Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from California for yielding me time.

He made a couple of comments earlier, I won't try to repeat everything that he said, but he asked a question; he doesn't know why we're here dealing with this bill that normally would be under suspension and certainly wouldn't be a rule bill, but I agree that we know why we're here: it's to fill time because the majority has so little of consequence for us to deal with when we should be dealing with consequential things such as the American Energy Act.

However, I want to also point out the fact that this bill is not going to solve all of the problems of the world. It's not going to create the alternative energies that we need. I read the Constitution. I read it fairly frequently. Yesterday we celebrated Constitution Day. And I have searched in vain for the word ``education'' there. Nowhere did our Founding Fathers just think that the Congress of the United States should be involved in education. That was an issue that they thought best left to the States, and I think it is best left to the States and is not something that we should be dealing with here in the Congress.

Almost every day someone from the majority party comes to the floor and decries the deficit that we're facing. Well, one of the reasons that we're facing a terrible deficit is because the majority party is involved in everything and many things it should not be involved in, especially in education. That is something we should leave to the States. If we did that and left the hardworking people's money at the State level, we would be able to do a lot more than we're currently doing.

But I want to point out the fact that we should be dealing with the American Energy Act. We had a chance this week to do that, and we refused. Bipartisan passage of the American Energy Act would demonstrate to the world that America will no longer keep its rich energy resources under lock and key as the Democrats want to do. Not only will it help bring down the price of gasoline now, but it will make needed investments in the alternative fuels that will power our lives and our economy in the future.

Now as my colleague also mentioned earlier, there's been a very fine survey done. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the entire survey for the Record today. I want to just point out some of the things that came out in the survey that my colleague had not pointed out.

This survey was launched in July by the Republicans on the Education Committee. It was provided via the Caucus Web site and was sent to education stakeholders all across the country. We asked those people to give us their reactions and the impact on the high cost of energy to the schools. Ninety percent of the people who responded indicated that high gas prices are having an impact on schools in their community. Ninety-six percent of these respondents demanded that Congress do more to address the energy crisis.

``Nearly half of the respondents reported that high fuel costs have forced schools in their community to cut field trips and after-school activities; one-third of respondents reported that high costs forced schools to limit bus routes, and nearly a quarter of respondents reported that rising energy costs have led to higher school lunch prices.''

We don't need to create more programs to encourage students to go on field trips. They're not going to be able to go on field trips because there's no

money to buy gas for the buses to take them on field trips.

This is just one of the most ridiculous things that we've been talking about in this session of Congress.

``Since Democrats took control of Congress''--and I'm quoting again from the survey--``in January 2007''--they took control of Congress, and I think it's very important the American people know who's in charge--``the energy crunch has been swift and severe. Gas prices have risen from an average of $2.33 per gallon in the first days of the Democrat majority to more than $3.75 per gallon today while diesel prices--particularly important for school transportation purposes--have risen from $2.44 a gallon to more than $4 per gallon today.''

Even the liberal New York Times has talked about the problem that the schools are facing. We don't usually find ourselves agreeing with the New York Times on issues, but they talked about the pain that schools are feeling. ``As the cost of diesel fuel has soared well past what many districts budgeted for last spring, school officials are rethinking their transportation needs, making big-ticket spending cuts and a host of surgical trims.''

They go on to quote, ``In a national survey of superintendents released in July by the American Association of School Administrators, 99 percent said that rising fuel costs had forced across-the-board cuts.'' This was the New York Times, September 5, 2008.

Here we are setting up programs, new programs, that cost a lot of money in bureaucracy and administration to try to do something we could do very, very easily by passing the American Energy Act.

That's all within our power here to do, and here are some individual comments in their own words from Americans who demand energy reform.

This is from Robert in Hamilton, Ohio: ``Yes, drill, build new refineries, solar, nuclear and anything else to break the dependence on foreign oil.''

That is exactly the position of Republican Members of this House. We want to break our dependency on foreign oil and we can do this. We are pro-American energy. Our colleagues, the Democrats, are anti-American energy. They will not do things that help us increase the supply in this country.

Here's another comment from Lori from Middletown, Ohio: ``I work at (a local) Head Start program. Our families are struggling to get their children to preschool. They must choose between gas in the car or food in many cases.''

I listened to these platitudes by our colleagues across the aisle, and frankly, they sound pretty hollow to me when we hear comments like this. The American people are suffering. They are doing nothing.

Another comment from Reeves in Gastonia, North Carolina: ``The rising cost of energy is impacting our school district in many ways: pupil transportation, employee travel, staff development, cost of goods/ services, et cetera. It is getting increasingly difficult to reduce costs and not have an impact on the instructional day.''

Again, the American people are hurting and the Democrats are turning a deaf ear.

From Thomas from Joelton, Tennessee: ``We have to increase the supply of domestic oil. When my family grew in size, I did not reduce the amount of food provided to each member, I increased the supply. Gasoline is the same way.''

The American people are very, very smart and the Democrats are selling them short. They understand the issue. They understand that the issue is supply and demand, and this report concludes:

``Education stakeholders overwhelmingly report they are being hurt by the energy squeeze and demand that Congress do more. But instead of doing more, rank-and-file Democrats voted overwhelmingly with their leadership to kill a Republican measure that would have given schools relief and continue to block a comprehensive plan to bring down fuel prices. The House Republicans' `back-to-school' energy survey confirms a New York Times report from earlier this month: `School officials are rethinking their transportation needs, making big-ticket spending cuts and a host of surgical trims.' How much longer will the Democrat-led Congress wait to give them--and families, seniors, and small businesses--the relief they are demanding from today's high energy costs?''

It is time that the Democrats listened to the will of the American people and provide an opportunity for us to provide more supply for the American people and give relief to them.

I say to them again, you're either pro-American energy or you're anti-American energy. So far, the position you've taken is anti- American energy, and I don't believe that's where the American people want you to be.

Strapped: Students and Schools Pay the Price for Democrats Failed

Energy Policies

summary and key findings

A survey launched in late July by House Republicans has

yielded some eye-opening results as the Democratic leadership

of the 110th Congress has refused to allow a vote on the

House Republicans' American Energy Act (H.R. 6566), which

aims to lower gas prices by increasing production of American

energy, encouraging more conservation and efficiency, and

promoting the use of more alternative and renewable fuels.

The survey--provided via the Education & Labor Committee

Republican caucus' website--was made available to education

stakeholders across the country, from parents and students to

teachers and administrators and sought their input on the

impact of today's high gas prices on schools, colleges, and

universities as the 2008-09 academic year begins. Key

findings of the survey follow:

90 percent of the survey's nearly 1,000 respondents

indicated that high gas prices are having an impact on

schools in their community.

96 percent of respondents demand that Congress do more to

address the energy crisis.

Nearly half of respondents reported that high fuel costs

have forced schools in their community to cut field trips and

after-school activities; one-third of respondents reported

that high costs forced schools to limit bus routes, and

nearly a quarter of respondents reported that rising energy

costs have led to higher school lunch prices.

