to get to the bottom of this crisis.

Madam Speaker, I want to refer back to the bill at hand. We have gotten way far afield of what the topic was of discussion for this rule, and that is the National Trail System Act. That act was put in place 40 years ago to provide for the conservation of historic and culturally significant areas.

I think there is no more deserving historic designation than the one commemorating our Nation's struggle for independence. The bill that we are talking about deserves strong support by all Members of the floor. It's a good bill done by the Natural Resources Committee and chairman, Mr. Rahall, bringing it to the floor. I would urge that we support it heartily.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

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

Amendment to H. Res. 1317 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2208) to provide for a

standby loan program for certain coal-to-liquid projects. All

points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall

be considered as read. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one

hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy

and Commerce, and the chairman and ranking member of the

Committee on Science and Technology; and (2) an amendment in

the nature of a substitute if offered by Representative

Dingell of Michigan or his designee, which shall be

considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40

minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and

an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, last week on July 4, our country celebrated its 232nd birthday, and this week the liberal majority in the House of Representatives marks the worst record in our country's entire history when it comes to allowing open debate, following the rules, treating each Member with respect, and acting in an honest way.

When control of the U.S. House changed a year ago last January, Democrat leaders promised, they promised, Madam Speaker, the American people that they would run the most open and honest House in history. They've not

kept that promise. In fact, they've done the exact opposite of what they promised the American people.

Democrats have passed, to date, 59 closed rules, rules that prevent every single Representative from even being allowed to offer an amendment on the House floor. There are no amendments, Madam Speaker, allowed under a closed rule, as you know. That means open deliberation is nonexistent, and the bill is just forced through the House.

These 59 closed rules are more than any Congress in the history of the United States, and every time we have a closed rule in the future, and we will, this liberal Congress will be setting a new record.

The rule that the House is currently debating allows only two amendments to be offered by just two Members of the House. It closes off any opportunity for the other 433 Representatives to come to the floor and offer an amendment to modify or improve this legislation.

Even more egregious is the fact that the Rules Committee set a deadline of 10 a.m. last Tuesday for Members to file amendments they may wish to offer on this bill. Yet, it wasn't until 4 hours later, 2 p.m. on Tuesday, that the actual bill and report were filed in the House.

But this pales in comparison to the Rules Committee action regarding an amendment that Mr. Bishop of Utah filed actually before the 10 a.m. Tuesday deadline.

Mr. Bishop's amendment was aimed at protecting the second amendment rights of Americans along the new 600-mile trail that this bill would create. Instead of allowing Mr. Bishop to offer his amendment on the House floor, the Democrat Rules Committee took Mr. Bishop's amendment, altered it, then automatically added it to the bill without ever, ever consulting Mr. Bishop. This is not only an offense to Mr. Bishop, it is a threat to every Member in the House.

Because Democrat leaders refuse to allow open debate under an open rule on the House floor, Members have only one way to get an amendment looked at, and that is for them to offer and submit an amendment to the Rules Committee for advance review.

But now, Madam Speaker, it appears that all Members must be aware that the Rules Committee may take, co-opt, edit or otherwise pilfer and steal their amendments and ideas. Sadly, Representatives of this House may need to get a copyright on their amendments before submitting them to the Rules Committee.

Now, Madam Speaker, to many across America this may seem like legislative inside baseball or petty parliamentary quarrels. But what this is really about is that the Democrat leaders are breaking their promise to the American people to run the most open and honest House in history. Instead, they are running the most closed and unfair House in our Nation's history.

Yet, Madam Speaker, these broken promises should not distract us from the even more pressing matter on which Democrat leaders have also broken their promise. It was on April 24, 2006, that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a press release claiming that the House Democrats ``have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Two weeks later, in May 2006, Nancy Pelosi said that the Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at the pump.''

Nancy Pelosi has now been Speaker of the House for over 18 months, and this plan, this promised plan, is nowhere to be seen. Gas prices continue to set record highs, and this House has been and continues to be blocked from voting on legislation that would lower gas prices by producing more American-made energy.

Today, instead of voting on legislation to lower gas prices, the House is debating the bill to create a new 600-mile long scenic trail recognizing the Revolutionary War.

