Coal Liquid Fuel Act

Madam Speaker, Lord, I don't even know where to start. I've sat here for the last 45 minutes and listened to the Blue Dogs. And I appreciate them very much because there's about 40 or so of them, I think, and they could do a lot to help us, Madam Speaker, with the energy problem. I just hope that they will stand fast.

I listened to my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Ross). And I'm on his bill because it brings about more energy independence for this country, Madam Speaker. And it's interesting that the Blue Dogs talked a lot about all the things that we have done thus far, at least that the Democrats have done thus far, the majority, Madam Speaker. And I don't even know how to start to unravel some of the facts that have been laid out here tonight. There were some facts that I agree with, but there are some facts that are very, very misunderstood, and hopefully during this hour sometime, Madam Speaker, we can put some truth into it.

It's interesting that I heard some of the Blue Dogs talking about increasing oil production. And I know that in May of 2007 there was an amendment that we passed that prohibits us from drilling shale oil, where there's two trillion barrels of oil. Two of the speakers here tonight voted for that amendment to keep us locked out of that acreage out west where the shale oil is.

And Madam Speaker, if people could see this chart, May of 2007 is when the biggest spike in the oil prices happened. And I think that's a time when the speculators saw that this Congress was not going to do anything about our own oil production. We refused to do it. And I think the speculators took great advantage of this and said this is a country that's not going to look to their own resources, they're going to be totally dependent on foreign oil, so we'll do with them as we wish.

What has happened over the past, I guess, 3 or 4 weeks is people have been calling our office and calling me, Madam Speaker, and asking me if I had signed a petition; there have been several of them on the web page about ``drill here, drill now, lower prices.'' There's petitions on there from the Sierra Club and other environmental groups about not allowing people to drill. And as I got these petitions, and especially when I was at home, Madam Speaker, one day and I saw a petition on the counter of a gas station, and I guess the owner of the station had it there to give people something to do rather than talk bad to him about the price of gas, but it was a petition that said, ``Sign here if you want to lower gas prices.'' And so I came up with an idea that what I would do is start a petition, Madam Speaker, in this House where the American people could know how their Congress person felt about increasing the oil production in this country to lower their price that they were paying for gas at the pump. And so we came up with this very simple thing. In fact, there is no legislation attached to this, there is no discharge petition, there is just a simple statement where Members of Congress can make a statement to their constituents, Madam Speaker, much like our constituents have been making their thoughts known to us by signing these petitions online and at local convenience stores. This simply says, ``American energy solutions for lower gas prices. Bring onshore oil online. Bring deep water oil online. And bring new refineries online.''

And I put everybody's district, all 435 and the seven delegates that we have that represent territories of the United States. It gave people the opportunity to sign. And it simply says, ``I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans.'' And I don't care if it's the production of biodiesel fuel, biomass, oil, whatever it is, to make us less dependent on foreign oil.

And we've listened to a lot of the Blue Dogs tonight, but none of those Blue Dogs have signed this petition. And Madam Speaker, I have often learned in life that your walk has to match your talk. And some people say, well, this is just a political statement. It's not a political statement at all. We've had some Republicans sign it, we've had some not sign it. We've had some Democrats sign it, we've had some Democrats not sign it.

If you want to know if your Member has signed it, you can go to House.gov/westmoreland. And on that page we have those that have signed it and those that have refused to sign it. If you don't see their name in either spot, then we're going to take it that they did want to sign it, we've just not had a chance to talk to them personally, Madam Speaker.

But we believe that your walk should match your talk. And so we do have some Democrats on there, some people--Neil Abercrombie from Hawaii, a great leader, we have Mr. Cazayoux from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon from Louisiana, some from Texas--that are on here because they believe that we need to increase our oil production to lower the gas prices, and we do. That's just a fact. We heard about all these biodiesel plants, and those are great. But you know what? Until we start using our own natural resources--we see what the speculators did when we voted not to.

Now, oil came down $4 a barrel. It came down, and I understand one of the reasons it came down is because Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, Madam Speaker, sent a letter to the President saying we need to get into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a reserve of our petroleum that we have, millions of barrels of oil that we would have in an emergency, in a crisis, in a disaster. She wants to release that, which means to me, Madam Speaker, that she realizes that we need more oil, we need more production. But because of the radical environmentalists that have controlled the majority, or at least influenced the majority greatly, they cannot afford to do what we need to do politically; it's not politically correct for them.

I think that the American people, Madam Speaker, are tired of us in this body being politically correct. They just simply want us to do what's right, the things that we swore, took an oath that we would do, and that is to protect the American people.

And as the Blue Dogs said tonight, this is not just an economic policy, this is a national security interest that we have. And we've got to own up to our responsibility and make sure that we live up to the challenges that our constituents have given us by electing us to this body. We have got to act. We've got to get out of the fetal position, and we've got to act and do some things that will bring about some relief at the pump.

A lot of them in the past 45 minutes or the last hour or so have talked about all the great things we've done. Well, with all the bills that have been passed, I haven't noticed the price of gas coming down one dime. It's almost like putting lipstick on a pig. You can make it look good, but it's only going to be a pig. So we can make things look good, we can make things look like we're doing something, but all we're doing is just making a nice window for people to view at. It's time that we got down to some hard decisions. And there are some hard decisions that have got to be made.

And there are things that we are doing. We have put up discharge petitions--and I say ``we,'' I'm talking about the minority party--but they're there for everybody to sign. The week of June 9, we put a discharge petition, ``No More Excuse Energy Act of 2007.'' What that would do is it would reduce the price of gasoline by opening new American oil refineries, investing in clean energy sources such as wind, nuclear, capturing carbon dioxide, and making available more home-grown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the Arctic Energy Slope and America's deep-sea energy reserves. Now, what that takes is 218 Members to sign that discharge petition. We hear a lot of talk, but we don't see a walk.

The week of June 16, H.R. 2279, Madam Speaker, Expand American Refining Capability of Closed Military Installations. It would reduce the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process--which in 2005 was passed by a Republican Congress and later stripped out by the new majority--and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of siting new and reliable American refineries. A lot of people, Madam Speaker, might not realize that we import refined gasoline of almost seven billion gallons a year, almost the same amount of diesel fuel, Madam Speaker, that we bring into this country because we do not have the refining capabilities. Not a refinery has been built since 1978.

The week of June 23 it was H.R. 5656, the Repeal of the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels; reduce the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like shale oil, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid technology.

Do you realize in the energy bill, Madam Speaker, that was passed by this majority, that Federal agencies cannot use these alternative fuels? We heard a lot tonight from the Blue Dogs about using alternative fuels, increasing alternative fuels, but yet we will not let our agencies use it.