In spite of these stark findings, the Democratic leadership

of the House has refused to schedule the American Energy Act

for a vote and defeated Republican proposals on June 4, June

26, and September 16, 2008 to assist schools feeling the

greatest impact from high energy costs. In fact, the

Democrat-led Education & Labor Committee has not even held a

single hearing on this issue.

schools feel the pain of high energy costs

American families, seniors, and small businesses are

hurting amid high gas prices and heating costs that are

poised to rise this fall and winter. But they are not alone.

As schools across the country settle into the 2008-09

academic year, they too are feeling the pain of today's

energy crunch. Indeed, from elementary and secondary schools

to community colleges and universities, schools at every

level are grappling with this crisis and making all-too-often

painful adjustments just to get themselves through the year.

Since Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007,

the energy crunch has been swift and severe. Gas prices have

risen from an average of $2.33 per gallon in the first days

of the Democratic Majority to more than $3.75 per gallon

today, while diesel prices--particularly important for school

transportation purposes--have risen from $2.44 per gallon to

more than $4.00 per gallon today.

Simply put, the surge in energy costs has been dramatic,

and the Majority has yet to offer the ``commonsense plan'' to

lower gas prices then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

promised during the 2006 campaign season. Instead, the

Speaker and her colleagues in the Democratic leadership have

offered one ``no energy'' bill after another--proving

themselves more interested in votes to provide political

cover for vulnerable Democrats than they are in giving the

American people an ``all of the above'' energy strategy to

lower fuel costs. And all the while, families, seniors, small

businesses, and--yes--schools are left to pay the price . . .

literally.

Earlier this month, the New York Times put the pain schools

are feeling into perspective:

``As the cost of diesel fuel has soared well past what many

districts budgeted for last spring, school officials are

rethinking their transportation needs, making big-ticket

spending cuts and a host of surgical trims.

``Some districts are eliminating field trips and after-

school buses. Many are consolidating routes, causing some

students to walk farther to their stops and others to lose

their buses altogether. They are holding off on new teachers,

counselors and textbooks, and teaming with neighboring

districts for prekindergarten, special education and private

school transportation . . .

``In a national survey of superintendents released in July

by the American Association of School Administrators, 99

percent said that rising fuel costs had forced across-the-

board cuts.'' (New York Times, ``Fuel Prices Squeeze School

Districts,'' September 5, 2008)

house republicans launch innovative ``back-to-school energy survey''

To help understand the scope of this problem, House

Republicans launched a web-based initiative in late July

focused on how high energy prices are impacting schools all

across the nation. Housed at the Education & Labor

Committee's Republican website, this survey gathered input

from school officials, teachers, and families over a period

of six weeks to determine the extent of the energy crisis for

schools at all levels--input that Republicans hope will

provide both parties even more of an incentive to come

together in these final days of the 110th Congress and pass

an ``all of the above'' plan to increase American energy

production, encourage more efficiency and conservation, and

promote the use of alternative and renewable fuels. The

survey follows:

1. Are high gas prices having an impact on back-to-school

preparations in your community?

Yes, a very significant impact.

Yes, somewhat of an impact.

No, not much of an impact.

No, not at all.

2. If you answered ``yes'' above, how are your local

schools coping with high energy prices?

Limiting bus routes.

Cutting field trips/after-school activities.

Increasing school lunch prices.

Moving to a four (or fewer) day week.

Expanding online course offerings.

Other (please describe below).

3. Should Congress be doing more to lower gas prices and

promote long-term American energy independence?

Yes.

No.

No comment.

4. Additional comments:

5. Name:

6. E-mail (optional):

7. City, State:

8. May we share your story with others?

Overstretched Schools Want Action from Democratic Congress

The above-referenced New York Times article depicts the

types of problems being experienced nationwide. In fact,

according to the ``back-to-school'' energy survey, 90 percent

of all respondents indicated that high gas prices are having

an impact on schools in their community (72 percent

responding that gas prices are having ``a very significant

impact,'' with 18 percent responding that they are having

``somewhat of an impact''). The most common ramifications of

high fuel costs are cutting field trips and after-school

activities (provided by 48 percent of respondents), limiting

bus routes (33 percent), and increasing school lunch prices

(23 percent).

As a result, nearly every respondent to the survey (96

percent) indicated that Congress should be doing more to

lower gas prices and promote long-term American energy

independence. Congress, however, has not answered the call,

in spite of the fact that House Republicans unveiled the

comprehensive American Energy Act to lower fuel prices nearly

two months ago. Democrats also turned back a House Republican

effort to provide more funding to assist schools dealing with

high energy costs.

House Republican Proposals for Reform Defeated by Democratic Majority

As the recently-completed survey suggests, schools across

the country are feeling the pain from rising energy costs.

Even before the survey was launched, however, House

Republicans attempted to provide more assistance to those

schools feeling the greatest pain from today's energy crunch.

On June 4, 2008, the Democratic leadership scheduled for

House consideration the 21st Century Green High-Performing

Public School Facilities Act (H.R. 3021), a bill that takes

$20 billion in taxpayer dollars away from low-income students

and students with disabilities and creates a massive,

unproven school construction program run by bureaucrats in

Washington. During consideration of the legislation, Rep.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) offered a motion to recommit

proposal to allow schools that have seen their energy costs

rise by more than 50 percent since January 4, 2007--Rep.

Pelosi's first day as Speaker--to use funds under the bill to

help cover their energy expenditures. Unfortunately,

Democrats killed the proposal, leaving the schools to fend

for themselves. (Rollcall Vote 378, with 225 Democrats voting

against the proposal.)

On June 26, 2008, during consideration of the Saving Energy

Through Public Transportation Act (H.R. 6052), Democrats

blocked a Republican proposal to assist rural schools and

students. The measure--offered by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)--

would have required that in any area where school bus

services are being cut back because of high fuel prices, the

funds under the Democratic bill must be used to help restore

those services. Walden's proposal gave preference to rural

and suburban areas where school buses have to travel greater

distances to transport students. (Rollcall Vote 466, with 217

Democrats voting against the proposal.)

On September 16, 2008, Democrats turned back a bipartisan

plan--co-sponsored by 38 Democrats, 24 of whom inexplicably

voted against it--that would have aided schools suffering

from the effects of the energy crisis as well. During

consideration of the Democrats' so-called Comprehensive

American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act (H.R.

6899), Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) offered a bipartisan plan he

originally authored with Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) to

begin taking steps toward lower gas prices and energy

independence. The plan, in part, would have enabled states to

enter into revenue-sharing agreements with the federal

government as part of increased energy production far off of

their coasts. Under the bipartisan plan, states would be

permitted to use revenues to increase funding to schools

feeling the impact of the energy crunch. But once again, the

Democratic Majority blocked the plan, depriving schools of

critical funding to help them cope with rising energy costs.

(Rollcall Vote 598, with 216 Democrats voting against the

proposal.)

In Their Own Words: Americans Demand Energy Reform

Following is a sampling of remarks left by respondents to

the ``back-to-school'' energy survey detailing exactly what

parents, teachers, and students are facing while the

Democratic Congress refuses to act on meaningful legislation

to bring down gas prices and other energy costs:

``Yes, drill, build new refineries, solar, nuclear and

anything else to break the dependence on foreign oil.''--

Robert from Hamilton, OH.

``I work at [a local] Head Start program. Our families are

struggling to get their children to pre-school. They must

choose between gas in the car or food in many cases.''--Lori

from Middletown, OH.

