Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act

Mr. Speaker, before I give my opening statement, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

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

So here we are debating a bill under a rule which we all know should have best been under a suspension. It's not a perfect bill. If they accept an amendment later on, it will be a perfect bill. But for any imperfections that are here, this bill has far better drafting, far better intent, far more bipartisanship than perhaps some illogical partisan gamesmanship that produced vociferous debate under suspensions yesterday.

But one would wonder why we are taking time on the floor to consider a bill which was passed out of the Resources Committee by a voice vote and a bill in which I intend to vote in favor? What is it about this bill that is actually so important that we are talking about it rather than other more pressing national issues such as an energy crisis? Why does such a relatively innocuous bill take precedence over finding solutions to gas prices that are now around $4 a gallon and probably going higher?

It must be that this bill accomplishes something so dramatically important that we are foolish to consider other issues, such as national security or our deepening dependence on foreign oil.

This bill deals with an area that includes no Federal waters. There are no Federal assets that are a part of it. It could easily be done with an inter-local cooperating agreement, which many States in the West use. Instead, the Federal Government is involved in that. Despite that fact, I still intend on voting for this particular bill.

This is a recreational bill. This bill provides moneys for trails, maps, signs, and all the nice things in the quest of healthy outdoor recreation in the Chesapeake Bay region. This program was originally authorized in 1998 as a 5-year program, and then reauthorized for another 5 years in 2002. And now the authorization, not for the program but for the appropriations for this program, are set to expire and the proponents are offering this legislation to authorize funding this program for eternity.

There will be no caps on the funds that can be appropriated for this program, no time limit. Maybe this is such a big priority for the Democratic majority because the National Park Service testified this program has received $7.7 million in earmarks since its creation. Maybe the Democrats wish to preserve a conduit for earmarks masquerading as a recreation bill. This is what takes precedence over national security and the energy crisis here on the floor of the House.

Yet, I don't object to the earmarks that were made for this particular bill, even though some of them are different. Part of the money that goes to this particular bill or has been earmarked in the past has been $20,000 dollars for a Native American interpretive brochure. I don't oppose that. Funds go into this for a Dino-Mania! Camp-In so that people can delve into the world of dinosaurs as your family spends the night in a Virginia Living Museum, explore how big some dinosaurs were, find out what might have caused their extinction, and it also comes with an evening snack and a breakfast.

My favorite, the Tree Spirits. The ancients believed the trees had spirits, and if you look hard enough, you see them in this woody bark. This workshop will focus on the old beliefs to trees, their meaning, their practical purposes. Fathers and sons will join the rangers on a hike as we scavenge the materials to make our own Tree Spirits for you all.

I actually don't object to that. I still intend to vote for this particular bill.

Nature hikes, picnics in the park, learning about ecology are causes to champion, and I'd be happy to support those things, but this bill doesn't solve the major threat to those activities. How will one be able to afford to get to these outdoor locations, enjoy these earmarks when the gas is too expensive to allow them to travel anywhere. At this point, Americans are not working to live, they are working to pay for the gas to get to work and back home. With gas at $4 a gallon, weekend family visits to the Chesapeake are becoming less and less of a possibility.

Unfortunately, our unwillingness to address the dramatic spike in energy prices today hurts American families, not only by putting some recreational activities beyond their reach, but by wrecking the household budget for basics, such as food, electricity, and medicine. Some people talk about our goal should be to get revenge on companies that produce energy, but such a program does not add one barrel of energy to meet the demands of the present time.

The Resources Committee, from which this legislation originated, is the same committee that has jurisdiction over domestic resources, resources on public lands, such as the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR. It's past time for the Resource Committee to stop in its quest to become merely a ``Recreation Committee.'' This country has locked up more resources in America than other nations have in their entire country. America is blessed with a wealth of natural resources and historically we have had the unique ability to develop and continuously improve the technology needed to use these resources.

We have faced and overcome bigger challenges in the past, but we in Congress must act now to meet the critical energy needs of today. We need to stop creating obstacles to domestic energy production so the American people can get to work and solve the problem. That should be the priority of the people, that should be our priority as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the newest member of the Virginia delegation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

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

Mr. Speaker, if you recall back to the movie ``The Natural,'' if you remember there is that one wonderful scene where this mythical team, the New York Knights, have called in a psychologist to talk to the team to try to get them out of their losing slump. And as they are sitting there, talking to these ballplayers he says, ``The mind is a strange thing, men. We must begin by asking, what is losing? Losing is a disease that is as contagious as syphilis. Losing is a disease as contagious as the bubonic plague, attacking one, but infecting all. But curable. Now I want you to imagine you are on a vast ocean. You are on a ship at sea gently rocking, gently rocking, gently rocking, gently rocking.''

In that scene Roy Hobbs, now in disgust, breaks out of that and leaves this therapy session, because he recognizes that the solution to their losing season is not sitting there talking philosophically about it, but actually going out on the field and doing something.

We today in the issue of energy are in the mode of simply talking about it. All we are doing is coming here and talking about these theoretical approaches, gently rocking, gently rocking. We are talking about building straw men that we can then knock about, whether it is big oil or a so-called bubble, or yesterday someone said the reason we are paying so much at the pump is because of Enron. Ken Lay has somehow reached up from the dead and somehow hiked up the price of gasoline. And our only solution to this entire situation so far is we have passed a piece of legislation that allows lawyers to go out and sue OPEC, in the hopes that maybe they might give us some more energy money.

It is almost as if what we are trying to say is we are going to have everyone sit down and listen to a psychologist that will try and convince us that freezing in the dark can be an enjoyable thing if we just have the right attitude towards it, because losing is simply a mind game and it is contagious.

What Roy Hobbs did is the exact opposite. He left that stuff. He went out on the field, he knocked the cover off the ball, and when they actually started doing something, that is when this mythical New York Knights team started to win.

If we want to solve the problem of energy for American citizens, we have got to stop, quit talking about it and our secret plans and coming up with these mythical enemies which we want to attack, and we simply have to go out and do something. And that means production now. We cannot sit here simply idly by while American people are suffering without actually doing something in reality. And that means yes on conservation, but it also means we have to increase production. If we don't do that, recreational opportunities like this particular bill have no purpose and have no meaning. There is nothing left for them to do.