The week of July 7, this week, H.R. 2208, Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act, which, Madam Speaker, happens to be authored by a Democrat, reduces the price of gasoline by encouraging the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology, authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation fuel.

There shouldn't be one Member of this body not on that discharge petition to say let our oil go.

The week of July 14, we are going to have H.R. 2493, Fuel Mandate Reduction Act of 2007. It will reduce the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend requirements and onerous government mandates if they contribute to unfavorable gas prices. Right now part of the problem that we have with the high gas prices in areas in California and other cities that don't meet the attainment is the boutique fuels that we have.

The week of July 21 brings H.R. 6107, the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act. It will reduce the price of gasoline by opening the Arctic energy slope to environmentally sensitive American energy exploration. The development footprint will be limited to 1/100 of 1 percent of the refuge, and revenue received from the new leases would be invested in a long-term alternative energy trust fund.

The week of July 28, right before we go on the August recess, H.R. 6108, Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2008, reduces the price of gasoline by enabling the United States to responsibly explore its own deep ocean to produce American energy. The bill would grant coastal States the authority to keep exploration 100 miles from their coastlines, and it would also allow States to share in the revenues received. As Mr. Cazayoux said today, it helps Louisiana protect their vital coastline and all the great natural resources that they have there.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield to my friend Mr. Roskam to hear his comments.

I thank you for your comments. And just a couple of points that you made about the amount of money that we give to some of the people who are not friendly to us, even in our own hemisphere, we give Hugo Chavez $170 million a day.

I hear the other side complain about what Big Oil makes, and I don't know.

Big Oil, according to the records and stuff I read, make about a 10 percent profit, and I am not saying if that's good or bad for their business. But what do they think Mr. Chavez is making off of $170 million of U.S. dollars every day? And, listen, he is not our friend.

And the other thing that the gentleman has brought up is a great point, and we heard it today and I heard it on the floor earlier today that we need to all work together. Well, I agree we do need to all work together. But when the majority party brings the energy bills to the floor, some under suspension, when there's only 20 percent of debate on each side, no amendments, no committee hearings, no subcommittee hearing, no regular process, how are we all working together, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, you know if we are going to all work together, if we're going to all be part of the process, if all the people in this country--this is a republic. It is a representative form of government. And if I don't have an opportunity to amend or give input into the process, my people are shut out of the process. If there are no amendments, nobody on this side of the aisle and many people on this side of the aisle, the people they represent are shut out of the process.

So let's do all come together. Let's have an energy bill on the floor that can work, this open rule. We can have 435 plus the 7 delegates offer changes, offer solutions, as Mr. Roskam just did, about the people that have come up with solutions in his district; as Mr. Scott did previously about the biofuel in his district. We all have good ideas, but when we are shut out of the system, you can't work together. And I don't know what part of that the majority doesn't understand.

I would like to now yield to my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

I want to thank my colleague from Georgia. That was a great test. I think anybody, anybody in the United States should be able to pass that test, Dr. Gingrey. I am glad you put it up, because that simplified it.

This is something, this little simple petition, I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans; 435 lines. So far, we have 191 signatures. This is just telling the American people we are ready to do all of the above. If you want to find out if your Member has signed this simple petition, much like the petitions that many of these people have signed, Mr. Speaker, that are listening to us, have gone on the Internet and signed petitions saying, Hey, drill here, drill now, lower our prices, and bring the U.S. back to being dependent--back from being dependent on foreign oil, go to House.gov/westmoreland and you will find out if your Member has signed, refused to sign, or is in the category of not making a decision because, Mr. Speaker, I feel like the American people are going to have to make the majority party understand that they want some change.

See, in April of 2006, then minority leader, now Speaker Pelosi made a statement that the Democrats had a plan. They had a commonsense solution to the skyrocketing price of gas. Of course, gas was about $2.05 then. So we are still waiting on that solution. We are still waiting on that commonsense plan. It hasn't been unveiled yet.

Although, in January of 2007, H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act, Dr. Gingrey, was passed in this House. The Republicans called it the ``no energy'' policy. I will read you some of the key words. This was a 300-something page bill. Crude oil was mentioned five times in that bill. Mr. Speaker, gasoline was mentioned 12 times. Exploratory drilling was mentioned twice in a 316-page bill about energy independence.

Offshore drilling was mentioned zero; domestic drilling, zero; domestic oil, zero; domestic gas, zero; domestic fuel, zero; domestic petroleum, zero. Gas price or gas prices, zero. Common sense, zero.

Now what was mentioned was greenhouse, 103 times. Green building was mentioned 101 times; ecosystem, 24 times; climate change, 18 times; regulation, 98 times; environmental, 160 times; geothermal, 94 times; renewable, 333 times; swimming pool, 47 times, because there was a swimming pool safety bill in the Energy Independence and Security Act.

Lamp, CFL, the new fluorescent lamps, 350 times. Three-hundred fifty times. Contains mercury. Only produced in China. We can't even dispose of it. If you drop one, you need to put on a mask, evacuate the house, let it air out until you can clean up a broken light bulb.

This was the commonsense plan, I hope not, that then Speaker Pelosi, then Minority Leader Pelosi was talking about bringing up, because gas has almost doubled, or more; maybe doubled when this commonsense plan came out.

But I want to read you one thing before I yield to my friend from Illinois. This was a statement made on January 18, 2007, the day, Mr. Speaker, this bill was passed. It says, ``It is sad to see the Republicans come to this. Now, they laughably say that this will lead to higher prices.'' That was Mr. Peter DeFazio from Oregon on how the Democrat's 2007 energy bill would affect gas prices. ``It is sad to see the Republicans come to this. Now, they laughably say this will lead to higher prices.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd hate to say this, and I hate to say this, but we were right. It has led to higher prices. It has led to oil going out the roof because now the speculators in this world know that we, as a country, are not going to become energy independent as long as the leadership continues the course that they are on right now.

I'd like to yield to my friend from Illinois, a great leader in the energy battle and somebody that I think has made some real movement in the policy here, and that's Mr. Shimkus.

If you would yield for just a minute.

When these energy bills have come to the floor, have you been able to offer an amendment for some of your ideas that you have had here to present it to see if your constituency and your ideas could possibly be heard on this floor?