``The rising cost of energy is impacting our school

district in many ways: pupil transportation, employee travel,

staff development, cost of goods/services, etc. It is getting

increasingly difficult to reduce costs and not have an impact

on the instructional day.''--Reeves from Gastonia, NC.

``What are schools to do? The price of diesel, which most

school buses use, is even higher than the price of gasoline.

The option of passing or even sharing the cost of the fuel

increase with the consumers (parents) is not an option.

Levies are increasingly more difficult to pass. Field trips

and busing for athletics are either eliminated or the parents

are charged a fee to help offset the transportation cost.

Lengthening the school day and providing a 4-day week is

vehemently opposed by many parents who do not want to pay for

child care for that 5th weekday the child would not be in

school. Freezing wages and cutting back on insurance benefits

for teachers and support personnel deters people from

teaching at a time when the country desperately needs to be

focusing on Math, Science and Technology so its students are

better prepared for employment in our global economy . . . I

repeat--what are schools to do?''--Shari from Medway, OH.

``We cannot believe Congress went on vacation. We must have

a complete policy. Drill for oil, build new refineries, build

nuclear plants, and anything else that will work. Everything

is being affected, cost of groceries and all other goods.

Please help. Keep up the fight for us. We need an energy

policy.''--Ruth from Vacaville, CA.

``We have to increase the supply of domestic oil. When my

family grew in size, I did not reduce the amount food

provided to each member, I increased the supply. Gasoline is

the same way.''--Thomas from Joelton, TN.

``As an educator I am very concerned on the impact of

budget cuts for all students and staff operating in our

school system.''--Tessa from Waleska, GA.

``Being a rural community where most of the students come

to school on buses, high fuel prices cause a big problem.''--

Edward from Wapato, WA.

``The high price of fuel and energy costs [has]

significantly reduced the amount of funding we have for

educating our children to be competitive in a world class

economy.''--Pam from Medical Lake, WA.

``Every school child that I know has had their bus route

increased. My 6 year old is now on the bus for more than 2

hours a day.''--Claudia from Stevenson Ranch, CA.

``This year we may not be able to go on any field trips

because the school bus rates have gotten so expensive.

Families are having a tough time as it is. It is sad because

the kids are missing out on those experiences.''--Tar from

DeLand, FL.

Conclusion

Education stakeholders overwhelmingly report they are being

hurt by the energy squeeze and demand that Congress do more.

But instead of doing more, rank-and-file Democrats voted

overwhelmingly with their leadership to kill a Republican

measure that would have given schools relief and continue to

block a comprehensive plan to bring down fuel prices. The

House Republicans' ``back-to-school'' energy survey confirms

a New York Times report from earlier this month: ``School

officials are rethinking their transportation needs, making

big-ticket spending cuts and a host of surgical trims.'' How

much longer will the Democrat-led Congress wait to give

them--and families, seniors, and small businesses--the relief

they are demanding from today's high energy costs?

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

For the past few years, the Committee on Agriculture has taken a proactive approach to try to understand and monitor the issue of trading activity in the futures markets and conduct appropriate oversight. This was so we could make an informed decision about whether or not commodity markets need greater transparency and accountability.

Last week, CFTC Acting Chairman Walt Lukken presented a 6-month study of the futures market to the committee. Chairman Lukken and his staff spent a lot of hours and a great deal of work over the past 3 months to produce that report. We appreciated their efforts, especially for keeping an aggressive timetable.

The CFTC report was useful in providing a reference point in determining the relationship between index fund-related activity in the over-the-counter markets and commodity futures, and energy and agriculture prices in the United States.

However, as we move forward today with H.R. 6604, there are key factors for us to consider.

One, after hearing testimony from Mr. Lukken, and after examining the findings of this report, it is evident that our priority should be ensuring that the CFTC has the tools and resources it needs to protect and preserve the integrity of our futures markets.

The CFTC devoted more than 30 employees and 4,000 staff hours to produce this report. Those who have read the report all agree that these broad snapshots of the markets are necessary, but the CFTC does not have the staff to dedicate to similar projects.

This bill directs the CFTC to hire 100 additional employees. But because there has not been a single appropriations bill passed by both Chambers and presented to the President, I have no idea how the already underfunded agency will be able to do so.

The Democratic leadership is fond of pointing the finger of blame, but ultimately the Democratic leadership has one duty, to consider and pass the appropriations bills that fund the government. The Democratic leadership has refused to execute this duty and has failed the American taxpayer.

Second, this bill will not reduce the price of oil. It will not relieve the burden many Americans face at the gas pump. In order to achieve that very important goal, Congress must focus on creating a viable energy policy that goes beyond the measures passed thus far to increase the domestic supply of energy sources and promote energy independence.

Though I have concerns that some of the provisions in H.R. 6604 are too far-reaching, I will continue to support this bill to ensure that the CFTC has all the tools it needs to preserve and protect the integrity of our futures markets.

But I know, as I have worked closely with the chairman of the committee, who has worked in a very bipartisan fashion to fashion this legislation and address these concerns and make sure the CFTC has the necessary oversight authority and capability, that this bill would provide for it.

I also know that this is not what the American people want and need when it comes to energy. I know that there are many on the other side of the aisle who are hoping still to have an opportunity to vote, not on a hoax, not on a sham like we did 2 days ago, but on a real American energy bill that provides for real offshore drilling, not a bill that would shut off 80 to 90 percent of the known oil and natural gas reserves from access, not a bill that does nothing to promote nuclear power, not a bill that doesn't take up consideration of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not a bill that shuts us off from tapping into the oil shale reserves that are in tremendous abundance in the Rocky Mountain States, not a bill that does nothing for coal-to- liquid and other clean coal technologies that would benefit the American people, since we have the largest coal reserves in the world, not a bill that imposes tax increases in order to get to the alternative forms of energy that the American people want to have, but, rather, the American Energy Act, something that we asked this Congress to bring up before we went into a 5-week August recess.

While the Speaker of the House ordered the microphones turned off, the C-SPAN cameras turned off, the lights turned down low, we stayed here day after day, week after week, calling for a vote on the American Energy Act. We didn't get it.

Instead, we got this sham hoax that won't produce a drop of new oil, won't produce a cubic foot of new natural gas, will do nothing for nuclear power, will do nothing for coal, will do nothing for alternative forms of energy. It is simply an effort to try to derail what the American people clearly wanted to see on the floor of this House.

We still haven't seen it. This bill doesn't do it. We need to have that vote, and that's what the debate should be about here today, not this legislation which is good, but does not do what the American people want.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the ranking Republican member on the subcommittee with jurisdiction over commodity futures trading.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for such time as he may consume.

Will the gentleman yield?

I have only myself to close. If the gentleman is thinking that we're close to closing, then I am prepared to do that.

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

As I say, I appreciate working with the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Minnesota on this legislation.

I think this legislation gives to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the necessary tools for appropriate oversight and enforcement. I think this is a light touch. I do not think that it interferes in the marketplace.

And I think that the evidence that was brought forth by the recent report submitted by the CFTC is very strong evidence that the marketplace is working very well, but it needs constant vigilance. We can see that with the difficulties that are being experienced around the country and around the world in other types of markets.