If I could give a few statements that have been given by people who live in this area and who will be impacted by this particular bill and what they are

saying about the energy issues and how it impacts and affects them.

``Repercussions,'' a quote here, ``from the escalating price of fuel are felt everywhere. Sportsfishing is no exception. Neither is the business of chartering, headboating or commercial fishing. The same applies to businesses associated with fishing. One big tackle shop proprietor told the other day, `I have four people and myself working now and not a single customer in the shop. Haven't seen one in 10 minutes.'''

``Alex DeMetrick reports gas prices are soaring, having an impact on those who depend on boats and the Bay to make a living. Naming a work boat the `Last Penny,' which may have been a stab at some kind of subtle humor, it is striking a little too close to reality at the fuel docks around the bay as diesel is now at $4.50 a gallon and climbing. `Gas is doubling and the price of seafood is going down,' said one of the watermen who works there. `Working the water takes constant moving, but with crabs spotty and fuel high, watermen are trying to conserve. They are hurting us bad,' he says. `It's almost double in the past year, so it is taking a right good bite out of us,' says another one of the watermen who works there.''

Over at Dredge Harbor, New Jersey, another one of those people who work there said high gas prices are also affecting his customers. ``Instead of taking four trips down the Chesapeake Bay, they now might take two trips this year, and most of their customers use their boats as homes afloat so they can conserve as much fuel as possible. High prices are somewhat affecting the sales.''

Another one of the reports from this area, ``Elevated prices are causing some charter fishing captains to want to jump overboard.'' As one said who owns a yacht yard, he is selling gas for $4.20 per gallon at his fuel dock, and he has noticed fewer and fewer small power boats on the water.

What we are simply doing as we go along with this, there are other people that simply say, ``Now I can see no way of getting over the hump of fuel costs. We have got good fishing, but we have fewer and fewer customers. With gas prices going this way, we are simply losing the opportunity of using this resource for the purpose in which it was therefore designed. High costs not only affect the fishing industry on the water, local businesses are also feeling the gas price pinch. A local tackle shop simply said, `I still got people working there and no one is coming in there.' Gas prices are dipping into his resources and his ability to make a living.''

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have?

One of the things we have to deal with if we are actually going to deal in a proper way with the reauthorization of this entire program is to understand that if we are going to have these types of opportunities, either for people to recreate, people to learn, people to enjoy, people to enhance their entire environment, we have got to be able to get them there. Kind of like today. We seem to be needing to get people up from the White House, in which case they are walking because we can't afford the fuel to put them on buses to get them here. Therefore, things change because of those circumstances, and it is one of those concepts in which we are working.

If we really need to be serious about this, we have to realize that our energy crisis today is limiting the ability to experience this type of an environment, this type of attitude and this process. And if we want to make full use of the Chesapeake Bay resources that are there, we have to make sure that real people have the opportunity of going there and experiencing it. Because when we talk about oil prices, we are not simply talking about some concept, some ethereal project that is out there. We are talking about real people, how they live, how their jobs work, how they get to the chance to recreate and make their lives fuller and better. And that has to be an integral part of this discussion, ought to be an integral part. In fact, it is a more significant part of this discussion on a bill that still is a decent bill that should have been done as a suspension, not as a rule here on the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would still like to try and reemphasize as we are talking about this particular bill is this bill deals with the reauthorization of the appropriations concept. This is not about cleaning up the environment. Several of the speakers who have spoken today talked about the necessity of environmental protection. This is not the EPA's program. This is a wholly separate issue and a separate concept.

One of the things that we should keep in mind is the purpose and the concept of an authorizing committee, is an authorizing committee should be reviewing what we are trying to do at periodic bases. That is our purpose.

One of the things in this particular bill that is a problem, is problematic to the future, is that it rejects the ability of Congress to take periodic reviews of this particular program. When it was first initiated in 1998, there was a 5-year statute in which we would then review it. In 2002 we reviewed it. We are now looking at a bill that I think we are all going to agree is needed to go forward, but there still should be some kind of review.

It should not be forgotten that when we voted this particular bill in the Resource Committee on a voice vote, there were six other bills at that time similar in scope, similar in fashion, similar in funding, but each of them had a periodic review attached to it. So a bill by Mr. Udall, a bill by Ms. Baldwin, a bill by Mr. Bilbray, by Mrs. Bono Mack and Ms. Bordallo, all of them had the responsibility of allowing Congress to do what it is supposed to do and try to take some kind of review at regular basic intervals.

That still is the wisest approach to it. It is one of the few flaws that I actually find in this particular bill, and it is one of those flaws that probably should be addressed.

We talked about the kinds of grants that have been awarded in the past. There are $7.7 million worth of earmarks not asked by the agency that have been added to this. We have added grants in certain years that have been, for example, $34,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Marine Museum, $21,000 for the Stratford Hall Plantation; $12,000 for the Mason Neck State Park; and $18,000 for the Annapolis Maritime Museum. I am not objecting to these as being inappropriate. In fact, I could probably argue they were appropriate and they were needful. They are useful. But I am

saying that what Congress should do if we actually fulfill our responsibility is make sure that we look at these on a periodic basis, and that should be part of the statute. That is what we commonly do in most pieces of legislation, and it all should be part of this legislation at the same time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, one more time, if we can try and emphasize the point of this.

This is still a decent bill. There are a few flaws, but it is a decent bill and I support it going forward with this particular bill. There are still some changes I would like to see in that bill.

Also, we must realize, though, that if we are talking about the overall use of this bill, we are taking time on the floor when we should be talking about much more significant and vital issues than this particular bill.

Having a rule on this bill is a strange use of the time of Congress, especially when there are much more significant issues that need to be debated and discussed at this particular time. And even though I plan on voting for this bill, it is one of those things that is still sad that we are as a Congress not addressing the core issues for which the people have sent us here and not looking at what should be the core issues for which the people have sent us here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I proposed here was actually proposed in the committee as well, and it is an amendment which in all sincerity is an effort to try and make a good bill into a very, very good bill. It has no intentions whatsoever of trying to derail the path of successful completion of this particular bill, but actually solve a problem and present a sense of comfort that might not necessarily be there as the bill proceeds to the other body.