So what I hear you saying is we need to take the politics out of this, and we need to put people in front of power, and we need to put process in front of politics and do something that will move this country toward energy independence, rather than just staying in the fetal position, so-to-speak, that we have been in, and being held hostage by radical environmentalists who the majority may feel is a big part of their base. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Right now, one of the reasons we are not being held hostage by our enemies, the people that supply us with our oil, is because we have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If it was zero, trust me, we would have a bad time getting any oil.

With a sail on the top of it.

I am going to yield now to my classmate that we came in together, my colleague from Texas, where there are thousands of jobs every day where people go to work working in oil fields, and that is my friend Mike Conaway from the great State of Texas.

If you will yield for just a second, every bill that has been passed through here has had Davis-Bacon, which is the union pay scale, attached to everything we have passed through here. So I am sure if they pass something, if they ever did about building a refinery, I am sure Davis-Bacon would be added to it.

I understand, but I am sure it would be part of what they do.

I think it is interesting, you mentioned the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the letter that Speaker Pelosi wrote to the President. It is interesting that oil came down $4 a barrel. Now, if it will come down $4 a barrel on just a letter going to the President asking him to take the crude out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, think of what it would do if we voted in this body to drill without even sticking a drill in the ground. These speculators would run for the hills. And so I think you make a great point. And trust me, if we didn't have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we would not be getting oil from our enemies because they would know that they had us down.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we have got just a few more minutes here, let me just say this. I think what you have heard tonight is that this is an all-of-the-above solution. It is all of the above. But a very important part of this is this country producing oil, to increase our oil production.

Rahm Emanuel on TV said, yes, increasing oil production is part of the solution. The Speaker has acknowledged that increasing oil production or at least having more oil is part of the solution. But as my colleague from Texas said, we don't need to take that out of our savings account. We need to bring it out of our natural resources, out of the ground.

Senator Schumer in the Senate about 3 weeks ago said that if we could just get Saudi Arabia to increase oil production 1 million barrels a day, it would drop the price of gas 50 cents a gallon. I don't know if that is true or not, but at least on the other side of this building some of the Democratic leadership understands that increasing oil production would bring down the price of gas.

I don't know why it is so hard to get a bill like that to this floor. I think the reason is strictly politics. It is strictly the radical environmental groups that has a grip or their claws into this majority.

And so I think what is happening is we are putting power above people, we are putting politics above process. Because as these gentlemen have talked tonight, with these ideas that they have shared they have not had one opportunity to offer one amendment on the energy bills because they have been brought either under suspension, under a closed rule, no committee hearings, no subcommittee hearings. The process has been broken. And so when the process is broken, the product is flawed.

Let me just close with this: www.house.gov/westmoreland. Mr. Speaker, go there, see if your Member has signed this simple petition that says I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower the gas prices for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1318 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1318 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 5811, the Electronic Message Preservation Act. The resolution, as you know, provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule makes no amendments in order because no amendments were submitted for consideration.

H.R. 5811 is an important bill introduced by Chairman Waxman that modernizes the requirements of the Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Act to ensure that vital government records are preserved for historical posterity.

The Electronic Message Preservation Act will make certain that we retain important Presidential records by directing the Archivist to establish standards for the capture, management, and preservation of White House and Federal agency e-mails. The Archivist of the U.S. will set new standards for tracking Federal e-mail records and annually will certify whether the records management controls put in place by the President meet those standards and comply with the act.

The bill will protect American history so that we will not lose important records in an antiquated record system that exists now, but it will also guide and enforce document retention policies within the executive branch.

The bill is very necessary. Through its investigations, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee discovered that in one instance the current White House had lost hundreds of days of e-mail, and in other instances allowed numerous White House officials, including Senior Advisor Karl Rove, to use Republican National Committee e-mail accounts for government business--improper, obviously. E-mails sent by White House officials over these RNC accounts related to official government business, and potentially hundreds of thousands of these e-mails have been destroyed.

In addition, the White House did grossly mismanage its own e-mail records and ignored concerns that were raised not by Congress, but by the National Archives, about the way it was storing e-mails.

Further, the current print-and-file record retention systems are both unreliable and not in step with modern advances in technology. For example, when President Bush came into office, the White House had an automated system in place for archiving e-mails, but in 2002, the White House decided to abandon this archiving system and replace it with an ad hoc manual system, doing so in an electronic age. White House officials were warned by the technical staff of their own White House staff and by National Archives that this ad hoc manual system for managing e-mails presented an obvious threat and serious threat of losing records. And the White House's own technical expert said the system was, to use the word of that expert, ``primitive'' and carried a high risk that ``data would be lost.'' Yet, despite these warnings, the White House has still not put into place a reliable, up-to-date system for preserving e-mails.

This bill will change that. It will require the Archivist to establish specific standards for the management and preservation of electronic messages, including the capability to retrieve messages through electronic searches. These standards will help prevent a situation like what is happening under this administration. H.R. 5811 directs e-mail records to be stored electronically and removes ambiguity in the current law that was established before we even had e- mail.

The bill and the manager's amendment were approved by voice vote in the committee because it is timely and it's necessary. I urge the passage and a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I'm going to approach the podium to use some charts.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about the preservation of electronic records. The debate has turned into a discussion of our energy policy. And there are two reasons why we would be discussing energy instead of the substance of the actual bill. One is that our friends on the other side don't have anything to say about the importance of the preservation of electronic records. Two is they want to use the opportunity of floor time to make a case, their case, about energy. I intend to respond to both of those issues.

First of all, I want to go back to what this legislation is about. It's about the preservation of the historical record for the American people. It's also about the preservation of the records of the administration so that in the future when any Congress wants to hold any President accountable, there will be documentation of what has happened in that administration.

It is extraordinarily important that this Congress restore its constitutional function of insisting on accountability for the American people. We have three branches of government, and one of them has been asleep for the 6 years going into the year 2006, and that was Congress, the legislative representative of the people of this country, who demand and are entitled to accountability. If you do not have the preservation of the records of their government--these are not records belonging to the President. They're not records that belong to the executive branch. It's not for them to decide ``yes'' or ``no'' that we will preserve these records. This is a right of the American people. It's their property. And what this electronic records preservation does is say that you cannot use the paper system that doesn't work in an electronic age in effect to conceal from the American people what you did. It is overdue. And to take this debate and inject into it another topic, as important as energy is, is to trivialize the fundamentally important responsibility that this Congress has to the American people to restore oversight and accountability.

This government has make enormous mistakes and justified them by concealing information from the American people. What do you need to know more than what happened in the pathway to the war in Iraq? If the truth had been out there for the American people and for many in this body to know what the President knew and when the President knew it, what the administration knew and when they knew it, we would not be in this catastrophe for the American people called the war in Iraq.