Certainly in the mortgage area and other financial areas, the risk of not giving the regulatory agencies the appropriate authority to do oversight and to act is certainly a grave concern. But I think we are doing that in this area. I think the CFTC is doing that in this area, and I think this legislation will help to enhance their ability to remain vigilant in making sure that this market operates properly; that there is not excessive speculation; that there is not manipulation of this marketplace.

Having said all of that, I will say, once again, that this is not the issue that we should be debating here today. I support this legislation. I will vote for it. But we deserve an opportunity to vote on what the American people want. And poll after poll have shown that they want to see a real energy act. They know that the problem with the high price of energy is the lack of supply. They know the problem with the disruption of our energy supply that just occurred due to Hurricane Ike is because we have not enough refinery capacity in this country, and that it is not distributed around the United States.

The American Energy Act provides for using abandoned U.S. military bases to build new refineries. We haven't built a new one in more than 30 years. And the bill that was brought to the floor of the House by the Democratic leadership earlier this week did absolutely nothing in that area.

We're now importing refined petroleum products, paying a higher price. We're seeing more and more billions of dollars going out of this country every week, costing America jobs, harming our economy because we are so dependent upon foreign oil, at the same time that we have huge resources, not just oil, but natural gas, coal, the potential of new nuclear power, as well as a whole array of alternative sources of energy like wind and solar and geothermal and biomass and hydrogen. All of these things are available to us if we will take the leadership here in this Congress and get the American Government out of the way of developing these new sources of energy. But, instead of doing that, we bring a no drill, no energy bill to the floor that was clearly a sham, a hoax on the American people.

We have abundant resources in oil. The estimates are that we could be producing 3 to 4 million barrels of oil from the Outer Continental Shelf. The bill that was brought forth on the floor of the House shuts off 80 to 90 percent of that oil from access to the marketplace because they don't allow drilling.

I introduced legislation, as have other people, to allow drilling off the coast of our respective States. I've introduced one for Virginia that has strong support in our delegation. And yet the legislation that was brought forward earlier this week does not provide any royalties for the States. So our Governor, Democratic Governor of the State has already indicated that if the State can't benefit from deriving royalties that can be used for developing better transportation systems, alternative forms of energy, public education and so on, if it can't be used for that, he's not interested in participating. So that bill was meaningless. It was a sham.

We need to bring forth real legislation like the American Energy Act that shares those royalties with the States so that they're able to do that.

It's estimated that we could have a million barrels of oil a day coming down the pipeline that already exists in Canada, if we would drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area the size of the State of South Carolina; and the area that would be utilized for drilling for oil is about 2,000 acres, like a postage stamp on a football field. That's how much of this land of this huge area would be utilized. The people of Alaska support it. The Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, supports it.

Are we doing that?

No. Wouldn't even bring it up. Wouldn't bring up a bill that we could even offer an amendment to to allow for that to take place.

Meanwhile, the oil that comes from the Prudhoe Bay area is declining. It was 2.1 million barrels a day at its peak. It's now down to 700,000 barrels a day. We're told that when it gets down to 300,000 barrels a day, we'll have to close down the pipeline because it's not economically efficient to transport the oil.

At the same time we could be adding a million barrels of oil a day for an estimated 30 years, we're at risk of losing not just that million, but an additional 300,000 barrels of oil a day, about 6 percent of the consumption in this country every day for 30 years.

And then look at the oil shale available in the Rocky Mountain States. Here we have an estimated somewhere between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil that can be extracted from that oil shale, much like the Canadians are extracting oil from tar sands in Canada. So while they're doing that in Canada, this Congress last year passed legislation that prohibits the United States Government from buying that oil from Canada.

And then in terms of our own reserves which are huge, to just give you an idea, since the first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859, until today, the entire world has used about 1 trillion barrels of oil. And yet we're leaving untapped, because legislation was not brought forward to address it, untapped, 800 billion to 2 trillion barrels of oil available to us in that oil shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain States. It's a shame, Mr. Speaker, that we're not doing that today.

Coal reserves. We have more coal reserves than any other nation in the world. New technology exists to convert it to liquid that can be used for transportation purposes. We have new technology that is cleaner burning coal, and yet we're not doing anything in the legislation that was offered here earlier this week to tap into that.

Nuclear power. It's been correctly noted here today that while the United States still derives 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, France today gets close to 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. They continue to develop that technology. We haven't, for 30 years. We haven't for 30 years built a single new nuclear power plant. There are now some on the drawing boards, thanks to legislation that the Congress adopted 2 years ago to incentivize that.

But because of regulations that stand in the way, we will not have the opportunity to see a single kilowatt hour of electricity generated from those new nuclear power plants for at least 10 years. Why?

Because this Democratic leadership would not bring up legislation like the American Energy Act that enables that.

The same thing with the development of alternative fuels like wind and solar and geothermal and hydrogen and biomass. What do they do to incentivize? They increase taxes. That's the last thing we need right now when the American economy is in the condition that it's in, to have tax increases to pay for something that we could pay for with the royalties that would come from drilling offshore, from drilling in Alaska, from tapping into that oil shale, from drilling for natural gas where the largest deposit known in the world is in the Gulf of Mexico, and yet we can't have access to it.

There's natural gas all down the eastern coast of the United States. We can't have access to that. Why? Because they won't share the royalties with the States and it won't happen. And they've kept some of these areas off limits in their legislation as well.

This is a travesty, Mr. Speaker. We should be having the American Energy Act on the floor today. That's what the American people want. That's what will create millions of American jobs in creating this new energy, and in revitalizing our industry and revitalizing manufacturing and strengthening agricultural production in this country and strengthening all of American commerce, making us more competitive with the rest of the world if we would simply seek to be energy independent, which we could accomplish in 10 or 15 years if the leadership of this Congress would simply bring forward legislation that would enable us to empower America to have real energy independence and real American jobs and save this economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Minnesota is.

I would again thank the gentleman for his hard work on this legislation. This is not legislation that this committee has in any way taken lightly over the past several years. We've conducted oversight into the activities of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the futures markets. We've done it in a bipartisan way. We have watched closely to make sure that the commission has the resources it needs to do its job.

We found some areas where we think it could use some additional help in terms of personnel, in terms of the authority to gather information, and in a few instances in giving them additional authority to act if they find that there are indicators in the marketplace that it's not functioning properly, that there is excessive speculation and that there is manipulation; and this legislation does that, and I support that. Although I do have some reservations about the legislation, I think it is legislation that deserves to be passed into law.

However, I will say it once again that this is not the legislation that the American people want and expect to see us debating on the floor of the House today. They want real energy legislation, not the sham bill that was offered 2 days ago, but legislation that would allow for real drilling for American oil and natural gas and would allow for utilizing new clean-burning coal technologies, that would expand our nuclear power generation of electricity, that would expand our alternative forms of energy.

And as we move in that direction, utilizing the resources that are created by producing American energy to accomplish more in the areas of wind and solar and geothermal and hydrogen and biomass and tidal energy production and a whole array of others, that we are simply neglecting because this Congress, the Democratic leadership, refuses to bring to the floor for a vote the American Energy Act, which would command very, very overwhelming bipartisan support if it were brought to the floor for a vote.