We are dealing, obviously, as some people have--not here on the floor, for all of us here on the floor who are Members, but some people have said that this is simply a sunsetting provision. It is not that. This program is not going to be sunsetted. But there is an authorization of appropriations which desperately needs that time to be looked at.

My amendment is designed to bring this bill in line with all the other bills that we have passed out of the Resources Committee this year. Typically

in the Resources Committee we review authorizations on specific periods of time. For this reason, I anxiously anticipate the support of Democratic colleagues, because this is good government. It is a fiscally responsible amendment.

My amendment reauthorizes the review of this program after 5 years. This is a compromise between the National Park Service request, which was no authorization at all. They were fine about technical assistance, but they suggested there should be no more grants given to this program, as they said this program has matured enough and don't need any more, and the bill's sponsor who was asking for an eternal unending authorization of appropriations. Five years was good enough the first time this program was authorized, it was sufficient when this program was reauthorized, and it ought to be a sufficient time for Congress not to abrogate our responsibility but do our responsibility to review the programs that we authorize and how they are being funded.

There is a reason we add these positions to bills. As I told you in the committee, the very committee that sent this bill out, there were six other bills in a similar status; and on each of those six bills we put in this process so that the committee could review that authorization and the funding source and what those programs were doing at 5-year intervals. Some bills we have passed out have no time limits, but in every situation they have funding limitations that are put on them. This particular bill in the course it is drafted right now has no funding limitation nor any review process to it. And that is where it can be improved.

There is a reason we add these provisions to bills. Without them, programs have a tendency of languishing, depending upon Federal funds, where we want them to encourage recipients of these funds to use them wisely and to have an incentive to produce results. When programs expire, we have a chance to reevaluate them and conduct this oversight. That is our responsibility as an authorizing committee and as Congress as a whole, and we should not abrogate that responsibility. Without my amendment, we are relinquishing our oversight and leaving it simply to appropriators.

Already this program has received, as I said earlier, $7.7 million in unrequested earmarks. This bill also eliminates the annual cap on the funds that are eligible to be received. I understand that this has been an excellent conduit for earmarks, but let us not lose the fiscal responsibility that we have to do and get away from simply handing out a blank check.

I mentioned earlier parts of the program that are funded, somewhat sarcastically, I admit. They do sound on the surface humorous. I am not opposed to what they are doing; I am not opposed to those programs. I am simply saying that Congress should have the responsibility of looking at those at a regular period. That is our job.

It is nearing impossibility for the average family to drive to any of these recreation areas; much of the responsibility for that lies here in Congress as well. Despite that fact, the other side of the aisle is unwilling to increase oil and gas reductions. I hope they will cut the taxpayers at least a small break by accepting this good government amendment, and allow us to review how the money is spent on a periodic basis as we traditionally do in most bills that come out of this committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate one more time the opportunity of talking about this.

It is one of the fundamental elements that we have as the concept of good government that Congress should exercise its right of oversight on programs. Even if we authorize a program, however good it should be, there still should be at a regular basis an oversight. It is not threatening to a program. It is the responsibility of Congress.

We do have a bunch of programs that simply run without that kind of oversight. Some programs whose authorization has lapsed still function on. That is not the concept of good government. We have things especially in our area, Coastal Zone Management, Endangered Species Act whose reauthorization has lapsed, still functions on under their authorization by the appropriators, but it needs to be reviewed by the Appropriations Committee. That is its purpose.

We have some programs that are permanent, that have no oversight whatsoever: Defense, food stamps, child health care, school lunches. But, once again, in each of those areas what Congress should be doing is exercising our responsibility, and simply saying there is nothing that we should pass that shouldn't ask Congress to relook at a bill and relook at a program, and evaluate the essence of that program if it is still the most significant thing we should be doing. Or perhaps our priorities have changed. That should not be seen as an attack on the bill, it should not be seen as something that is negative or unfriendly. It should be seen as something simply as reauthorizing and re-recognizing what we are supposed to be doing. That is our job as representatives of the people, is to constantly be looking at what we have authorized, reevaluate, and reappropriate. And we are doing something in this particular amendment in an effort to do that at a 5- year basis. That is not illogical. In fact, that is the norm. That is rational. That is what usually happens in these particular situations, and it is what should happen in this particular situation. Again, it is nothing again to try to harm the bill in any way; it is simply an effort to try to move us forward to make sure that Congress does its job, and does its job on a regular, appropriate level. That is why we are here. We should not abrogate that responsibility. We should accept that. We should embrace it. And we should try to move forward from that position.

I apologize for trying to elongate this in some particular way. I think I have said repeatedly what the crux of this issue is. This is not a proposition from Liechtenstein; this is simply the concept of, do we periodically review what we authorize. It is a plus thing that we should be doing.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1233, I call up the bill (H.R. 5540) to amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to provide for the continuing authorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5540, legislation that will reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network which will otherwise expire at the end of 2008.

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and Chairman Grijalva for their leadership in getting this bill to the floor. They've been stalwart advocates in this effort.

The Chesapeake Bay has a tremendous tale to tell.

The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program connects those who live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to the natural, cultural and historic resources of the bay, and thereby encourage individual and citizen stewardship of these resources.

I guess the best way to describe the Gateways program is an insurance policy on our larger investment in the Chesapeake Bay. There are three parts to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay; there is funding, which of course is extremely critical, there is regulatory guidance, and then there is citizen stewardship. Without individual responsibility, without widespread engagement by the 16 million people that reside in the watershed, it would be impossible to achieve and maintain the goal of cleaning up the bay. For a very modest investment, the Gateways program helps to foster the citizen stewardship that will be necessary to advance bay clean-up and maintain the gains that we hope to make.

As many of my colleagues know, the Chesapeake Bay is our Nation's largest estuary. It is a national environmental treasure and an economic catalyst as it pertains to the region's tourism and seafood industries. Unfortunately, as many also know, the bay's health in recent years has been significantly and negatively impacted by multiple factors, such as increased nutrient runoff, chemical contaminants, and other forms of pollution. As a result, there has been a severe deterioration in the bay's water quality in recent years and a rapid loss of living resources and natural habitat.

To combat these trends, in 1983 the Chesapeake Bay Program was created. It is a partnership between the States of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and the Federal Government, which is dedicated to restoring and protecting the bay. I am also committed to reversing these trends and restoring the bay's water quality and natural habitats, and that is why I have introduced this legislation to continually reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network.