So this legislation that says that e-mail records are going to be restored and retained electronically is of profound constitutional importance to the continuation of Congress in its role as the overseer and protector of the American record and the American taxpayer. So on its merits, this legislation should be considered as of absolute

vital importance to the people of this country. And we have heard no objections, and, indeed, this legislation was passed by voice vote.

Now, since the issue was raised, since the debate on this profoundly important question of constitutional oversight has been hijacked to turn it into an energy debate where it really doesn't belong, I am nevertheless going to respond to the arguments.

You start by this proposition. Implicit in many of the arguments that my friends on the other side made was that those of us on the Democratic side somehow don't understand the pain that the American consumer is experiencing with these record high gas prices.

I have got to just speak about Vermont. What I hear about from Vermonters is fear. I've never heard this. And gas prices are tough. They are trying to figure out how to get from here to there and pay for it. They've got cars that they don't get great mileage. They are doubling up. They are doing what they can. But, bottom line, the thing they are terrified about and they have real anxiety is how are they going to heat their homes next year.

We have to heat our homes there. And, folks, when they see that gas delivery truck show up, and last year it was like $2.50 a gallon, it's going to be $5 a gallon next year, and these families don't have the money to pay $1,000, $1,500, $2,000 to fill up a tank. They don't know what they're going to do. And we are going to see Vermonters who are doubling up. Generations are going to be living together because they don't know how they are going to pay that bill.

So, believe me, there's not a single Member in this House, Republican or Democrat, who doesn't profoundly understand the impact that this is having on everyday people, on our small businesses, on our economy.

So we can go back and forth with the accusations and we can go back and forth with the slogans, or we can acknowledge the obvious. The obvious is we have to do everything that we can in the short term to try to bring relief at the pump, to try to bring pressure off the small business and the consumer. Anything in the short-term that we can do, we should do, and we should do it together. But we also have to move to a long-term energy policy that no longer allows oil to have an iron grip on our future. That is what Americans know.

Short-term, what are some of the things we can do? We have done them. We stopped filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It will reduce demand by 70,000 to 90,000 barrels a day. Second, we are considering legislation for the oil companies to use the leases they have, or lose them.

There's this debate about bringing production online. Obviously, supply is an issue here. In the world, we pump about 86 billion barrels a day. We consume about 87 billion barrels a day. But the fact is that the slogans that I am hearing about just opening up other offshore areas in ANWR totally ignores the current reality, and that is that the oil companies, that are very good at what they do, have leases, existing leases that they pay good money on, on 68 million acres of land. That land, their leases, their leases exceed by 2\1/2\ times the area of the State of Ohio, the Minority Leader Boehner's district; 2 times the State of Illinois; 2\1/2\ times the size of Pennsylvania. These are leases on Federal lands, onshore and offshore.

What are the oil companies doing? Not much. They are producing oil on a fraction of the leaseholds that they have.

No, I won't.

In reality, if there was full production on all the areas under lease, it could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil a day.

I am going to take my time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil a day. Yet the oil companies are not drilling where they have leases to do so. Instead, we are turning this argument into the prospect that we may be able to drill in the future on other places where there aren't leases, waiving away what will be the long-term problems of trying to make that come online, and the fact that it would probably save about a penny and a half a gallon in 10 to 20 years. That is not fair, direct honesty in the debate for the American people.

I thank the gentleman, but I intend to finish. I control the time.

So what do we have? We have a situation where the oil companies are not drilling where they can, and we are saying to them, Drill where you can. We also have a situation where the oil companies, the longer they wait, the more they make. If you're sitting on leases and oil in the ground, under the sea was $35 a barrel when you bid that lease, then it went to $75, then it went to $100, and now it's $140 a barrel, you're making money just having that in the bank. So the oil companies, the longer they wait, the more they make.

We know that oil company profits are exploding.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The oil companies have made $125 billion. Record profits again this year. How are they spending that money? Are they investing in refineries, are they investing it in renewable energy, are they investing in drilling rigs or offshore facilities to drill in those areas? No. They are buying back their stock.

The oil companies, energy producers, should be part of the solution, and they should be using the technical ability that they have, the extraordinary skills that they have and the extraordinary profits that they have to help us find a way to an energy independent future, and it's not happening.

We know that, bottom line, everything we can do short-term, we can do, but the idea that we can do instantly something is a stretch. But what we can do, we should do.

On speculation, we are considering legislation now, and as we speak, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Peterson, is conducting 3 days of hearings to try to squeeze the speculator instead of having the speculators squeeze us; on not filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and topping it off.

I am demanding of the oil companies that they start producing oil in those 68 million acres where they actually have leases and the right to be producing that oil. They could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil a day. Do you know what we produce domestically right now? Five million barrels of oil a day. It could lead to a doubling of the production.

So the fact is there are things that can be done that we are promoting that they be done aggressively. We are insisting that the oil companies be accountable to use and produce on the leases that they have, yet they refuse to do it. And we have been consistently and aggressively moving for a new energy policy that is going to create green jobs, that is going to give us much greater independence in foreign affairs, and is going to help us clean up our environment.

A confident nation is one that faces directly the problems that it has. And when it comes to the question of energy, what symbolized for me the energy policy that this country has had was a front page picture of the President of the United States, hand-in-hand with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as they were about to go into a meeting. In the custom of the Arab States, they walked into that holding

hands. The purpose of that meeting was for the President of the United States, the greatest country on Earth, to implore the King to increase production of oil.

You know what? A confident nation, a nation that takes on the challenge of solving its own problems, does not go hat in hand to others and ask them, who are not our friends, incidentally, to solve our problems. We take that challenge on ourselves. We take it on because it's our responsibility. We also take it on because we know that in the doing of it, we are going to create jobs, clean our environment, and give us much more latitude in foreign policy.

So this debate on energy, misplaced as it is in this matter of electronic records and restoring the responsibility of Congress to the American people to conduct oversight and to preserve a historical record, important as that is, the argument on energy, the question of energy is the profound question that this country faces economically for the next generation, and the challenge will be whether we are willing to face that squarely and take it upon ourselves to solve our problems, or we are going to continue to be dependent on oil companies that have not played on behalf of the American people and on foreign countries that are not our friends; Venezuela, Middle East States, Russia. We have to take on this challenge ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I will just close by saying, going back to this bill, that it's an extraordinarily important bill, not just so that we can preserve records, but that we in Congress can restore confidence to the American people that we are a cop on the beat.