But it's more than just what consumers are paying at the gas pump. It's more than what they're worried about having to pay to fill their tanks with oil or kerosene to heat their homes this winter or their natural gas bills or their electric bills that are going up and up. It's more than that. It's about the American economy, and it's about American jobs.

This legislation would create millions of American jobs, not only in energy production but also in manufacturing and agriculture, in a whole host of areas that would make America more confident, would make America more competitive with the rest of the world. We need this legislation. We need it badly. It will be a shame, Mr. Speaker, if we leave town without passing the American Energy Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would join him in supporting this motion to recommit because it would help to assure a great many Members on our side of the aisle that the concerns raised about the legislation that somehow

this might prove to be disruptive of the markets would indeed not occur. It would simply require that the CFTC examine that and certify that they do not believe that that would be the case, and then the legislation could proceed to be fully implemented, and I think this is a wise consideration.

The evidence that we have before us from the findings of a recent CFTC report is that these markets are functioning well. I think this legislation will enable them to continue to function well, but it does not, I think, in any way hurt and could, in fact, indeed enhance the operation of CFTC for them to require to make this investigation and make this certification that people, millions, tens of millions of Americans whose pension funds may include some investment in commodity futures markets will be unaffected by the legislation in terms of empowering the CFTC to conduct further oversight and to take further action as is allowed by the legislation.

Again, I would point out that the best thing we can do to secure the pension funds of Americans would be to create more energy in this country that would meet the supply demands that are necessary, would help to hold down the cost of oil and natural gas and electricity and everything else that drives this economy, both in terms of our transportation, our manufacturing, the heating of our homes. All of these things would be greater enhanced if we would have the American Energy Act brought before us.

Unfortunately, I believe the American Energy Act would not be a germane motion to recommit. Otherwise, we'd be offering it right now, but I believe the gentleman's alternative is a good one, and I support it.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, my friend from Ohio, for extending the time to me.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this once again closed rule, and to the underlying previously failed legislation that this Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor, without having made any substantive improvements to it since it last failed on this House on July 30, and despite an agreement during that time that they would work with members of the Republican Party to try and better the bill.

Like every other Member of this House, I'm concerned about the crushing economic impact that rising food and fuel prices are having on American families. That is why I strongly support the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's recent steps to increase transparency in the oil futures market and their continued vigor in enforcing existing laws governing U.S. futures markets, including the long-time prohibition against market manipulation.

My concern for the economic and retirement security of American families is also why I do support certain parts of this bill, including its increased data reporting requirements, and its authorization of at least 100 new full-time employees to increase the public transparency of operations in agriculture and energy markets, and otherwise monitor price manipulation and commodities futures market.

However, it is this same concern for American families and our American economy that forces me to oppose a bill that has the potential to destabilize commodity prices and dry up market liquidity at a particularly vulnerable time for our entire economy, instead of simply increasing transparency and improving enforcement.

While I disagree with his approach to improving our Nation's commodities market, the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and I do agree about several things. First, yesterday evening in the Rules Committee, my friend, Collin Peterson, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, testified that he was not, was not bringing this bill to the floor because he thought that it would bring down the price of energy at the pump for American families. He does not believe it will. I don't believe it will bring down prices at the pump. And he's exactly correct.

This bill, like the no-energy sham legislation that the Democrat majority brought to the floor just earlier this week, this bill will do absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing to increase the supply of American-made energy that is the root of the high energy prices that are taking an enormous toll on American families and businesses.

Second, I agree with Chairman Peterson's assertion in his testimony yesterday to the Rules Committee that he did not believe this bill would actually become law.

So here we are, taking time on the House floor, when the American people need action by this Congress to do something about energy legislation that will be signed into law, that will include doing something about the price at the pump. And instead, Chairman Peterson said, I don't even think this bill's going to become law. We're not going to agree to this.

Like him, I do not think that this bill represents a serious attempt, which is what Congress should be about, especially as we near the end of the session, a serious attempt at providing legislative solutions to the very serious problems facing our economy, and that it is little more than a second opportunity this week for Members to claim, ah, but we're up there doing something, up there working 5-day workweeks.

We need to be doing something about addressing the high cost of energy. Without taking real and meaningful action to open up energy reserves, it simply will not happen. That's what the economy needs. We need to do something about the high price of energy.

If this were a serious attempt to solve our Nation's problems, Democrat leadership forcing this bill onto the floor would have made more than technical changes to the bill that failed just last time it was here, July 30, changes like the one proposed by my good friend and former CPA, Mike Conaway of Texas, where he, in a colloquy with Chairman Peterson, talked about the need to create a common understanding of risk management needs which market participants should be eligible for in a bona fide hedge exemption.

Of course there was an agreement on the floor, talk is cheap, about, yes, we'll work with you. And, in fact, that never happened. Never happened.

And then last night, given an opportunity in the Rules Committee, the Rules Committee, once again, even seeing the agreement that was made and that the offer was not accepted, did not even want to make Mr. Conaway's amendment in order. A real shame. A real shame for a House where there was a promise of the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history.

Instead, this House is getting something that is even worse than nothing, a bill that the Democrat majority didn't even see fit to include in its first so-called energy bill this week, which is also bringing to the floor its record-shattering 61st closed rule for this Congress.

Open. Honest. Ethical.

Madam Speaker, yesterday we had a chance to help just correct that just a little bit and level the playing field. Mr. Conaway was slam dunked in the Rules Committee again, despite what was said on this floor about working with members of the Republican Party. Better idea, a better way to make the bill happen.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, this kind of closed process and this kind of cynical, political motivated work product has become characteristic of what we have seen now for almost 20 months. The most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history, as promised by Speaker Pelosi back in 2006, and it's no wonder that the American people are giving Congress historic low, record low ratings on approvals for the job that Congress is trying to do.

I think we ought to be serious about our work. I think we should not bring bills to the floor where the committee chairman, at the time he presents his bill to the Rules Committee, admits this is never going to become law. It's a shame.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation which the Democrats don't believe will bring down energy prices when they crafted this supposedly comprehensive energy package earlier this week, and which the chairman of jurisdiction does not believe is a good reason for doing so now.

The American people are hurting. Our economy is hurting. People back home want leadership in Washington, and once again, the majority party has failed.

I think we should deserve more from the leadership. I believe that the Democrat Party should not have a closed process. I believe running for political cover for a vote that will go nowhere is a mistake. But I do know it's for their vulnerable Members, Members who want to pretend that they're doing something. What a shame.

I oppose this process. I oppose this rule. I oppose the underlying legislation, and I hope all of my colleagues will do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Can you please tell us when the majority leader gave an announcement to this Congress that this bill would be considered? That's fair game.

Is the gentleman aware that Republicans and others in this House were given less than 3 hours' notice for the bill?

I would like to extend to the gentleman 3 additional minutes.

The Republican Members in this body and the rest of the Members were given 3 hours' notice that this bill would be on the floor.

Do you believe that 3 hours' notice--you had indicated there were no Republican amendments--would be enough time for a Member that's a Republican to go down to Leg Counsel to get an amendment that's prepared to get it to Rules Committee? Do you believe that could be done? Because what you're saying is, well, no Republican even submitted an amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

I would also like to ask the gentleman, was the gentleman aware that the gentleman, Mr. Conaway, had asked on this floor of the House of Representatives and was given, through your words of support, that you would work with him before the bill came back to the floor?