Speaker Pelosi and other liberal leaders who control this House may oppose drilling in Alaska or offshore, they may oppose more nuclear power, they may oppose hydropower dams, and they may oppose other ways of making more American-made energy--and holding these positions, of course, is their right as Members of this House--but they should not, Madam Speaker, have the right to block the House from even having a debate and a vote on this important issue.

Record gas prices are hurting Americans. It's hurting families. It's hurting seniors on fixed incomes. It's hurting college students. It's hurting small business owners and their enterprises. It's hurting schools who have to figure out how and what services to reduce to afford gasoline for their school buses. Yet these liberal leaders of this House refuse to allow an open debate on ideas to lower gas prices. They continue to block votes on drilling for oil in America that will increase supply and lower prices at the pump.

Madam Speaker, our Nation needs to invest in more nuclear power. We need to invest in more clean and renewable hydropower, as well as wind and solar energy, and we need to foster development of biofuels, hydrogen fuel cell technology, and the invention of other potential clean energy products.

Yet, Madam Speaker, we must recognize the fact that gasoline and diesel cannot be replaced overnight. New technologies and energy sources take time, sometimes years or decades to fully develop. Our economy is dependent on oil for Americans to get to work, for food to go from the farmer's field to the grocery store, to get kids to school safely and back home, to deliver the mail, to fly airplanes, to operate construction equipment, for police to patrol neighborhoods, and ambulances to transport patients.

The price of gas has an enormous impact on the lives of Americans and families in every town, in every county, in every State in this country.

Madam Speaker, I spent last week visiting school districts and small businesses throughout my central Washington district.

I listened to the heavy impacts that gas prices are having on my constituents in Yakima, Wenatchee, Cashmere, Moses Lake, Orondo, Richland, Union Gap and Pasco. Madam Speaker, the message I heard was loud and clear, that Americans are hurting because of high gas prices and this Congress needs to act. Americans can't afford a Congress that does nothing to increase the supply of American-made energy. If there is price gouging, Madam Speaker, it must be fully prosecuted. If speculators are trying to unfairly profit, we must stop them, also. And yet we must also tap into America's enormous oil and gas reserves.

We have the resources right here in this country that can increase the supply of oil and reduce the price of gasoline at the pump, but our Nation's deep reserves have been put off-limits. With the national price of gas well over $4 a gallon--and it's over $4.29 a gallon in my district--Americans can't afford this off-limits policy any longer.

Madam Speaker, consider this: Alaska's ANWR region contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil; that's more than twice the proven reserves in the State of Texas. The oceans off America's coastline contain 240 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil. Federal lands contain an estimated 31 billion barrels of oil. Simple economics tells us that the way to combat rising prices due to high demand is to increase the supply, and obviously it is to tap into these known resources. Yet proposals to increase American oil and gas production have faced years of opposition. Drilling in a tiny portion of ANWR in Alaska, for example, has been blocked since President Bill Clinton vetoed a like proposal back in 1995, and we are now paying the price.

It's time to stop saying no to solutions and start saying yes, not only to drilling for gas and oil, but to all parts of the answer, as I mentioned this previously, so let me repeat what I said earlier.

We need to license and build more American refineries. We need to expand wind, solar, hydrogen fuel cells and other new energy sources, reduce fuel blend mandates that increase costs, and invest more in nuclear and hydropower.

Now, Madam Speaker, it's interesting, some say we shouldn't bother because all of this will take years to produce results. Yet these same people claim that the answer is new Federal mandates, government control of the kind of car you want to drive and how far you can drive it, and pinning everything on the hope that a new technology breakthrough will eliminate

our dependence on oil. But Madam Speaker, that, too, takes time. But more importantly, such a course of action is not the American way, and it's a dangerous gamble that puts our economy at serious risk. We need to increase the supply of oil to decrease the price of gasoline, it's as simple as that. And we need to do it here in America. The longer we postpone producing more oil here, the longer we will pay higher gas prices.

Americans are hurting, and yet there is not a single solitary piece of legislation that this House will consider this entire week that even remotely relates to producing more American-made energy and lowering gas prices.

Americans are feeling the pain, and the liberal leaders of the House simply are not listening. They not only do nothing to help, but they block every attempt made to bring legislation to the floor that would help lower gas prices.