The Gateways program is the National Park Service's component of the greater Chesapeake Bay program. The Park Service has entered into a memorandum of understanding under the Chesapeake Bay program that tasks the Park Service with ``conserving the Chesapeake Bay's national and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations.'' It goes on to say that the Park Service will provide assistance to the bay program through resource planning and grants management, rivers and trails conservation assistance, public education, interpretation, and cooperative heritage planning support.

That is precisely the purpose of the Gateways program. It provides grants and technical assistance to parks, volunteer groups, wildlife refuges, historic sites, museums, and water trails throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It also provides assistance to the critical volunteer groups that have stepped forward to support the Gateway sites.

The network ties these sites together to provide meaningful experiences and to encourage individual citizens to invest their own time and energy in the clean up of the Chesapeake Bay. Since 2000, the network has grown to include 156 gateways in six States and the District of Columbia. That is why the Park Service has repeatedly praised the Gateways program.

In September of 2004, the Service released a special resource study recommending that Gateways be a permanent Park Service program. It goes on to say that an enhanced version of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network would be the most effective and efficient way for the National Park Service to help protect and tell the story of the Chesapeake Bay.

In 2005, the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation recognized Gateways as ``a cooperative conservation success story.'' And therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we act now to reauthorize this program so that the network and its partners can continue to educate residents of the Chesapeake Bay watershed about the natural, cultural, historic and recreational sites throughout the bay region, and how their communities relate directly to the health of our largest estuary and a national treasure, the Chesapeake Bay.

By maintaining the network and providing access to these sites, we can help develop the next generation of environmental stewards, which is one of the best ways to truly save the bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure at this time to yield 3 minutes to Representative Scott, who is a leader on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to note a couple of things. First, that this is a bipartisan bill, and I want to salute, as Representative Scott did, the partnership of Congressman Wittman from Virginia in helping to marshal support for this bill.

I also want to point out that the annual appropriation process will determine the funds that go to support this authorization. Otherwise, the claims that it's sort of breaking through the cap or not are not correct.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who is another leader with respect to the Chesapeake Bay and co-chairs the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Task Force.

I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for his career's work on behalf of the environment and the Chesapeake Bay and thank him for his support.

Mr. Speaker, it is my extreme pleasure now to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, another champion of the Chesapeake Bay.

How many minutes remain?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am gratified that Representative Bishop intends to vote for the bill. I did want to point out that this is about as far as from an earmark as you can get. The projects under this particular

Gateways program are determined at the discretion and based on application to the agency by the National Park Service.

At this time, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to another champion of the Chesapeake Bay and someone who understands the importance of reaching out to partners throughout the watershed, and that is the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

I want to thank, again, Congressman Wittman for his support and his lifelong commitment to the Chesapeake Bay.

Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger has been a champion of the Chesapeake Bay throughout his career, earlier in his career as county executive for Baltimore County, Maryland, and now as a Congressman from the Second District of Maryland. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of other points I wanted to make. First of all, I am pleased to indicate that we have a letter that came to Chairman Rahall and to Ranking Member Young from the six Governors of the six States that make up the watershed and from the Mayor of the District of Columbia. So that is the Governors of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia, who have written to indicate their very, very strong support for this legislation.

June 5, 2008.

Hon. Nick J. Rahall,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington DC.

Hon. Don Young,

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Natural Resources,

Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young: We are

writing to express our strong support for H.R. 5540, the

Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing

Authorization Act.

The Chesapeake Gateways Program (``program'') plays a

vitally important role in our efforts to restore the

Chesapeake Bay by improving public access, enhancing public

education, and fostering citizen stewardship of the many

natural, cultural and historical resources of the Bay region.

Since its establishment in 1998, more than 150 sites and

water trails have been designated as Gateways throughout the

watershed in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West

Virginia, New York, and the District of Columbia. These

Gateway sites are helping to promote a greater understanding

and appreciation of the Chesapeake Bay and a greater

commitment to the Bay's restoration. The relatively modest

federal investment in the program has leveraged substantial

matching contributions--both financial and in-kind--from our

States, community organizations and other partners. For these

reasons, among others, the program was recognized by the

White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation in 2005 as

a cooperative conservation success story.

However, there is still a tremendous need for improved on-

site interpretation, enhanced public access, and additional

strategies to engage visitors and residents alike in the

Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection effort. In 2004,

the National Park Service completed a Chesapeake Bay Special

Resources Study which recommended, as its preferred

alternative, that the Gateways Program be made permanent and

expanded. The Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrail Network

Continuing Authorization Act would codify this recommendation

as well as enable implementation and fulfillment of the

original vision for an expansive Gateways and Watertrails

Network. It is critical that the Congress reauthorize this

important program and reject efforts to weaken the

legislation or sunset the Network. Doing so will pay

significant dividends in the years ahead by helping to

preserve and enhance our nation's largest estuary.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

Martin O'Malley,

Governor, Maryland.

Timothy M. Kaine,

Governor, Virginia.

Ruth Ann Minner,

Governor, Delaware.

Edward G. Rendell,

Governor, Pennsylvania.

David A. Paterson,

Governor, New York.

Joe Manchin III,

Governor, West Virginia.

Mayor Adrian Fenty,

Mayor, District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I did want to just mention one site, because we talked about the 156 sites and I wanted to bring that to life a little bit. The Patuxent Wildlife Refuge, which is not far from here, located in Maryland between Baltimore and Washington, is the oldest and really only National Wildlife Refuge that conducts wildlife research. It is 13,000 acres. It is the largest contiguous block of forest in the Baltimore-Washington corridor and it is the site of a tremendous amount of environmental education.

Not too long ago we had the opportunity in connection with some other environmental education legislation that I have sponsored to do a field hearing at the Patuxent Wildlife Refuge, and in the morning we had six schools represented from Maryland that came there with busloads of children to participate in activities of environmental education. If you could have seen the look on their faces and how excited they were to be outdoors and engaged in this kind of learning you would have I think been very, very impressed with the resource that exists there.

That is just one site of 156 sites across the bay watershed that are providing a tremendous opportunity to our citizens to connect not just to the environment, but to the heritage and cultural history of this area.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of points.