Can you please tell me exactly what you think it was?

I appreciate the gentleman, my friend, the gentleman who's chairman of the committee.

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

Madam Speaker, this is why last night or yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee there was a very polite discussion and a request made by Republicans in the committee once we recognized that there were some problems that took place that were unavoidable on behalf of the chairman of the committee, on behalf of notice to Republicans, on behalf of a colloquy that engaged Members on this floor where we realized, Oh, I'm sorry. That just didn't happen. And we will not say it was anybody's fault, but there was agreement that there was a problem.

This is where the Rules Committee comes into play. The Rules Committee is a body that should have the ability to look fairly and equitably at an issue and then make a decision.

I had a discussion with the committee. I have only served on the committee 10 years. But I have seen people bring legislation to the committee and ask for relief and receive relief. Normally, if we were in January, February, March, April, May, some other time, open rules are not always allowed or amendments aren't always allowed

because they seem to open up all other issues and ideas.

This was a very specific idea. This was an idea that was agreed upon that there would be a discussion, and the Rules Committee slam dunked the gentleman from Texas as well as Republican Members after hearing positive testimony from both sides, not even giving relief.

This is exactly what Republicans are talking about, and I believe the American people, that this Democrat majority and the Rules Committee, which set a record-shattering 61 closed rules--for any Congress a record--simply is so flatlined upon doing politically what they choose to do and by showing their power that there is not even a voice that's open.

What the gentleman has suggested to us today is that he knew of no other process for the gentleman to go through. Well, it's called an amendment that would be on the floor of the House of Representatives where our colleagues cannot only hear the issue but then get a chance to vote on it.

So today we're here without the ability to vote on it, but we have the gentleman, Mr. Conaway, and I would like to yield him 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I really agree a lot with the gentleman from Vermont. What I disagree with and believe the problem is that we don't have enough oil that's available to the marketplace, and that's where Republicans are trying to bring more oil where we don't have to have speculation for people who absolutely, positively must have the oil available.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway).

I would like to advise the gentlewoman that I do have an additional speaker.

Madam Speaker, last night on the floor of the House of Representatives, the gentleman, Zach Wamp, came down to make a thoughtful argument about the predicament that this country is in with not having enough energy available at the gas pumps and that that has caused prices to rise very dramatically and that there really is an answer and something that can be done. I'm pleased to welcome the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and I'd like to extend him 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his thoughtful comments.

Madam Speaker, since taking control of this House, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to address the domestic supply issues that have created skyrocketing gas, diesel, and energy costs the American families are facing. We heard the gentleman, Mr. Wamp, talk about how there were good ideas that should have been available, including a bipartisan working group and bipartisan legislation that, when it really came down to it, somebody put pressure on a whole bunch of our friends in the Democrat Party to then vote against even their own bill so that it was not bipartisan.

By going on vacation for 5 weeks over August, while I and 138 other of my Republican colleagues stayed in this body on this floor to talk about real energy solutions with American families, this Democrat majority has proved that they do not believe that the energy crisis facing American families and businesses is important enough to cancel their summer beach plans or book tours. They claimed they were going to come back and do something about it. However, enough of their Members must have heard from frustrated constituents over August who were tired of this shell game that the Democrat political leadership is pushing off on the American people.

We would think that it should warrant some kind of action. Because today we are considering yet another measure to provide their Members with political cover, we're going to see that there will be nothing that will be done. Even their own chairman of the committee said this isn't going to become law. It's not going to pass. We didn't even really know it was going to come up. No notice was given to Republicans till 3 hours before it was going to come to the Rules Committee, and perhaps worse than that, then people said, and Republicans didn't even present any amendments.

So today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow this House so that we can take up the measure that prevents Members from going home to campaign for reelection without actually passing an energy bill that will be signed into law.

Madam Speaker, we should do better. We should allow States to expand the exploration and extraction of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf. We should open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oil shale reserves in this country, and we can do it in environmentally sensitive and prudent ways. We should extend expiring renewable energy incentives. We should encourage the streamlined approval of new refining capacity and nuclear power facilities. My gosh, if France can have 82 percent of their power from nuclear, why can't the United States get above where we are?

We should encourage advanced research and development of clean coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon technologies, and perhaps more importantly, which is the sham about the entire Democrat leadership's bill is, we should do something about stopping the lawsuits which are creating a circumstance in courts to where none of these leases are able to move forward for production because they're in lawsuits, and the Democrat leadership did not even address this. It's simple. Consolidate and expedite the drawn-out legal challenges that unreasonably delay or prevent actual domestic energy production.

Why wouldn't we want, if we're going to pass this bill, to make sure that it would happen, when in fact every Member of this body knows that for every single, 100 percent, of all the leases that have been agreed to are wrapped up in court right now, in Federal court right now. Why not do something that would give relief to the American people? Why not say let's at least one of these opportunities take place for drilling, just one? How about 10 percent? No, it's got to be 100 percent, and the American people are going to learn what the Democrat Party already knows, and that is, that the Democrat leadership does not want any drilling. They want no drilling.

Senator Obama, I'm sure was correct. He is opposed to drilling so that America can be competitive with the world.

This requirement would finally force the Democrat leadership to take meaningful action.

If we were going to get what I just talked about, that would mean somebody who's in control of both Houses of Congress wanting to do something. And we stand here today, the Republican Party, once again, as we did all of August, asking for us to do something that will work to bring relief. It's a supply side issue.

So, Madam Speaker, here we go. A shell game, a Rules Committee that allows no good ideas--except their own that the Democrat leadership has; agreements, which were talked about on the floor, which, when it really came down to it, not sure we really want to live up to at all. There is always a bigger problem. Well, that's not what this floor of the House is for, that's not really what the Rules Committee is for. That's not what Congress is for. Congress should be about, especially in a crisis, coming to an agreement and working together.

I think we can do better. I think it's going to be something that the American people are going to have to decide what the tie is between Republicans and Democrats. I guess it's going to come to an election, where the American people are going to be told the facts of the case, and they will see what kind of action is necessary in Washington, D.C.

Madam Speaker, the Republican Party is again on giving the American people and this body notice that the Republican Party is for us doing the things which will bring down the price of energy, which will create long-term economic stimulus and opportunity for this country. Because we recognize that energy prices are too high and it impacts every sector of our economy--trucking, the food that's made, produced, the food that gets to marketplace, the opportunities for school systems to operate within their budget, the chance for American families who have to go to their job, many times who have to commute.

We need real action, not a slam-dunk Rules Committee that will set a record every time they go to meet for a new closed rule, not offering new ideas, not listening to the American people about the ability that we need to have to bring to bear American energy products. Instead, we get the same worn-out message of what's happened over the last 2 years where America has lost 14 percent more of market shares, where we have to go overseas to those countries that will produce and will drill.