So, Madam Speaker, once again, I will attempt this morning to bring energy legislation to the House floor for debate and vote. If my colleagues will join me in defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow a debate and vote on legislation that will help produce more American-made energy. The House apparently has time to debate the creation of the 600-mile trail about the Revolutionary War, so let's make time for the House to vote on solutions to lower gas prices.

Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my good friend from California mentioned CAFE standards as one solution to the problem. CAFE standards, by a law that was passed here, would not take place until 2020. We can drill and produce in ANWR before 2020.

My friend also said that I made a litany of accusations and that the facts don't match the rhetoric. Well, the fact is--and he didn't refute the fact--that we've had 59 closed rules, and that is unrefutable. And I also mentioned that there was not an energy bill on the floor of the House this week; that is also irrefutable.

Madam Speaker, I want to yield 4 minutes to a good friend from Utah, a former member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Bishop.

Madam Speaker, we acknowledge that there is a practice of self-executing rules. That's been done. Principally they are done, however, on technical grounds but admittedly they are done on substantive pieces of legislation. But the fact is already in this Congress there have been more self-executed amendments by this Democrat Rules Committee than there was in the entire last Congress. Already. And we still have 6 months to go before this session is over.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend from California, the gentleman from

the Sacramento area, the former attorney general, Mr. Lungren.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Madam Speaker, can I inquire of my friend from California if he has any more speakers, or he is prepared to close?

The gentleman is prepared to close if I close?

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering gas prices. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow the House to consider a bill that will help produce more American-made energy, H.R. 2208, introduced by Mr. Boucher of Virginia and Mr. Shimkus of Illinois, the cosponsors of that bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, this House is on a course to complete its work by early this afternoon. The only legislation the House is even considering is this bill to consider a 600-mile scenic trail about the Revolutionary War. Tomorrow, the House won't even be in session. The House was originally scheduled to be in session, working tomorrow, but that was canceled yesterday.

The Democrat leaders of this House are choosing to do nothing for a day and a half, today and tomorrow, that was scheduled, and of course, do nothing about gas prices. They decided to just stop working and go home early rather than vote on legislation to lower gas prices by producing more American-made energy.

The House needs to confront the skyrocketing price of gasoline. It shouldn't be clocking out early and calling it a week. It's time right now for Congress to act on gas prices.

So, once again, Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can amend the rule to take up serious legislation, bipartisan legislation, to bring down gas prices at the pump.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Over the July 4th holiday, my wife and I rented the movie 1776. It's one of my favorite ones. It has some historical accuracy, a lot of historical inaccuracies, but it's a fun movie.

In the exposition of that, to show John Adams's frustration at Congress at that time, he was called down to vote on a motion by Josiah Bartlett of New Hampshire, which is an effort that says that during the hostilities in which they are in, they shall dissuade any kind of dissipation, any extravagances, any gambling, or any horse racing. That is when John Adams explodes and goes out on the street, with the classic lines in his opening song, which says about Congress in 1776: We piddle, twiddle, and resolve not one--I can't use a swear word here, but it's in there--not one thing do we solve.

Now, the issue at hand in 1776 in Philadelphia was independence. They had already been fighting for a year. They had raised an army and appointed George Washington to do battle. Yet, they still refused to talk about the key sole issue of the day, which was independence. Instead, they talked about everything else, every small, piddly idea they could come up with, rather than coming to the core. And that was John Adams's frustration with that.

As I was watching that movie, I thought, Gee, that is exactly like Congress today. We are doing the same thing.

I have to admit that I have a sense of frustration with congressional leadership. It's a 4-hour flight for me to come back here. Yet, every week I have been coming back on that 4-hour flight to deal with non- issues. We haven't dealt with homeland security, we haven't dealt with the appropriations, we haven't dealt with energy issues.

Instead, the key issue of this week is to federalize a trail that already exists, that is controlled by local governments, and there is absolutely nothing, nothing the Federal Government can do on this trail that couldn't be accomplished by States and local governments through a well-written interlocal cooperation agreement.

The sponsor does not live in the area of this trail. It encompasses nine States. Not all of the Members of Congress who are impacted either in the trail area or abutting the trail area are cosponsors.

The other side cannot even refute how many people understand or know that this trail is going to be impacting their lives. The estimates we have are less than 10 percent are understanding about this.