First of all, the gentleman from Utah spoke to the livelihood of people who work on the Chesapeake Bay, but the biggest threat to those who make their living on the Chesapeake Bay is the decline in the health of the Chesapeake Bay and the fisheries in particular that are in the Chesapeake Bay. So if we have the interests of those people at heart, we ought to be committing ourselves wholeheartedly to this continuing authorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network, because it is designed to enhance and improve and protect over the long term the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

To address another point, one of the reasons that the Democratic majority has been so steadfast in urging the pursuit of alternatives to fossil fuels in terms of energy sources is to reduce our dependence there, which obviously could go a long way towards the concern over fuel prices and gas prices. But another reason is because it will reduce these greenhouse gas emissions, which, again, impact the environment. If we don't take steps to do that, then there is not going to be any environment for us to enjoy.

The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program, it has been alluded to the fact that this is noncontroversial bill, that it should have come up on suspension. I agree. The minority resisted our desire to have it permanently authorized, and that is why we are in the process we are in today. But that permanent authorization I think is very much a part of the strong statement that we are seeking to make to the citizens in the watershed and to the many millions of visitors who come to the watershed every year, that our national government stands steadfast in this partnership with our citizenry.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I am gratified the gentleman from Utah plans to vote for this bill. I do note that the reason that we are here, the reason this was under a rule in part was to allow the gentleman to present an amendment, which I guess is going to be coming next.

In terms of safeguards, the appropriations process provides that on an annual basis in terms of looking at the program and deciding what kind of support ought to be given to it. The permanent authorization is about making a statement, making a statement to the citizen partners that we are asking to step up and be part of this effort to preserve the Chesapeake Bay.

The way we are going to save the bay, the way we are going to enhance its health over time is not by turning it over to experts, but by taking ownership at the community level, having every citizen understand what they can do in their own backyard, working with nonprofit groups, working with museums, with wildlife refuges, with historic sites, et cetera, to stake a claim in the future of the bay. And that is what the Chesapeake Bay Gateways program is all about; it is a gateway to this national treasure, 156 sites, 1,500 miles of water trails, and a tremendous investment on the part of ordinary citizens in the future of this national treasure. That is why we sought a permanent authorization. That is why we continue to seek it. That is at the heart of H.R. 5540, and I urge my colleagues to support it when it comes to the vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the Bishop amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman indicated some anxiety that the program would languish if it was permanently authorized. And I can assure him that this is one program that will not languish, because it has so stimulated the interest and the engagement of so many citizens and volunteer groups across the six States and the District of Columbia that make up the Chesapeake Bay watershed. And that is the point. That is the point of permanently authorizing it, because the citizenry has stepped up and they have shown that they are ready to work in partnership with their national government, and it is time for the national government to make an equally powerful statement to the citizenry that, when it comes to the Chesapeake Bay, we are going to be here as a steadfast ongoing supporter of that partnership.

Gateways has a proven track record. Initially authorized in 1998 and reauthorized in 2002, the Park Service conducted a special resource study on the program in 2004, and it concluded that Gateways should be made permanent and expanded. That is because the program is tested and proven. Park Service has already made the Gateways network a permanent unit of the Park System. Again, another reason it certainly will not languish, and a reason why the kind of oversight that the gentleman from Utah is concerned about will be there in terms of the agency's responsibility.

The appropriations process, which he dismissed as a significant way of overseeing the program and providing scrutiny to it, is there on an annual basis and can certainly serve that purpose.

So it is the essence of this bill in fact that we permanently authorize it, because we want to make the statement to those volunteers and citizens who stepped into this tremendous partnership to preserve the Chesapeake Bay that we understand the commitment they have made, and we are prepared to make an equal commitment from our side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am new to Congress, but I have already sat through a number of hearings in the

Natural Resources Committee where we scrutinize the appropriations requests and presentation of various agencies that are under our jurisdiction. So I have high confidence that the congressional oversight that is needed for this kind of program will be there through the annual appropriation process.

And I say again that this is about making a statement to all of those citizens who stepped forward and have supported the Gateways program, that are there to back these sites, to preserve our environment and the Chesapeake Bay, its heritage, its cultural legacy. And if we vote today as I hope we will, to permanently authorize this program, we will be saying to all of those citizen stewards that we are thankful for the commitment that they are making, and that their national government is ready to step up and make an equal commitment to protecting and preserving the Chesapeake Bay.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion.

Mr. Speaker, this is an odd motion as you read it and one that I don't think takes full account of how aware people are of the effect of gas prices, which is the issue that the other side has talked about all day. It says that there will be education of the public regarding the effect of high fuel prices. I think the public is fully able to educate itself with respect to that impact.

This is a distraction. It doesn't really connect to the underlying bill. It was not offered in committee. It was not offered as part of the rules process. But more importantly than that, this is styled, as was just indicated, as a ``promptly'' motion and, therefore, effectively would kill the bill. And I can't imagine why anybody would want to kill this bill.

What this is designed to do is to recognize the incredible commitment that has been made by ordinary citizens on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay. It would reauthorize on a permanent basis the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program and Watertrails Network, which was first enacted in 1998. This is a successful, efficient and effective program. The White House Conference called it ``a cooperative conservation success story.''

It includes 156 sites across six States and the District of Columbia, parks, wildlife refuges, museums, historic sites, watertrails, and most importantly, it reaches out to volunteer groups that have stepped forward to take stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay, millions of visitors from around the country and around the world every year.

It's an efficient and effective program, and this reauthorization makes an important statement. And that's why I object to the motion because the ``promptly'' nature of it would effectively kill this bill, and we need to make a statement now to those citizens that have stepped forward, that just as they have made an important and steadfast commitment to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, so their national government will make a similar commitment to the Chesapeake Bay and the watershed by stepping forward and permanently authorizing this outstanding program.