This bill makes significant and long overdue changes to document retention systems that were outdated and inefficient. The vast amount of government business that is currently conducted over e-mail requires that we update the law regulating record retention. Government e-mails should not be deleted or destroyed, as they are as important in revealing to the public and historians as paper documents, and we all know that.

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

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1318 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart Of Florida

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.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of full disclosure, my side of the aisle is looking at every conceivable opportunity under the House rules and in any reasonable parlance of conversation to talk about energy.

So when we're beginning this conversation today, follow me along, because we're going to start about Native American housing, but eventually, the conversation is going to turn to energy. And why is that?

It's true, Mr. Speaker, because that's what the entire country is talking about, and that's what the entire country, I would submit, wants the House to focus its, no pun intended, energy on. So follow me, if you will.

When the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 was passed, it reorganized housing assistance for Native Americans by eliminating several disparate Federal assistance programs and replacing them with the Indian Housing Block Grant program.

In the underlying statute, section 202 specifies eligible affordable housing activities for the block grant program, with the goal of developing, operating, maintaining, or supporting affordable housing or homeownership.

Further, section 202(2)(A) of S. 2062 amends current law and expands the eligible affordable housing activities under the statute. The language of the aforementioned bill would give tribes more flexibility under the Act by allowing a recipient to utilize funds not only for the acquisition and new construction of affordable housing, but it would also allow tribes to utilize block grant funds for the development and rehabilitation of utilities and necessary infrastructure to achieve greater energy efficiency.

Native Americans in this country are facing serious housing problems. Last Congress, the Financial Services Committee held several hearings to investigate the housing situation in Indian lands, which are the result of widespread poverty, high unemployment, homelessness, and a lack of affordable housing on Native American lands. In addition to reorganizing the program, the statute sought to provide Native Americans the right to self-determination and self-governance by allowing tribes to have greater freedom over their tribal housing. Reauthorization is an important step in addressing many of these issues.

Like every American today, Mr. Speaker, Native Americans are struggling with the high cost of energy. Whether on tribal lands or in suburban America, families are grappling with the escalating cost of energy in today's economy and the effect it has on maintaining housing affordability. Rising energy costs associated with renting or owning a home and the transportation cost of traveling back and forth from home to work are having a devastating impact on everyone's budget, including families in Indian country.

So the conversation then surrounds itself around greater flexibility and enhancing, literally, the opportunity for Native Americans to pursue energy solutions, particularly as it relates to utilities. And why is this important?

This is important, Mr. Speaker, because we need to take a holistic approach. We need to pursue every conceivable, reasonable energy alternative, Mr. Speaker. We've got to make sure that we don't leave any solutions on the table and we pursue everything.

So, for example, yesterday we had a hearing in the Financial Services Committee where the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke, came in and commented on a wide range of elements of the economy. But what was particularly interesting, I found, among other things, was the assertion that he made when he said this: that if we increase production of oil by 1 percent, he anticipates a 10 percent drop in price. Let me say that again. I'm going to say that two more times, it's so unbelievable. A 1 percent increase in production, according to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who we defer on many things in our economy, he said would create a 10 percent decrease in price. A 1 percent increase in production would create a 10 percent decrease in price.

That is a staggering assertion from the person that both sides of the aisle give a great deal of deference to, both sides of the aisle listen to and consult with and are very interested in his comments. And he says, again, a 1 percent increase in production creates a 10 percent decrease in price.

So how does the motion to instruct weave into this? The motion to instruct is part of a broader conversation on energy, and I think what my side of the aisle is trying to assert in this and in other bills obviously that have come before the floor in the past several days, Mr. Speaker, is that when it comes to energy and when it comes to solutions, we need a holistic approach, and not to allow ourselves to be hidebound by an orthodoxy that has developed among some elements that are driving the other side of the aisle, to say, well, we're not going to pursue those things, those are not on the table, we're not going to pursue enhanced production, we're not going to pursue clean coal technologies, we're not going to pursue some of these other technologies that are so dynamic and are so vibrant.

So I have done my best, Mr. Speaker, to weave the energy debate into this motion to instruct.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the chairman's encouragement on this motion and the clarity with which he spoke and articulated the need for it, and I think I want to follow up on a couple of the things that he highlighted, and I think they're important, and I think they're a first step.

But I would encourage all Members to take that first step and not stop walking, and I think the first step that the chairman talked about--and he mentioned the gentleman from Colorado and his efforts as it relates to energy efficiency and creating incentives, Mr. Speaker, in the Federal housing market, a tremendous goal, no question about it, pursuing efficiency, pursuing conservation efforts.

This whole energy debate that we're having, it seems to me, is a time at which there should be a sense of unanimity within our country about moving forward. We should be now a Congress that is listening to the overwhelming majority of Americans that are just hamstrung by the high price of energy. It's having a disproportionate impact on the poor, who are very concerned about it. It's having a disproportionate impact, creating a disadvantage for American businesses as they're struggling to compete overseas.

This should be the one issue that is able to transcend sort of regionalism. It should transcend other past alliances, frankly, because the crisis is so great.

In past national crises, what happens is that legislative bodies tend to get over themselves, and rather than looking inwardly, they look outside of the walls of the legislative body and say we've got a responsibility here; 435 people, we can do this, we can move forward.

Part of what the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about is part of that equation, that is, conservation, that is, energy efficiencies. But that's not enough.

Part of what the gentleman from Colorado mentioned a couple of minutes ago in renewables in his 1-minute speech is part of the equation, too, but you know what, that's not enough.

If we choose to go to the Financial Services Committee hearing and we choose selectively to listen to what the Chairman of the Fed says, then I think we're deluding ourselves and we're not serving the public well. What we've got to do is listen to when the Chairman of the Federal Reserve comments about energy production and the de minimis amount of production that has to be created and its impact on price. It was a staggering, staggering figure; 1 percent in increased production yields a 10 percent decrease in price. That is a bargain any day of the week. And the idea that this Congress, that somehow 435 people can't come together and come up with a plan to increase oil production by 1 percent, that's just ridiculous that we can't meet that challenge. One percent increase in production, a 10 percent decrease in price.

And so what you're seeing manifested here today, I think, is part of the conversation that this side of the aisle wants to have--wants to have on almost every conceivable bill--because what we're hearing back in our districts is I think what everybody's hearing back in their districts, and that is, the crushing weight of energy.