Yet, the key issue is not necessarily the trail, because it's already there. The key issue is who will be making decisions in the future about this trail. If it were possible that everyone involved in this particular trail was happy about it, they liked the idea, they wanted it, but at some future date would like to make a decision about that trail, by passing this bill, all of a sudden we change the process and the place of that decision from localities back here to Washington.

It's about power, it's about where do you actually make decisions in America. It's about empowerment of individuals. This bill simply takes the decision-making process away from localities and puts it back here in Washington, where we have too many decision-making powers that we are already avoiding as is.

They did take one amendment of mine and they eviscerated it, an amendment that dealt with second amendment rights, an amendment that dealt with all second amendment rights. Yet, the issue at hand that is now part of the underlying bill through a self-executing rule only deals with hunting, not all second amendment rights, which was the goal and the idea and what should have been in place, which simply means that if I'm hunting, I'm okay on this trail. If I'm trying to protect myself, I'm not. If a mugger tries to attack me, I cannot protect myself unless first I'm trying to hunt the mugger. Or if a moose is shot by me, I better shoot it in the posterior because if a moose is charging me, no longer is that hunting, that is now self-defense, and that is not allowed with the amendment that came in here.

It is simply an absurdity of situations, and it's not an unrealistic absurdity. Even the Washington Post did a recent article about serial killers along the Appalachian Trail. It is not a false fear in there, it's a realistic fear. It's a realistic fear that will be noted that when the Democrats made this self-executing rule, they did not defend all of the second amendment, only the so-called hunting rights, which is not, not the purpose of the second amendment.

But this is now simply the only bill that we will have of significance today.

It's basically the crux of this entire week, which simply means Democratic leaders don't want to address other issues. Specifically, energy issues. There is no issue of comprehensive policy of what we will be doing to address the energy crisis the Americans are facing. The appropriations process has simply shut down over the potential of doing that.

So I fly back for 4 hours to come back here last week to talk about banning pet monkeys from crossing State lines. The week before, about the Chesapeake Bay. This week, I came back here so we could talk about a trail.

Mr. Chairman, in all due sincerity, this is nothing but legislative filler. We are not dealing with the real issues that affect people or should be affecting this Congress, we are dealing with the small stuff, the triviality, the legislative minutia. This is like junk food, like cotton candy. It's there. It's fluffy, it's airy. But it is not filling and has no fiber. It gives the illusion of activity, but in essence we are dealing with a cotton candy agenda.

We have in essence a Democratic de facto filibuster against energy, against ever talking about it in any way, shape, or form. Instead, we have a trail. A trail that already exists, a trail that would be federalized, a trail that encompasses more power back here in Washington, instead of allowing people to help make decisions for themselves.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) such time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for starting out here with my old profession as a teacher coming out. But the gentleman from Connecticut and a couple of others on this floor have said some things that I think bear discussion simply as a review on the fundamentals of how legislative government works around here.

Outside in the hallway we have the distinguished Speakers. Most of them are the most recent ones, but there are the four that I always consider to be the four great speakers of this House, one of whom was Thomas Bracken Reed, who is the one that transformed this House from a minority body into a majority body. He is the one who determined, in fact he said: If the tyranny of the majority is harsh, the tyranny of the minority is unendurable. And he was the one who prohibited the practice of calling a roll call and then not allowing people to say ``here''; therefore, not having a quorum to conduct business. He forced the counting of a roll call, which made this from that time on a majoritarian body.

The problem we have over in the Senate is that has never been a majoritarian body; it will always be a minority body. It takes 60 votes to cut off the debate and move onward.

So even though today the Democrats have the leadership positions in both the House and the Senate, I would never jump to the conclusion or the inaccuracy of saying that the Democrats control Congress because the Democrats will not control the Senate until they have at least 60 votes there. It is a minority body.

In like manner, the conversation that Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years and didn't do anything has the same problem because in none of those 12 years did Republicans have 60 votes in the Senate. And, therefore, a minority body was actually in control.

We have had split government. We will probably always have some form of split government in that respect. But to assume that because there was leadership of both parties is not to assume the same basic core that goes along with that factor. And, indeed, over the last 5 to 10 to 12 years, there has been a great deal of energy discussion from this body, and when Republicans were in control of this body, there was a great deal of legislation dealing with energy that was passed in this body only to be prohibited from going through the entire process because this majoritarian body could pass something that the minority- controlled body on the other side could not do.