I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1233 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of House Resolution 1233 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1233 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5540, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate, controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources, and makes in order all amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my freshman class colleague from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for his leadership on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay. Mr. Sarbanes has worked diligently and tirelessly in a bipartisan fashion to transcend partisan politics and ensure the Chesapeake Bay remains a vibrant recreational and economic network for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, this rule and the legislation which it provides for consideration of will continue the important restoration and conservation of the Chesapeake Bay watershed by permanently authorizing the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

The Chesapeake Bay is our Nation's largest estuary. Many people often think of the Bay only as Maryland and Virginia, but the Bay's watershed covers 64,000 square miles in five States and the District of Columbia. In fact, the watershed's most northern part, or what we in upstate New York would call the starting point, extends into a significant portion of my congressional district and actually starts in Cooperstown, New York.

As a result of its size and location, the Chesapeake Bay has played a role in the development of American history, from early settlement and commerce to military battles and transportation development, as well as recreational uses. It truly is worthy of preservation, both for its natural beauty and the impact on our Nation's cultural evolution.

First established in 1998, the Chesapeake Bay Network is a comprehensive protection program for the Bay. The programs authorized serve to identify, conserve, restore and interpret the natural, historical, cultural and recreational resources within the watershed. These programs can also educate local communities on the significant sites in their region and how their community impacts the overall health of the Bay. The law requires the National Park Service to award grants to State and local agencies and nonprofit organizations with a full matching requirement for such projects.

The resulting network is a system of over 150 parks, museums, historic communities, scenic roadways, watertrails and water access points located within the vast Chesapeake Bay watershed. Each of these sites tells a piece of a vast Chesapeake story while providing Federal support for the preservation and improvement of these sites, to enhance both the historical and recreational experience. The network is overseen by the National Park Service, but the Park Service only manages about 10 of the network's sites. Other gateways are managed by local, State and nongovernmental organizations.

The Chesapeake Bay Network has always been a bipartisan program. The legislation that created it in 1998 passed the House on suspension by voice vote and was agreed to by unanimous consent in the Senate and signed into law by President Clinton. In 2002, a clean 5-year reauthorization received similar unanimous support in Congress and was signed into law by President Bush.

The White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation headed by the Department of the Interior has called the network a success story. The legislation this rule provides for consideration of will permanently extend the authorization for this bipartisan program. It is worth noting that the National Park Service has also recommended permanent reauthorization of the network.

I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill and to continue to support the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my friend from Washington for his comments and just point out, Mr. Speaker, that on the one hand my colleague from Washington says that we are not allowing anyone to make any amendments, that we have closed the rule, and yet we have allowed every amendment in the Rules Committee that was offered including the one amendment from the gentleman from Utah. And then he criticizes in saying that we allow debate for 2 hours on this bill. You can't have it both ways. We have allowed debate on this bill, we have allowed for people to bring their amendments if that is what they choose to do and have an open Congress just the way we talked about.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my colleague from North Carolina talks about inaction. And he would have the American people believe that inaction means not drilling. They are two distinctly different things. Just simply because I don't advocate drilling doesn't mean that I am not for alternative energy. We cannot drill our way to energy independence. It just doesn't make sense.

Yes, I will yield.

Reclaiming my time, it is not about drilling. That is what some people in this House want to talk about. It is not. It is about developing alternative energy. In my district, we are developing cellulosic ethanol. In my district, we are developing geothermal power. We are heating schools, we are heating buildings, we are heating offices with geothermal. It is about developing alternative energy. It is not about drilling, drilling, drilling. Because in the end, what is going to happen is in 10 years or in 15 years we are going to defer this problem to our children. It is not something that we should just dump on their laps by just moving the problem to them.

We can drill today, we can drill tomorrow. And then in 10 years and in 15 years our children and our grandchildren will have to deal with this. It is time to deal with it today. Mr. Speaker, it is time to deal with it today and to deal with it now, not to defer it to our children. That is not what a good parent does.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for the history lesson and for the lesson on what drilling means. I really appreciate that. I know we don't have a lot of domestic oil in New York, but I appreciate having him tell me what drilling means.

But when people in my district talk to me about what are we doing about gas, and we get those very same questions, I tell them that we have done some things. We have passed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension Consumer Protection Act. I tell them we've passed the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act. I tell them we've passed the OPEC and big oil companies accountability bill. I tell them we've passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. I tell them we've passed the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act. I tell them we've passed the Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act. I tell them we've passed the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act. I tell them we've passed the Energy Market Manipulation Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, America is tired of the same old rhetoric. They want new solutions. When I talk about geothermal projects that we have in our district, when I talk about cellulosic ethanol plants, when I talk about wood pellet plants, that is new strategies. Those are new philosophies. Those are the kind of strategies that we need in this country for real, long-term change in direction, the kind of direction that will make it easier for our children and our grandchildren to live and to function and not to be dependent on foreign oil.

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

I'll reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

We have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

I have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is a person in America today that hasn't been affected either personally or through their business by the high cost of energy, by the high cost of gas. You know, we all go to the gas pumps. Just last weekend when I was home, I was pumping the gas, and you could see the look on people's faces as they watched the amount and as they went inside to pay the bill. And we all know, whether you're in New York or whether you're in the State of Washington or whether you're in Texas, no matter where you are here in this country, we all know and experience the same thing.

However, the strategy of finger-pointing and blaming just will not get this country to where we need to be. We talk about here whose fault it is. We constantly have people pointing the finger. The fact of the matter is in 2002 when this President took over in the White House, the price of oil was $25 a barrel. Today it's nearly $130 a barrel. The cost of gas per gallon has tripled.

We could point the finger. We could blame. We could do a lot of things. The fact of the matter is we cannot drill our way to energy independence. And people here would have you think that there is no drilling and there is no exploration going on in this country. Right now in my State, in fact, in my district, in the southern part of New York State, the northern part of Pennsylvania, there are huge amounts of exploration going on for natural gas.

Huge natural gas fields there. They are looking for gas. They are searching for gas. They are finding it in this country. It is going on. The American people will have all of the energy that they need.

However, if we are going to get to where we need to be as a country, we cannot depend on a finite resource. We can't depend on gas and oil. It will be gone. It will eventually deplete, and our children will be right where we are now paying double, triple, quadruple what we are paying now for energy.

It is time to look toward alternative energy, and that's what we advocate; Not stopping drilling. No one wants to see us stop drilling or stop exploration. Just to be practical in terms of how we develop our alternative energy in the next step that we take.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to bring us back here to the discussion, just for a moment, of the real reason that we're here today, and that is the reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. I think it's sad that this bill seems to have been trivialized today because this is a very important bill. This means a great deal to many people that live in the States that the Chesapeake Bay watershed is in but more importantly to this country.