The American people look up and find out now that this Congress says no, no drilling in Florida, and so other countries will come off our shores and take our energy.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1449 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1449.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1449 provides for consideration of H.R. 6604, the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Agriculture and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The rule makes in order as base text an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Rules Committee report. The text of this substitute amendment is almost identical to the version of the bill that was considered under suspension of the rules on July 30. That bill received 276 votes from both sides of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, since this bill was last on the House floor in July, the American people and our economy continue to struggle with high food and energy prices and a weak job market. From the subprime mortgage crisis and the financial meltdown, to the unethical behavior of the Minerals Management Service, the necessary and proper oversight has clearly not been taking place. In some cases laws may have been broken, and as a result homes have been taken through foreclosure. Savings have been lost. Dreams of the American people in many cases have been shattered.

Madam Speaker, we are fighting to stop the pain that the American people are feeling, to restore their trust in government, and revitalize our communities.

We must take action and we must take action now. For many years now, too many Americans have felt that their government is working not with them but against them. But this Democratic Congress is working to take our Nation in a new direction. On Tuesday we passed a comprehensive energy bill that will lower gas prices for American families, invest in renewable and alternative energy, and responsibly expand exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf.

But Madam Speaker, speculators continue to enjoy free rein at the expense of our pocketbooks. And that is unacceptable.

We have all seen the recent headlines and reports identifying that oil speculators are out of control. One of the newspapers serving my congressional district, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, printed an article last Thursday on this very issue. The headline read, ``More scrutiny of oil speculators. Evidence shows they operated in `dark markets' to hide prices.''

The article goes on to state that ``unregulated markets account for about two-thirds of oil trading, and that they can be used to manipulate oil prices.''

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, the American people simply want a government that works for them instead of against them. Today, we will pass the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act so that our commodity markets will, once again, work the way they were intended to work.

Our bill provides the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or the CFTC, with new resources to improve enforcement, prevent manipulation and prosecute fraud. It provides the CFTC with the authority and direction to address excessive speculation which has undermined the basic principles of supply and demand. It has artificially inflated the price of oil and, in the process, has hurt families in Ohio and all across this great Nation. This bill will work for the people, instead of working for those who look to exploit loopholes and seek to manipulate the market.

Now we all know that Wall Street has found exotic ways to create their own markets, and with this bill, we will fix the London Loophole. And why is that important?

The London Loophole currently allows traders to circumvent U.S. laws and trading rules by working through foreign boards of trade. This bill requires foreign boards of trade that offer electronic access to U.S. traders to adopt similar speculative limits and regulations. The foreign boards of trade will also now be required to share large trader reporting data with the CFTC.

Additionally, H.R. 6604 requires that the CFTC set standards for all energy and agricultural futures markets. This is critically important, as it will limit traders' ability to distort the market.

Our bill will also require the CFTC to have a complete picture now of the swaps markets. Index traders and swap dealers will be subject to strict reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

And lastly, under this bill, position reporting will become mandatory for over-the-counter trading in agricultural and energy contracts.

Now, Madam Speaker, some of what I've said sounds very technical, and it may be a little bit difficult to understand because of that technicality. But to put it very simply, our actions here today will add the necessary oversight and transparency to shed light on the ``dark markets.''

With the recent revelations on Wall Street and the run-up on oil prices under the Bush administration's failed energy policy, these changes are long overdue.

But there are some, Madam Speaker, who may not want us to make the changes in our market system so that we can bring relief to the American people. There are some who may try to say that we're adding too much regulation.

But the recent collapse of certain financial giants has only further illustrated the great need to revisit these issues and ensure that the voices of the people are being heard, and that they are being protected.

There are some who may try to say that we're restricting the ability of hedgers, those who trade in futures, to offset their price risk. But they are misinformed. This bill provides exemptions for bona fide hedgers. They are the ones that the commodity markets were designed to work with.

But we know that unscrupulous speculators can interfere with the ability of producers and processors who use these markets for legitimate purposes. On Tuesday, as speculators dumped oil for cash, oil closed at just over $91 a barrel, a nearly 38 percent drop since the record high of $147 in July. But just yesterday, oil prices shot up $6 a barrel as, ``fears of a spreading crisis in the U.S. financial sector sent skittish investors scrambling out of stocks,'' according to the AP.

Madam Speaker, our commodities should not be treated as a speculator's safety net. We cannot allow speculators to continue to drive prices of our

commodities beyond the normal ebb and flow of supply and demand.

Families in my district and all across our great country want commonsense policies that will work for them, instead of rewarding a select few. This is the new direction that the American people have called for, one that puts the voices of the people ahead of the special interests.

I hope that all of our colleagues will join us in taking this step today to pass this bill that, as I mentioned, has previously passed with a bipartisan majority in July, but not the two-thirds majority that was necessary under suspension. But we can get it done.

Madam Speaker, the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act will increase oversight and transparency, and will prevent oil prices from being artificially inflated.

I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1449 and this incredibly important underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's my honor at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota

(Mr. Peterson), the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Before I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont, I would like to yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee for coming forward and talking about this issue here today and for making the point that this bill is a bill that is virtually identical to a bill that was passed in July, as I said, on a very big bipartisan vote; 61 of our friends, the Republicans, voted for it, including Mr. Conaway. That bill was the result of multiple hearings in the Agriculture Committee, and no Republicans during that period of time offered up any amendments in the Ag Committee markup.

Chairman Peterson graciously made it very clear here today that this bill continues through the process and that he is absolutely willing to work with Mr. Conaway as we move forward on this very, very important legislation.

At this time, Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he has any additional speakers.

Then I will reserve my time. I'm the last speaker on this side. I will reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. The Republican Party and my good friend from Texas, they had 12 years to put forward a comprehensive energy policy for the future, and they failed to do so. And for 12 years, they had the opportunity to provide accountability and oversight in our commodities market, and they failed to do so.

Earlier this week, we took steps to pass a comprehensive energy bill that's going to lower prices for consumers, protect taxpayers, expand responsible offshore domestic drilling, expand renewable sources of energy, increase our security by freeing America from the grip of foreign oil, and require Big Oil to pay what it owes to America's taxpayers. And we're going to create good-paying jobs as we move forward on this forward-thinking energy policy.

Today, Madam Speaker, we pass an equally important measure. All of those out there who have been held hostage by the greed of some of our speculators who treat our commodities

as a safety net, well, the party is over. This bill will strengthen the CFTC's enforcement resources. In recent days, trading volume has increased 8,000 percent since the CFTC was created, but the agency is operating at its lowest staffing level since 1974. This bill calls for a minimum of 100 full-time CFTC employees to enforce manipulation and fraud regulation.

Madam Speaker, this bill is about protecting and strengthening the economy for the people in Ohio and across America, not a select few on Wall Street and abroad. It's time that we get it done. It's about ensuring that the loopholes are closed to prevent another historic run- up in the price of oil. It's about providing the tools and having the political will to prevent potential price distortions caused by excessive speculative trading.

Madam Speaker, this bill was passed by the Agriculture Committee by a voice vote in a bipartisan manner in July. So no matter what we hear from those who may oppose what we are trying to do, we need to pass this bill. It's the right thing to do for our country, it's the right thing to do for our constituents.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to at this time yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) such time as she may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield at this time 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

I will be concluding for our side, if we could inquire how much time we have left.