I appreciate the distinguished chairman from West Virginia of our committee speaking so passionately, especially about coal. I share that passion. We have a great deal of coal in my State. The only difference between the two is, unfortunately, the coal in the State of West Virginia is on private property.

I was so impressed when the chairman had a bill that dealt with wilderness and the coal companies were there to advocate for wilderness because it did not impact them. They were on private property.

In the State of Utah and much of the West, we have the exact opposite problem; the coal is found on public lands. And so I appreciate his commitment to the concept of coal, and even though it may indeed be a form of competition at some time in the future, I take his words as a commitment to try to work forward to try and free up the coal in the West that is on public lands so it can all be part of the energy solution that we are looking for in this Nation.

You know, we are talking about a bill that dealt with Washington. Washington led the troops in an era where he simply was out of ammunition. He had the opportunity of failing, but he did not allow it to be so because the American spirit worked out the details and then worked out the process so he overcame those competitions, those difficulties. The United States today is in the same situation. We are out of energy ammunition, and it is a significant problem for those who are on fixed incomes, the poor and the middle class. If you are rich, this energy problem which we face is merely an annoyance. If you are on a fixed income or a limited income, or if you are poor or middle class, then it becomes a significant life situation so that every dollar that they no longer can spend, that they now have to spend to energy on consumption, is a dollar that they can't spent on such luxuries as Hamburger Helper.

In this particular bill the Democrats accepted an amendment from one of the great young Republican freshmen from Virginia, Mr. Wittman. It is an amendment that is still part of this bill that aims to protect energy production and transmission in this particular trail system. It is a microcosm. It is

the appropriate thing to do. The real question then is why not? Why not do this same thing not just in this trail bill, but throughout this entire country so we can honor and protect to do that.

Mr. Chairman, what we are dealing with now is simply the concept of the future of where we are going. We can either find scapegoats or we can find solutions. I think it is time that both sides of the aisle look very carefully at trying to find solutions.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, while this legislation prohibits the use of eminent domain by the Federal Government, it does not prohibit State or local governments from doing the same thing, in essence doing the same dirty work. So my amendment is very simple and clear. It prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from accepting lands from State and local governments that were acquired through eminent domain to expand this particular trail.

We are talking about George Washington and the Revolution. I think it is fitting to remember how strongly George Washington felt about ensuring private property and that his soldiers respected the property of civilians, even if they were a Tory sympathizer. He gave orders that forbid looting even though plunder was the norm of the time. And even though his men were hungry and dressed in rags, it is remarkable that in so desperate a situation with such a noble cause for which he was fighting, he imposed on his side such a high standard of conduct and a high respect of individual priority property rights.

In our world, the post-Kelo decision world, we cannot allow our constituents to fall victim to any abuse of power from any level of government that disproportionately attacks them, sometimes even disproportionately attacks those on the lowest level of our economic scales.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a favorable vote to an amendment that simply says that the Federal Government will not accept land that is taken by eminent domain.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Today, we are considering H.R. 1286, legislation introduced by our colleague, Representative Maurice Hinchey of New York. I might also add that it was some 9 years ago that the initial study on this legislation was initiated by our colleague from Connecticut, Mr. John Larson, and I wish to commend his leadership, as well as Mr. Hinchey's leadership on the pending bill.

The pending legislation will designate a National Historic Trail, tracing the routes taken in 1781 by the armies of General George Washington and French Count Rochambeau on their march from New England to face the British Army at Yorktown, Virginia.

The story of this trail is a fascinating piece of our history. The French Army, after wintering in Newport, Rhode Island, marched southwest in early July to join General Washington and his troops at Phillipsburg, New York. On August 18, the soldiers, and their provisions and armaments, started to slip away from Philipsburg.

The troops and their supplies traveled 600 miles over a network of strategic roads and waterways through New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the future District of Columbia, and Virginia. They reached Williamsburg in late September, 1781.

With a French fleet in the Chesapeake, blocking British reinforcements from New York or a sea escape for Cornwallis' troops, Washington and Rochambeau laid siege to Cornwallis' army at Yorktown. Three weeks later, on October 19, 1781, the British troops laid down their arms.