It is such an important part of our history and a critical part of our future. This is a program that did not have even a single Member of Congress oppose its creation or its subsequent reauthorization. Over a decade that the program has existed, it has been heralded as a success by the administration and Congress alike.

The program was unanimously reauthorized by Congress 5 years ago. The legislation this rule provides for consideration would now permanently extend the authorization for this bipartisan program. And the National Park Service has recommended this permanent reauthorization of the network. Everyone agrees that the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network is a good program. That's had a positive impact on the preservation and recreation within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that we on the Rules Committee have made every amendment on this legislation submitted by the Republican minority for consideration. This will allow for both a full debate and a vote on every item of legislation with which the Republican minority has issue.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, the House is set to consider H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This bill will direct the Secretary of Education to make grants and loans to local educational agencies for the construction, modernization or repair of public educational facilities. It also would require the funds to be used only for projects that meet certain green standards such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Energy Star, or an equivalent State or local standard.

Tomorrow, we are scheduled to consider H.R. 5540, to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trails Network.

I spent last week, Mr. Speaker, meeting and speaking with constituents in my district about the issues that matter to them, and no one mentioned anything closely related to these two bills. Both of these bills may be important in their own right, but I believe there are other issues that are much more pressing, issues we should be debating.

When Americans are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, we should be working on legislation to lower the cost of gasoline, increasing domestic energy exploration, reducing our reliance on unstable foreign energy.

France produces over 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and there's a strong environmental movement in France. And yet the United States hasn't built a nuclear power plant in 30 years.

When our military forces are running out of personnel, operation and maintenance funds, we should be working to bring bipartisan legislation to the President's desk that he can quickly sign and fund the troops.

When the intelligence community is stripped of one of their key tools in the fight against international terrorism because the majority let the Protect America Act expire, we should be working to give our intelligence officials the tools they need to stop terrorist attacks.

Instead, the majority has decided to work on a green schools bill and a water trails network reauthorization. These are not exactly the pressing issues facing Americans every day. These are not the issues our constituents want us working on today.

One of the central tenets of the Democrats' campaign in 2006, Mr. Speaker, was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. On December 6, 2006, the distinguished Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, reiterated her campaign promise. She said, ``we promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we will.''

However, that promise has yet to come to fruition as the majority has consistently blocked an open process through the Rules Committee. A prime example of how they've consistently stymied openness and bipartisanship is by the number of open rules that they've allowed in the 110th Congress. We're three-quarters of the way through the 110th Congress, and so far the majority has allowed only one open rule. One open rule, Mr. Speaker, in 18 months.

They had a chance to double to two the open rules last night, but by a party line vote they decided that they would once again use a restrictive rule process in making only four Republican amendments in order. They struck down 15 Republican amendments that had been introduced, including one from the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. McKeon. So much for the open process they promised.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished lady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, first it's important to set the record straight. Ten years ago, this Congress passed drilling in the ANWR, and it faced a Presidential veto by then- President Clinton, and imagine if it hadn't faced a veto how much of a difference we would have been able to make.

Now we're seeing the consequences of that, as Mr. Price of Georgia pointed out. Effort after effort that we've engaged in to try to increase the production of energy, the supply of energy has been opposed by the other side of the aisle and I think nowhere more dramatically than when we were able to pass legislation to have production in Alaska, and it was vetoed by the last President, a Democratic President.

So these things have to be put on the record, Mr. Speaker, because now with $4 gas the record counts, and the record is of interest to all Americans, and it will be more and more of interest every day.

Mr. Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, just over 2 years ago, now- Speaker Pelosi issued the following statement:

``With skyrocketing gas prices it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican rubber stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came into office.''

Mr. Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 a gallon today. Yet here we are this week debating bills on green schools and watertrails network instead of working on legislation to reduce the price of gasoline and increase supply. Now, the price of gasoline is at $4 gallon now.

Reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront that issue, just over a month ago the newspaper Investors Business Daily in an editorial said that this Congress ``is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy.''

[From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 29, 2008]

Congress Vs. You

We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress

is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is

especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional

energy policy.

The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its

failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an

ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from

understanding how free markets and supply and demand really

work. Sad, but true.

So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling

out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide-

ranging press conference Tuesday.

``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues

affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to

mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to

their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately,

on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''

Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just

generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of

congressional energy inaction, including:

Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted,

estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from

this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and

diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of

the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so

your representative can raise campaign cash.

Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one

since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique''

fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem

at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price

spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.

Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with

advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems

have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--

the same as a decade ago--producing just 19% of our total

energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their

power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are

expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at

$1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural

gas.

Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic

understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and

needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity.

So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy

companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy

situation worse.

These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all

while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add

more than a million barrels of new demand each and every

year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand

growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.

Americans who are worried about the direction of their

country, including runaway energy and food prices, should

keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing

a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.

The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker

who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two

years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and

irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.

Today, I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider any amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas prices for consumers, such as H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, which would give commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses and require the Speaker of the House to submit a plan to lower gas prices.

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

I am so pleased that our colleague Dr. Price pointed out on issue after issue, whether it's ANWR exploration or coal-to-liquid or oil shale exploration or refinery increased capacity or on the issue of nuclear power. There is a strong environmental movement in France, but over 80 percent of their electricity is generated from nuclear power. Yet we haven't built a nuclear power plant in this country in over 30 years.

It's time to face the issue of energy independence in this country.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Again, Mr. Speaker, we're asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question to be able to address the energy issue. If we're ever going to address it, it's time to start doing so with $4 a gallon gasoline.

Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and insist that the energy issue be addressed seriously by voting ``no'' on the previous question. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is currently spending 1 hour debating what rules will be used to consider the underlying Chesapeake Bay Watertrails bill. This is legislation that has passed the House in prior years with little or no dissent and without controversy. So the question must be asked, Mr. Speaker, why are the Democrat leaders going through all of this trouble of having the House consider this bill under this special rule? Why is the House going to spend 2 hours today discussing a bill that could have been handled in just 20 minutes under suspension and ultimately passed by an overwhelming number of votes in this House? And why, if the House is going to such lengths and dedicating 2 hours to consider watertrails on the Chesapeake Bay, are Members being blocked from a true, meaningful debate on the issue?