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

One week before the 110th Congress is scheduled to adjourn, we are devoting precious legislative hours to debating a noncontroversial bill to extend a minuscule environmental education program for 1 year. I think we all agree that environmental education is important now and for future generations, and I want to commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for the work that he's done on this bill. I think, as he has eloquently stated, environmental education is very important. But how we spend our time in this Chamber is a reflection of our priorities, and today, our priorities are all wrong.

Chairman Miller and I work well together on the Education and Labor Committee, and we often reach agreements before bills are brought to the floor. On this bill, we worked together to resolve our differences, and we agreed that while important, this bill was straightforward and noncontroversial--most of our Members will vote for it--enough that it should be considered on the suspension calendar. I believe that two- thirds of this body would easily have supported the legislation, making these hours of debate unnecessary.

For whatever reason, whether to mask their continued failure to offer comprehensive energy solutions or simply to avoid a debate on the issue altogether, the majority has opted to bring this bill to the floor today under a rule. So let me just take a moment to reflect on H.R. 3036.

The Federal Government has a role to play in education. That role is to provide support and assistance to ensure that all children are provided a quality education. It is to support the academic achievement of disadvantaged children, children with disabilities, and other at- risk students who might otherwise be left behind. In pursuing these goals, we must be careful

not to create too much bureaucracy nor too many Federal programs that could undermine local control.

That's why I appreciate the efforts that were made to limit the scope of this bill, extending an existing program at the EPA and supplementing it with similar activities through the Department of Education rather than establishing a massive new environmental education bureaucracy as some had originally proposed.

This is a reasonable bill, and at the end of the day, I will support it. But, Mr. Chairman, if I had my choice, we would not be here debating this legislation today. Although environmental education is important, this Congress has a limited amount of time to challenge our mammoth problems facing this Nation.

As of a few minutes ago, when we found we won't be in session tomorrow, if we work all of next week, we will have 5 days left to finish the work of this Congress. Instead of tinkering around the edges of an existing environmental education program, we ought to be debating comprehensive, all-of-the-above approaches to reform our Nation's energy policy and put America on the path to energy independence.

Here we are, going into the last week of this Congress. We've been here 2 years, we only have now 13 days of work scheduled for the last 5 months of this year--and that, after our Democrat leadership, during the last election, said that we would be a harder working Congress, we would be a more open Congress, we would be one that would follow regular order, we would be open to the way this House was meant to function.

At this point, we have not passed one spending bill. The spending bills that were passed last year run out on September 30, the new year starts October 1, and not one spending bill to continue to fund the Government through the next year has yet been passed. We did pass one on this floor, but not one has been passed through the whole process-- the House, the Senate, and been sent to the President's desk, not one spending bill.

I guess the people throughout the country will be watching and seeing what happens on October 1. Will the Government be shut down? I don't know. I don't know how they plan to solve this problem. I just know that at this point they have not brought one spending bill to completion for the President to sign.

We have not finished our work on this committee on No Child Left Behind. That was a very, very important piece of legislation. We worked on it last year. We haven't talked about it for over a year now. And I guess that's just going to be let go into next year, when a new Congress will be here.

I am greatly disappointed, Mr. Chairman, with the work product of this Congress. We had the ability. We had new leadership that came in with lots of promises, lots of enthusiasm, lots of things that were going to be done to make things better for the American public. The most important issue facing us today is the energy issue. Every one of us in America sees that every day when we fill our tanks or at least drive by the gas stations and see how the price has gone up--or maybe down a couple cents, depending, but it's a couple dollars more than it was when the Republicans were in charge here a couple years ago.

We had the opportunity this year, even this week, to address an all- of-the-above energy solution: More conservation, more alternative fuels, more biomass, more wind, more solar--yes, and more oil, more coal, more shale.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I will not oppose it.

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

I want to thank Chairman Miller for offering this amendment, and Mr. Sarbanes for filling in.

This amendment clarifies that the Federal Government will not impose an environmental justice curriculum on our Nation's schools. This issue was debated during the committee consideration of the bill and it was an issue on which there was disagreement between the majority and the minority. I believe that the bill approved by our committee went too far in this regard because it could have required State and local officials to develop specific environmental justice curricula.

We have long believed that specific curricula--which is taught in individual classrooms--is best determined at the local level. And while this bill contains a broad prohibition on Federal curriculum development, I believe it was necessary to clarify the environmental justice language as well so that there would be no confusion as to what the Federal Government is or is not demanding of our schools. Chairman Miller worked closely with me to refine this language, and I want to thank him for his willingness to do so.

This amendment also contains some interesting language that was added earlier this week, presumably in response to efforts on our side of the aisle to ensure this bill does not ignore critical energy issues.

Republicans proposed amendments to advance the understanding of the environmental and economic benefits of clean coal and oil shale production, energy production in the ANWR, and energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf. We proposed amendments to advance the understanding of the environmental and economic benefits of nuclear power, and of American-made energy, and of the all-of-the-above energy strategy, which would increase production, promote conservation, and expand innovation. We think that each of these issues deserves a full and open debate because an all-of-the-above energy strategy does not ignore any aspect of energy reform.

Although our amendments were not made in order, I was pleased to see that the Miller amendment now includes language to ensure that environmental education programs include a discussion of the costs and benefits of oil and gas drilling, of nuclear power, of new coal technologies, and of renewable energy sources. While this language is not as strong and comprehensive as what the Republicans had offered, I appreciate its inclusion nonetheless.

The truth is we need to be talking about energy more, not less. We passed an energy bill earlier this week that won't increase energy production. We passed an energy bill that puts American resources under lock and key instead of opening them up to environmentally safe production that will create jobs and that will bring down energy prices. This sham of a bill that we passed raises taxes and stands to drive consumer prices up, not down.

So I'm glad we're going to be talking to our children about the benefits of American energy production. It's a conversation we should be having here in Congress as well.

Once again, I want to thank Chairman Miller for working with me to clarify the environmental justice aspect of this legislation, and I look forward to supporting this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The bill before us is about environmental education. Specifically, it is about teaching elementary and secondary students about the world in which they live, about the natural resources of our great Nation and about the stewardship of our environment and of our resources for the future.

This legislation provides grants to State and local education agencies, to institutions of higher education or to nonprofit organizations. The resources are targeted to ensure they will directly benefit students. This amendment, as I understand it, would make ``municipalities eligible for these grants as well.'' Unfortunately, that term is not defined, leaving open to interpretation just exactly how far we would be expanding this program.

Without a clear and narrow definition, this amendment could open up the funding to any number of entities, including cities, townships, districts or county governments, to name just a few. In other words, this amendment opens the limited resources under the bill to organizations that may or may not provide the direct services to students that we're seeking.

I support local control and local partnerships. That's why I support the Courtney amendment, which allows partnerships with State and local park departments. Through that model, we provide grants directly to educational organizations, which can then partner with the local organizations we're talking about now that can enrich the environmental education experience.

I understand what the gentleman is trying to accomplish with this amendment, and I'd like to work with him to see if we can get there, but at this time, I'm opposed to this amendment because it's not clear enough about prioritizing funds for educational entities that provide direct services to students. I know that the majority is working with us to clarify the definition of ``municipality.''

As this bill moves forward, I look forward to working with them to ensure we do not dilute the limited resources of this program away from the students they're intended for.

I reserve the balance of my time.