When there is that much pressure, we've got to make sure that we are not the generation of a Congress that simply chooses to kick the can down the lane. As Americans, we have a history of doing this, don't we, Mr. Speaker? We have a history. When we got the wake-up call in the mid-1970s that our energy policy at that point was dysfunctional and we had a real vulnerability as it relates to manipulations by actors overseas who have a low view of us and want to put foreign policy pressure on us--that is, the OPEC oil embargo--rather than dealing with that, what did we do as a country in the mid-seventies? We kicked the can down the lane. Prices sort of receded a little bit, the lines for gasoline went away and shortened, and rather than dealing with it, we kicked the can down the lane. So here we are, decades later, not only in the same place, but, in fact, at a more vulnerable place.

And so I sense that the country is hungry, Mr. Speaker, for this Congress to act, for this Congress to come together and say, you know what? There is not one side of the aisle that's got all the answers on this. You've got to completely move the ball. And I know it was sort of a foolish throw-away line that was quoted in the press by a Democrat staffer a couple weeks ago, but when he said the strategy is drive small cars and wait for the wind, I hope that that is not speaking for the majority.

And I hope that the majority is willing to say, you know what? When the Chairman of the Federal Reserve comes in and makes an assertion of the relationship between production and price, we need to listen to that. We need to pivot off of the past orthodoxy that has said we're not going to allow new production, we're simply going to close our ears and not allow the conversation to shift to new production.

There are some that say we're not going to drill our way out of this. Well, that's a thought. But certainly, responsible exploration has to be a part of this equation, Mr. Speaker, it has to be a part of this equation.

Some of our colleagues, as the gentleman from Colorado mentioned a couple minutes ago, they're going to go to Colorado and look at essentially the next generation of technology that is

clearly part of this. But they're also going to go up to ANWR and begin to really see what that's all about. Had we not been in the situation where the ANWR bill was vetoed in the mid-nineties, it would be, by conservative estimates, now pumping and producing at least a million barrels a day. Can you imagine what that does to the price equation?

Ultimately, what our job is, as Members of Congress, if we are united in our desire to get off of foreign oil, then what we've got to do is come up with 9 million barrels a day, or the equivalent, in terms of energy, or savings and conservation, efficiency and so forth. Nine million barrels a day. We can do this. We can absolutely do this. Far greater challenges have been laid out that our country has looked in the eye and has risen to, as the United States of America, and taken on that challenge.

I think that we cannot let this Congress adjourn, we can't go home for the August recess until we wholeheartedly take this challenge on. And if it means discharge petitions, if it means all kinds of procedural things to continue to drive the debate, I think we really have no other choice.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the motion to instruct conferees on S. 2062.

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

In response to the gentleman from Colorado, a slight word of caution. I think it was maybe an overstatement to say that the National Renewable Energy Lab didn't enjoy any support from this side of the aisle until now. I find that difficult to believe. I don't have any roll calls in my presence, but

my hunch is that a program that big and that expansive didn't just get that way because of support from one side of the aisle.

But be that as it may, I think there is an opportunity here, because the opportunity is a recognition of all Members of Congress that we are at a pivotal point as it relates to energy policy. And the pivotal point is one that should bring us together.

Regardless of what one's motivation is, there is a desire to have a long-term energy solution. And part of that has to be an increase in our supply, Mr. Speaker; part of it has to be an increase in renewables. It has to be pushing new technologies, as the gentleman from Colorado talked about, conservation and efficiency measures.

There is a whole host of bills that, unfortunately, the Speaker is not allowing to come to the floor. For the life of me I don't understand it when, at the beginning of her assuming the office of Speaker, she talked about really having a desire for a bipartisan solution to most problems. She was going to change the tone. Unfortunately, we just haven't seen that.

Let me go through a couple of these bills that are literally pending that are bottled up in committee that the majority party, and its leadership, I sense--and I don't want to speak for the rank-and-file, but I do know several rank-and-file members of the majority that are terribly frustrated right now and have a desire to have some bills voted on that are sensible and that the overwhelming majority of the American public says would be a good idea.

For example, H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007. Here is what it does. It reduces the price of gasoline by opening new oil refineries. That's something we haven't talked about this afternoon or this morning. We've not had a new oil refinery put in place in the United States in 30 years. Investing in clean energy sources such as wind, nuclear and captured carbon dioxide and making available more homegrown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the Arctic Energy Slope and America's deep-sea energy reserves, that's one bill.

Why isn't that bill on the floor in an open rule with amendments and with the ability to have a conversation about it? Well, unfortunately, the New York Times today gives us part of the answer, and the answer is not really a pretty one.

According to today's New York Times, in a report, it says: ``Ms. Pelosi, who is now House Speaker, can prevent a vote on expanded drilling from reaching the floor.'' Further quoting: ``She and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, appear intent on holding the line against calls to approve drilling in areas now off limits.'' Then further--and this is actually, I think, the darkest part of this report--``In a private meeting last week, according to some in attendance, Ms. Pelosi told members of her leadership team that a decision to relent on the drilling ban would amount to capitulation to Republicans in the White House and that she was having none of it.''

Is that what this has come down to? Is that what this has come down to? Depending on how you're calculating, 70-plus percent of the American public says, ``Give us more energy. Please, put these tools on the table.'' Then we have a meeting that this is about ``capitulation'' and not wanting to give someone a political advantage. Is that what this has come down to?

I can't even tell you, Mr. Speaker, how incredibly disappointing that is to me that someone would say that it is a matter of political pride that's going to keep an idea off the table. Why can't we have the bill on the floor that I just mentioned?

How about this, H.R. 2279, to Expand American Refining Capacity on Closed Military Installations. That is nothing but a good idea. We've got distressed military installations. They're not well utilized. Let's use them. It reduces the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of siting new and reliable American refineries. We have not had a new refinery for 30 years in this country, and this is our opportunity to change that dynamic.

There is H.R. 5656, to Repeal the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels. It reduces the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources such as oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid technology.

In my State and in your State, Mr. Speaker, in southern Illinois, there are more British Thermal Units of energy in the coalfields of southern Illinois, in those gigantic fields, than in the entire Saudi oil fields. Imagine that. There are more BTUs of energy, more energy in southern Illinois, than in all of the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. Yet it is largely untapped.

Why is it untapped? Well, it's untapped, in part, because it's high sulfur coal, and it's pretty nasty stuff to burn and to have emitted.

I have referred to this word ``orthodoxy.'' There has developed this thinking that has become so hidebound that, regardless of the facts that are around, it eventually says we don't even want to have a conversation about coal. We don't even want to contemplate coal because certain interest groups have told us that all coal is always bad all the time. Well, maybe not so.

Maybe this Congress should be part of the solution. This Congress could be part of the conversation that says no, no, no, that we're not going to listen to the bumper stickers. We're going to be policymakers, and we're going to unleash the potential to begin to transform a region.