I would note that when we bring forth legislation of this nature, concerns have been raised in some corridors regarding any potential impacts on private property rights. I can assure this Committee that most of this trail follows public roads or crosses public lands. While the historic route does cross some private lands, the National Park Service does not propose or anticipate any acquisition of private lands.

I would also point out that nothing in the National Trails System circumvents the authority of the States over hunting and fishing. However, to make this matter crystal clear, the rule governing debate over the pending measure adopted an amendment which reads as follows. Again, the rule governing debate over the pending measure adopted an amendment which reads as follows:

``Nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping, and recreational shooting. Nothing in this act shall be construed as limiting access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting.''

I would say this language covers all the bases. Nothing in the pending measure in any way, shape, or form supercedes the authority of the States over hunting, fishing, trapping, and shooting.

This is essentially the same language this body adopted last April by a vote of 416-5 during consideration of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, per an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

I would close by noting that the trail designated by this bill follows the recommendations of a National Park Service study, and the Bush administration supports this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

For some time now, the Democrats on this side have been watching our colleagues on the other side of the aisle time after time on bill after bill come to the floor and defend multinational oil conglomerates, and now they claim to be the friends of coal as well.

My colleague from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) gave us a great presentation on coal-to-liquids, as has been done a number of times, and there is not much I can disagree with in his presentation about the coal-to- liquids. But it is, and the fact of the matter is, that it is pure and simple that it is the oil industry and their defenders here in the Congress that have time and time again undermined the viability of a true alternative fuels industry in this country. And let me back that up by example.

In the 1940s, the Synthetic Liquids Fuels Act passed the Congress and appropriated over $80 million for research and production. By the 1950s, America was producing thousands of gallons of synthetic gasoline a day at a test plant in Missouri. But the discovery of cheap oil combined with a lobbying effort by the oil industry caused the government to abandon its synthetic fuel research.

Let's hark back to the 1970s and that oil crisis that we all faced and the long gasoline lines. The Federal Government briefly pursued synthetic fuel production. But once again, when the price of oil receded, interest in coal-derived fuels faded. And here we are again, with oil prices and talk of synthetic fuels both on the rise.

The Congress has a duty, a responsibility to the American people to do much more than simply coddle the oil industry and let history repeat itself. We also need to do more to discourage foreign oil cartels from temporarily manipulating oil prices for the sole purpose of destroying a competitive domestic fuel source.

And if my friends on the other side of the aisle were serious about coal, they would be pressuring this White House to back away, the two oil men in charge, to back away from its cozy relationship with those cartels. Instead, they want to roll over and give Big Oil everything it wants, no strings attached.

Furthermore, the Republican-led Congress had 6 years under the Bush administration to go about making meaningful contributions to clean coal and coal-to-liquids fuels. If Republicans in Congress were truly serious about producing the next generation of these technologies, then we would already be seeing these technologies coming to light today and the capabilities thereof.

I would remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that in 2000, President Bush while running for office pledged to spend $2 billion over 10 years for a clean coal technology program, a program that the Democrats initiated in the 1980s. He never made good on that promise and allowed in only about half of the promised money while claiming credit for the full pledge.

During its tenure in leadership of the Congress, the Republican Party did nothing to buck the President's low balling for clean coal programs. Again and again, the President's party voted for his budgets to cut funds for clean coal research.

Now, if the other side were truly serious about supporting coal, they would have added funding to clean coal budgets and they would have done more to put coal on a more even footing with oil and gas. They did not, and now we are seeing the consequences of high energy prices that Americans are experiencing.

So the fact of the matter is that the energy challenges that our Nation faces demand more than rhetorical battles on the floor of this body. Certainly our constituents would agree, and they are feeling the energy pinch and deserve much better.

We need to put our energies into finding common ground to achieve real workable solutions to our energy problems. And towards that end, we need to be working on our energy challenge from two ends at the same time: The environmental end and the supply end. If we take that approach, then we can build a viable coal-to-liquids industry.

Unfortunately, too much of the talk in this body in recent weeks has been focused only on supply, and not enough of it has considered the environmental hurdles that we face.

As worldwide pressure mounts to address carbon emissions, the coal- to-liquids industry recognizes that to be economically successful, it must also be environmentally successful. But this administration has done nothing to help the coal industry address the environmental side of this energy challenge. So we need to invest more in environmental research and development, something that Democrats have been arguing for, but that our Republican colleagues during their 12 years in control of Congress have continually relegated to the back burners.