This rule allows only one amendment to be offered, and that amendment would simply limit the extension of this existing Chesapeake Bay law for another 5 years, instead of extending it forever as the bill is currently written. If we are going to go through all the trouble of bringing this noncontroversial bill to the floor, why don't we have a real debate that allows every Member who has an amendment or an idea to improve this legislation to come to the House floor and have it discussed and voted on?

When the Democrat leaders took control of the Congress after the 2006 election, they promised the American people that they would run the House in a more open and honest manner. But ever since they made that promise, Democrat leaders have been doing just exactly the opposite. The Congressional Record shows that this Democrat Congress actually has the worst record, Mr. Speaker, the worst record on openness in the history of our country. In the past year-and-a-half, they have only allowed one bill, one bill, to come to the House floor and be debated under an open rule. As we see today on this Chesapeake Bay bill, they are even shutting down debate on even the most noncontroversial pieces of legislation.

Now, I might point out also that the Democrat leaders today convened the House early. Normally when you get to work early it is either because you have a lot to do or you want to go home early. Let's consider that the only two things the House is scheduled to do today is to spend 2 hours debating watertrails and the Chesapeake Bay and one hour of debate on a final budget that was supposed to have been done, Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, and it is a budget that raises taxes by the largest amount in American history. At any rate, that is just 3 hours of time.

So why did we convene early? What are we going to do the rest of the day? It seems pretty clear that the House didn't get to work early today because they had so much to do, but rather it

is, I believe, so the House can leave early and go home.

Mr. Speaker, I have another idea, and that is that this House get serious about the rising price of gasoline in our country.

So I urge my colleagues to vote no against the previous question when they bring that up at the end of the debate to allow the House to debate ``an amendment to a bill which the proponents assert if enacted would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline.''

Mr. Speaker, I first proposed this action on a similar previous question rule back on April 23. In the 44 days since, this liberal Congress has done nothing to address rising gas prices. According to information gathered by the AAA, the citizens of Washington State, my home State, who buy gas are paying the highest reported price for gasoline that has ever been paid in that State. It is at $4.19 per gallon.

Speaker Pelosi promised the American people that Democrats had ``a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Speaker Pelosi also said that the Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at the pump.'' Despite this promise of a plan and lower prices, since Democrats took control of the Congress, they have put forward no plan and prices have gone up, up and up to record levels.

And Democrats have blocked every try after try by Republicans to allow the House to debate, just simply to debate legislation to lower the price of gasoline. The only bill that Democrats have brought to the floor and passed was to file lawsuits against OPEC countries in the Middle East and to try to get them to produce more oil and to reduce prices. That is all, Mr. Speaker.

Democrats may believe that suing Middle Eastern countries and raising taxes is a plan to lower gas prices here in America, but common sense says that is just wrong. It is Republicans that have a plan to produce American made gas and energy and it is the Democrats who are standing in the way of these solutions.

Prices go up when demand goes up, and around the world the demand for oil and gas is going way up. Our country can either continue to sit here and be at the mercy of overseas Nations for our energy needs, or we as Americans can start taking matters into our own hands and start accessing the millions of barrels of known reserves right here within the United States. Our Nation's energy reserves have been put off- limits, and Democrats continue to block even exploring the possibility of producing more energy here in America.

With record gas prices at gas stations across the country, Americans can't afford to continue to rely on other countries in volatile parts of the world to sell us the gas and oil that we need. We need to produce this energy ourselves, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so this House can debate the serious issue of rising gas prices confronting Americans in our country and so we can start producing, producing, Mr. Speaker, American-made gasoline.

If the House is going to spend 2 hours debating authorizing the Chesapeake Bay Watertrails law for 5 years or not, we certainly I think, Mr. Speaker, can afford to dedicate some time to considering ways to reduce the rising price of gasoline.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Before I yield to the gentleman from California, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) to respond.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire of my friend from New York if he has any further speakers.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of my friend

from New York if he's the last speaker still.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leaders today have put a noncontroversial Chesapeake Bay watertrails bill on the House floor, but what is first and foremost on the minds of Americans is gas prices, as we have talked about today. And it's also a huge concern in the Chesapeake Bay communities.

I venture to guess the citizens and families living around the Chesapeake Bay don't wake up in the morning worried about watertrails but they do worry in the Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake basin about the price of gasoline.

I would like to submit, Mr. Speaker, for the Record, several news releases here talking about the price of gasoline. This is from WJZ, a local Maryland station. And it says here, ``Watermen Feeling Pain At the Pump.'' It talks about the beautiful weather, but it also says that the price of gas is doubling and the price of seafood is going down, and that's a bad combination.

Here is another one: ``Gas prices force business owners to clamp down.'' And there's talk about a gentleman who has to spend $4,000 a month on gasoline.

And here is another one regarding the Chesapeake Bay community. It says, ``Gas prices fuel dip in fishing.''

[From WJZ--a local Maryland station, May 30, 2008]

Watermen Feeling Pain At The Pump

(By Alex DeMetrick)

The weather is beautiful on the Chesapeake Bay. But things

are downright ugly at fuel docks.

Alex DeMetrich reports gas prices are soaring and that's

having an impact on those who depend upon boats and the bay

to make a living.

Naming a work boat the ``Last Penny'' may have been a stab

at humor once, but it's striking a little too close to

reality at fuel docks around the bay. Diesel is at $4.50 a

gallon and climbing.

``The gas is doubling and the price of seafood is going

down,'' said Waterman Bucky Murphy.

Working the water takes constant moving. But with crabs

spotty and fuel high, watermen are trying to conserve.

``They're hurting us bad. Its almost double in the past

year, so it's taking a right good bite out of us.'' said

waterman Wendell Lednun.

Joe Spurry buys crabs on Tilghman Island, but his truck

might carry them as far away as New York.

Right now, crabs are selling for around $90 a bushel

dockside. By the time they get to a seafood market in

Baltimore, they could cost around $200 a bushel.

Mr. Speaker, I urge again my colleagues to defeat the previous question so this House can get serious about rising gas prices and so we can start producing American-made energy and gasoline.

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

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