Mr. Speaker, you and I represent Illinois. You know southern Illinois, and you know how challenged that area is. Can you imagine if in this country we began to unleash resources and, with that, the type of dynamic social and economic change that could come about in an incredibly challenged rural area? It begins to transform everything. As a State legislature, we struggled constantly with diverting State money to those areas, to diverting Medicaid money to those areas. Why? Because they were devastated from an economic point of view.

What do we have here? What is the opportunity here? The opportunity here is not only to create more energy but ultimately to transform regions to make them prosperous and to make them environmentally sensitive. Absolutely. It is to get them to the point where they're producing and where they're on their own two feet. We ought not to squander that opportunity.

There is H.R. 2208, the Coal Liquid Fuel Act, which reduces the price of gasoline by encouraging the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology, authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation fuels.

These are all bills where there are discharged motions either pending or coming. A ``discharge motion'' is where 218 of us come together, where 218 of us come together and say: You know what? We're not going to be limited. We're not going to be limited to secret meetings where this is about capitulation and political agendas. We're not going to be limited to that. We're going to break free of that. Two hundred eighteen of us are all it takes for us to sign those discharge petitions. Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, it doesn't matter. All that has to happen is that 218 Members go down to the well and sign their names. Then you know what? The bills are on the floor. Then we can talk about them, and we don't have to whisper about them in the corridors. We don't have to be held hostage to secret meetings where agendas are about--and this is the characterization-- capitulation. I mean I can't even begin to tell you how disappointing that is.

There is H.R. 2493, the Fuel Mandate Reduction Act of 2007. It reduces the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend requirements and onerous government mandates if they contribute to unaffordable gas prices.

Mr. Speaker, our constituents are in crisis. They are crying out to us. They want us to lead. They want us to get over past grievances. They are tired of this place. Haven't we all seen the polls? Haven't we all seen the low view that they have of the United States Congress? Why? Because of meetings like this that characterize solutions as capitulations. We can do much better than that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6184) to provide for a program for circulating quarter dollar coins that are emblematic of a national park or other national site in each State, the District of Columbia, and each territory of the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all that Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and insert any extraneous material as they so wish.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6184, America's Beautiful National Parks Quarter Dollar Coin Act, introduced by my good friend and colleague from Delaware, Congressman Castle.

I have had the great pleasure to work with Mr. Castle on several coin bills of this nature in the past, the very successful State quarters and most recently the Presidential dollars. I am proud to be the Democratic lead sponsor of this bill, and I am happy to report that it has strong bipartisan support, as shown by the fact that it passed out of the Financial Services Committee on a unanimous vote in support.

I want to thank Congressman Castle for all of his hard work on this legislation, as well as Chairman Frank for his support, and the support of the staff of the Financial Services Committee and our individual staffs for their hard work on this bill. Of course, all of us love our national parks, and especially those of our home State, which will be honored on each of these coins.

Beginning in 2010, new quarters will bear a design representing a national park or site in each State and the District of Columbia at the rate of 5 new designs a year. The sites will be selected at the beginning of the process by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the States, and the coins will be minted in the order in which the sites selected were established as national sites, which I think is a very clever touch.

As a former teacher and educator, I am always excited about the new designs on everyday coins because they encourage more Americans of all ages to pay attention to the coins in your pockets and learn a few facts about what is depicted. I can say of the very successful State quarter program, it became a very popular teaching tool. Many teachers devised lesson plans around the quarters, and many of my constituents collected these coins. My own daughter had a book with each of the quarters in it; and many people would ask me, when is the next quarter coming out? And because it was so successful, the 50 State quarter program raised $6.2 billion over the past 10 years of its life span which is just ending this year. And we can hope that we will have similar results from this series of coins.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. It is an education tool. It also will generate needed revenues for our Treasury.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my dear friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle who has attacked the Speaker of this House really unfairly and with false statements.

The point is and the reality is that we have two oil men in the White House and their policies are the ones that have benefited Big Oil and hurt the American consumer. Now under the leadership of the Democratic Speaker and the New Direction Congress, we have been passing solutions for the first time to help American consumers and to help this country move into the 21st century with policies that are important for conserving energy, renewable energy, efficient technologies, and reducing energy prices for the long run.

No, I will not yield. I have my time; you had yours.

First of all what, the New Direction Congress passed was the first new vehicle fuel-efficiency standards in 32 years. We also passed an historic commitment to affordable American-grown biofuels. If the other side of the aisle was interested in moving us into the 21st century and conserving energy, why in the world didn't they pass new vehicle fuel- efficiency standards? We passed it. This Congress passed it. The Democrats passed it, and are forcing the car builders and others to move in with fuel-efficient standards.

We also took action to lower gas prices by suspending oil purchasing for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. These are very important initiatives.

Now the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, my very good friend, talked about the need to build new refineries. Well, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell have publicly stated that they have no plans to build new refineries; instead, they prefer to expand existing facilities. These are their statements. Shell and BP all testified that they were unaware of any environmental regulations preventing them from building new refineries or expanding old ones. They can do that now.

Internal memos from oil companies make it very clear that oil companies decided that they needed to reduce refinery capacity to drive up their profits. And the New Direction Congress is

continuing to bring real relief to those feeling the pinch of the high gas and diesel prices, and ensuring the needs of families and businesses are put before the interests of Big Oil companies.

Now my dear friend on the other side of the aisle talks about drilling, drilling, drilling, drilling, as if we could drill ourselves out of the challenges we face.

The fact is that there are over 68 million acres on shore and offshore in the United States of America that are currently leased by oil companies and they are open to drilling and actually under a lease to do so but are not developed. Now we are talking about leases on 68 million acres of land that is owned by the American people. Now what Chairman Rahall says is use it or lose it, and I think he is absolutely correct. I support his bill, to say that you either drill on those 68 million acres or you give up your lease and let someone else drill there. That's what the Democrats are saying. We are not going to hand out more leases to the oil companies on public land that is owned by the public and is the land and the reserves of this country. We are saying to them if you have a lease, you use that lease. You drill. You're not going to get another one. And if you're not going to drill, then let's put it out for competitive bid and let someone else come forward and drill on that land.

The fact is that 80 percent of the oil available on the Outer Continental Shelf is in regions that are already open to leasing, but the oil companies haven't decided if it is worth their time to drill there. The fact is that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge wouldn't yield any oil for 10 years, and then would only save the customer, the consumer, 1.8 cents per gallon in 2025. The fact is that America uses a quarter of the world's oil consumption every day, but only 1.6 percent of the world's supply, so there is simply no way to drill ourselves to a solution.