By failing to lay the environmental foundations for coal's future, this administration has opened the opportunity for foreign nations, most notably China, to bolster their coal fuels industry, putting our own Nation's future fuel production and economy at a disadvantage. This administration has failed to invest in new emissions technologies, technologies that we can use here and we can sell overseas; and, as a result, we risk watching worldwide emissions grow unchecked as we become more and more beholden to yet another set of foreign producers for our fuel, with China at the very lead.

So, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues on the other side who keep coming to the floor on bill after bill and speaking about the energy crunch, which is indeed on the uppermost of every American's mind today and the high price of gas, that we do need to address this in a bipartisan way and in a way that uses all of our domestic sources of energy and in a way that does not coddle one domestic energy fuel over all others, especially when that energy fuel is trying for its own competitive advantages to put other domestic sources of energy at a disadvantage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses a concern that is truly far beyond the likely impact of this bill. The bill expressly limits Federal condemnation of land for the trail which is all that should concern us here and the National Park Service. This amendment seems to be based on the assumption that the Federal Government in some smoke-filled back

room conspiracy-type of mind-set is going to conspire with State or local governments to have them condemn land and then turn it over to the Federal government.

First of all, I don't believe this happens often, if ever. We have really reached an extreme level of detail here where we have to legislate out to the far corners of what anybody might imagine might some day happen. But for the sake of argument, let's say that a State does decide to condemn land and pay the owner for his property. Such a decision will be up to the State or local government acting in what that unit of government believes to be the best interest of its citizens. Whether the State or local government subsequently conveys the land to the Federal Government is irrelevant.

And I might add, just for the record, this is not a trail like the Appalachian Trail which cuts across country and private property, it is more a series of signs like those gray historic markers you see along roads all over the country. Most of the route travels along public highways and roads. No private landowner will be forced to let tourists on their land, and the NPS anticipates no Federal acquisition at all.

But nevertheless, in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation and all that I have just said, we are willing to accept this amendment. We think that it is unnecessary, but we are willing to accept it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in evaluating this amendment, I would ask that Members first read section 3 of the underlying bill which states, ``Nothing in this Act shall prohibit or hinder the development, production, conveyance, or transmission of energy.'' So by its own terms, H.R. 1286 will have no impact whatsoever on energy production.

The Pearce amendment would require the Secretary to assess the impact this trail designation will have on energy production. In other words, the Pearce amendment would require the Secretary to study impacts that would never exist. That's similar to a requirement that the secretary study the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. The bill says there will be no impacts, so studying them is impossible. Such a report would read in its entirety, ``We find no impacts on energy production because the bill prohibits them.'' Period. The end.

It is my hope that this amendment is simply a platform, and I think the sponsor of it has already used it for that to restate some of their talking points on energy production. It's my hope that no one could ever seriously suggest assessing the energy resources that might lie under George Washington's front lawn.

The first part of this amendment is completely unnecessary because the underlying language in the bill makes impacts on energy production a non-issue. The second part of this amendment contemplates oil rigs and wind farms in places that we would never allow them to be built.

So once again, as with the previous amendment, this amendment is not necessary. Therefore, I will not object to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to illustrate the importance of this issue which we are dealing with here today and an issue in which I rise in strong support. It is a bipartisan effort to implement the National Park Service's study that Congress mandated back in the 106th Congress. It's an issue that has been pending for some time.

The National Park Service study recommended that we designate as a National Historic Trail this 600-mile route used by the allied armies under General George Washington and French Count Rochambeau in their epic march that led to the victory at Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781, and the independence of the United States of America.

The trail travels mostly along existing roads, throughways, and publicly navigable waters from Rhode Island down to Yorktown, Virginia. Designating the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route as a National Historic Trail will help spur a greater understanding of our shared history and will help illuminate the important battle of a young country and its French allies against the rule of King George.

I'd like to thank especially Chairmen Rahall and Grijalva for moving this legislation through the hearing and markup process in the Natural Resources Committee. I greatly appreciate their support and assistance and that of their very capable staff.

This designation is important because we have identified the scope of resources that we need to more effectively commemorate this historic event. In particular, I am thrilled that the expanded involvement of the National Park Service to preserve and interpret the route will highlight to Americans, young and old, our earliest struggles as a country for our independent rule on behalf of all of the people of our country.

The designation also calls for the involvement of State and local historic organizations interested in commemorating the heritage of the American Revolution, with a particular focus on the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia. It was on the 16th of December, 1999, that the Revolutionary War enthusiasts supporting a National Historic Trail designation of the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route organized themselves at the Washington headquarters in Newburgh, New York.

They advocated for the route essentially defined by the march taken by the Continental Army of General George Washington and by the French Army of Count Rochambeau on their way to their ultimate victory over British forces under the command of Major General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781. The route also included the march of the French Army in 1782 as it returned back north up to Boston.

In a 1999 interview with the historical magazine ``American Heritage,'' renowned author David McCullough claimed that ``as you are working on the Revolutionary War, as I am doing now, you realize what the French did for us. We wouldn't have a country if it weren't for them,'' David McCullough said. For that America will be forever grateful for the army led by Rochambeau, and this trail will significantly symbolize our appreciation and dedication to our shared history.

I would like to thank all of the Revolutionary War enthusiasts, the National Park Service, and the many Members of Congress whose districts particularly host the route who have cosponsored this legislation. All of these participants helped make this designation possible. It is a designation that will raise to a much greater level the quality of heritage preservation all along the route by providing signage and other commemorative work directed toward linking the Allied encampments along the Revolutionary march with a self-guided auto route, auxiliary hiking trails and appropriate historical signs.

This commemorates one of the most significant events in the history of the United States of America. It is our major victory in the Revolutionary War, which led to the independence of our country, the foundation of our Constitution, the creation of the Bill of Rights, and the leadership that we have provided for the following centuries around the world. I am very much in support of this bill. I hope that every Member of this House of Representatives will vote for it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

I yield 1 additional minute, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize how the Members on this side of the aisle are completely dedicated to energy independence and doing everything that is possible to achieve that objective. We did much to try to achieve it during the 12 years that our friends on the other side of the aisle held the majority. But they were not interested at all in achieving that objective, or moving forward in any significant way, not even in any real way.

One of first things that we did when we achieved the majority here last year was to pass a very substantial energy independence bill which moves us strongly in that direction. Not as strongly as we would have liked, but we had to be a little less ambitious about it because we were threatened with vetoes as well as opposition from the other side of the aisle.

But what did we manage to achieve? We managed to achieve energy efficiency for automobiles, the first time that had been done in more than three decades. The first time that had been done in more than 30 years. We achieved a great increase in energy efficiency. We wanted to make it more substantial. We wanted to go as high as 40 miles to a gallon, but the President said he would veto anything like that.

What else did we do? We moved towards creating tax incentives for the creation and purchase of other means of energy independence such as direct and indirect solar energy, and we are working very strong on trying to achieve that, in spite of the fact that the White House has said they are not in favor of it, they are opposed to that and would veto that kind of legislation.

They say that we are not in favor of drilling for our own oil off our own coast. Well, the fact of the matter is that we are not opposed to that at all. We recognize that we now have more than 150,000 wells drilled on the land owned by the people of the United States of America on public land, some of it here on dry land in the lower 48 States and up in Alaska, and the rest of it offshore, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico. That's what we understand. In addition to that, we have 68 million acres of land that has been also leased to these major oil companies but because they do not apparently want to produce any more energy because they realize that if they produce more, then the price is going to go down, they are not drilling on those 68 million acres.

So the fact of the matter is we are moving as aggressively as anyone could, as intelligently as anyone could in the direction of trying to achieve greater energy independence for our country.

Recognizing that we possess probably less than 2 percent of the known oil reserves in the world, we are doing everything we can to use that small amount of oil reserves intelligently and reasonably and in ways that are going to last our people for a long, long period of time. And we are saying to the oil companies either use it or lose it. If you are not going to use those 68 million acres of public land on which you already have leases, then give them up and let us give them to someone else. Let us lease them elsewhere. Let's have some responsible people go down and drill those wells and produce the oil we need which will drive down the price.

So don't say that anybody over here is against drilling offshore. We are very much in favor of it, and we know that they have the leases to do it, and we are doing everything that we can to press them and pressure them to live up to their obligations and responsibilities in the leasing of the public lands that they now control.