I repeat, while my colleagues were running this body, where were their solutions? I didn't see any. I didn't see them raising the mile per gallon of gas, I didn't see them conserving. I didn't see them investing in biofuels or moving forward with innovative energy solutions, as this new Democratic leadership has been doing. They have just held onto the failed policies of the past which have gotten us to where we are. As I repeat, we have two oil men in the White House that have been behind these policies.

So I would say that the Democratic leadership has done a great deal to help the American consumer. They are facing many challenges. Their wages are stagnant. The price of gasoline is now over $4 a gallon. The price of milk is over $4 a gallon. So they are facing really inflation and many, many challenges.

The Democratic leadership has come forward with a stimulus package to help the American taxpayer, the American citizen. We have come forward with a fuel-efficiency standard. We have come forward with many hearings today on the possible manipulation of oil in the futures market so that we can curb those abuses if they are documented. We are for drilling on the 68 million acres that are currently under contract and should be drilled on.

So this Congress, I congratulate the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats and the relevant committees. We have passed legislation, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act. We have passed the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act. We have passed the Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act which will provide consumer relief by giving the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate and punish those who artificially inflate energy prices. President Bush has threatened a veto of this very commonsense consumer protection measure.

So I say with all due respect to my wonderful colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle, where were your ideas when you could pass them? Where are your ideas now? The ones that we are passing that helps the consumer and moves this country into the 21st century, and that makes a profitable use of land that is owned by the American people instead of giving more, and in many cases in a no-bid process to oil companies who are just sitting on it and not doing anything to help the American consumer.

So I would say you brought it up, so I am just responding to some of your allegations.

I feel this is such an important issue that I would like to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the great State of New York, Congressman Serrano, on H.R. 6184, and I thank him for his leadership on this important bill.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman for his statement. He has been a strong advocate for the Territories. He raises and highlights an important point that the Territories are included, and I appreciate his recognizing the many contributions from the citizens of Puerto Rico and other Territories to our great country.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to support this creative bill that is before us. I hope that it passes unanimously and moves to the Senate with swift passage.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I do object. We have a system. We have gone through it, and I feel we should move to a vote.

If the gentleman feels so strongly about it, he has worked so hard on this bill, it's a successful bill, and we hope to have another successful bill, so I will allow the gentleman to reclaim his time.

I would inquire how much time remains on both sides, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for reciprocity. If he is reclaiming his time, then I would like to reclaim my time.

I do ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

The gentlewoman has no further speakers, but I wonder if the gentleman on the other side of the aisle yields back his time.

Just to respond to my dear friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, I'm very appreciative that you're supportive of the bill before us, but I want to point out that there is nothing in this bill that would in any way prevent drilling. In fact, they can drill now on 68 million acres of land on which they have a lease.

And we did have a vote, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not support the vote that would compel the oil industry to start drilling or lose permits on this 68 million acres of undeveloped Federal oil reserves which they are currently warehousing and keeping domestic supply lower and prices higher. I believe that's a very balanced premarket approach. Use it or lose it. Let someone else drill there.

And industry is only using a fraction of its leases now. And refining is not an issue. Refineries are running below capacity.

But we have enacted in law, past laws, that are laws now, the Energy Independence and Security Act. This historic Act would increase vehicle fuel efficiency to 35 miles per gallon, and this is the first congressional increase in more than three decades. And this would be very helpful.

And I'd like to place into the Record an entire list of laws that have been enacted by this Democratic leadership, laws that are coming up to be considered, including cracking down on price gouging, and legislation that the House has passed and we're waiting for the Senate to act on: the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act, the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act, the Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act. These are all important concrete steps, not rhetoric, but concrete steps to help consumers.

New Direction Legislation

Enacted into Law

Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007--Historic

energy legislation with provisions to combat oil market

manipulation, increase vehicle fuel efficiency to 35 miles

per gallon in 2020--the first Congressional increase in more

than three decades--and promote the use of American biofuels.

Signed into law, December 19, 2007.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer

Protection Act--Temporarily suspends the filling of the SPR,

starting June 30th, to put more oil on the market to help

drive down gasoline prices. Signed into law, May 19, 2008.

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008--The new Farm

Bill makes an historic commitment to more affordable American

biofuels and increases Commodity Futures Trading Commission

(CFTC) oversight authority to detect and prevent manipulation

of energy prices. President Bush vetoed this bill, but the

Congress overrode that veto.

Recent and Upcoming Legislation

Reducing Transit Fares (H.R. 6052)--Gives grants to mass

transit authorities to lower fares for commuters pinched at

the pump and expand transit services.

Cracking Down on Price Gouging (H.R. 6346)--Gives

enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission to

investigate and punish those who artificially inflate fuel

prices.

``Use It Or Lose It'' for Oil Companies Holding Permits and

Not Drilling--Compels the oil industry to start drilling or

lose permits on the 68 million acres of undeveloped federal

oil reserves which they are currently warehousing, keeping

domestic supply lower and prices higher.

Further Close the ``Enron Loophole'' for Petroleum

Markets--Takes steps to curb excessive speculation in the

energy futures markets, which experts have noted is driving

up the price of a barrel of oil.

Legislation that the house has passed

Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act--Extends and expands

tax incentives for renewable energy (including incentives for

plug-in vehicles), retains and creates hundreds of thousands

of green jobs, spurs American innovation and business

investment, and cuts taxes for millions of Americans. The

President has threatened a veto.

The Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act--Combats record gas

prices by authorizing lawsuits against oil cartel members for

price fixing, and creating an Antitrust Task Force to crack

down on anticompetitive behavior or market manipulation.

President Bush has threatened a veto.

Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act--This bill will provide

consumer relief by giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

the authority to investigate and punish those who

artificially inflate energy prices. President Bush has

threatened a veto.

I'd like to remind my dear colleagues on the other side of the aisle that when President Bush came to office he had a $5 trillion projected surplus. We now

have a series of records that have been given to us by the Republican leadership, only they are the wrong kinds of records.

We have record debt that is galloping towards $9 trillion. Each and every American owes over $30,000 to this debt. We have the largest trade deficit in the history of this country, over $900 billion, and we have the largest deficit in the history of this country. We have lost more jobs in the first half of this year than have been lost since the Great Depression, and if we continue at this rate, we will lose over 1 million jobs in this year.

Now, that is the record of the Republican leadership. But what is before us is a very important bill, one that I support, one that I urge my colleagues to support. And I urge my colleagues to support consideration of H.R. 6184, and I hope that we will have a bipartisan commitment to passing this legislation.

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