Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3667) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in the State of Vermont for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and it will be quite awhile.

Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are in a 15-day session. We're now one- fifth of the way through our final session before we end. The Democrat leaders, who have set the agenda and run this floor for almost 2 years now, have had 5 weeks in preparation for this day. So the first issue of significance, the only issue we may have this week that has a rule, the most significant piece of

legislation we're talking about today is a study that, if passed, may perhaps someday, if conditions allow and the elements are conducive, possibly create a compromise that would might possibly pass an additional 70 miles being added to the inventory of the national government, and only costing the taxpayers $300,000 to do it. That's what we're doing today.

I would like to make a couple of points about this particular bill, not necessarily in opposition to it. But one point that is significant; we talk a great deal in government about transparency. It's important to government to be transparent. It's good to be transparent--until it deals with how we treat people.

One of the things that the Republican Party has tried to do on almost every bill that has come either to committee or to the floor that deals with a trail, a heritage area, an historic area or a scenic river is to ensure that the people who will be involved in that area are informed up front about what may or may not happen to them. Because once we go to the next step and actually create this wild and scenic river, the Federal Government is given--not in this bill, but is given in the existing powers they have--the right of condemnation of any of that land that will be in that area. They have almost unlimited rights of easement. They always have the ability of dealing with local officials to create zoning ordinances that have a huge impact on the people in those areas.

Almost always these studies are done with small groups. And then citizens will come back to us afterwards and say we were unaware of what was actually happening at this time. The dairy farmers along this river--who may or may not need protection and may or may not be happy and satisfied with what will result to them--may or may not have any idea what will happen as they go through this study.

The first year I was here in Congress I passed a wilderness bill. I made sure that I went to every single property owner in that area that would be impacted by that wilderness bill, even the guy who was dead and had no heirs, which was a neat trick. But we went to every one of them to make sure they were well aware in advance of what was to take place. And yet when we tried to add an amendment, both in committee and once again before the Rules Committee, to make sure that everyone who may be impacted by this new designation and this study was made aware and they had to respond affirmatively that they wished to be part of the study, it was again rejected.

Why do we not treat Americans with respect? We will pass these types of provisions to empower government, but we will not ask the citizens who will be impacted by our decisions to be part of this particular process. It's something that used to be standard language that we would add to these types of provisions, and it should be added again. That's a flaw.

For 2 years Speaker Pelosi has been the one who was to set the agenda for our discussions here on the floor. One of those issues that I think people would like us to talk about is obviously energy. We have been talking about that for a long time. When this new leadership took over the House, on day one, when the energy prices started to climb and it was $2.22, the topic of discussion we had on this floor was congratulating the University of California-Santa Barbara soccer team. When energy reached $4 at the pump, I was here to spend a rollicking hour and a half talking about monkey bites. And today, after our 5-week adjournment, after people have been talking to us, after our constituents have said what is affecting them, after 5 weeks of preparation, what we are proposing to talk about today as the significant issue on the agenda is to study two rivers in Vermont. The only bill we will have with a rule, to study two rivers in Vermont.

And I hate to say this; I'm not opposed to it. There's no reason to be. It's fine. The bill is a nice bill. It can be improved significantly, but there's nothing wrong with it. The question is, why are we here talking about that after 5 weeks of getting prepared to talk about significant issues?

I had a couple of my constituents come to me. They said what they wanted to see Congress do is something in a bipartisan way; that we should come back here and show that we can work together. Indeed, the Senators have already told us that there is only a bipartisan energy plan of theirs, that's the only thing that can be passed, therefore, we should come together and support what they are trying to do in the spirit of bipartisanship, not only between two political parties, but between two branches of Congress. I am sure maybe someday this week we might even have another energy bill proposed for discussion on this floor, and I'm sure somebody will say this is the only thing we can pass; let us now embrace this in a spirit of bipartisanship so that we can show that we can work together.

Sometimes I have the feeling that we on this floor believe that if we toast one another or we slap one another on the back or we have congratulatory comity, that that, indeed, is the end of the discussion; that is the goal, not the means to reach some kind of discussion; when the end should be, have we solved the problem?

We have now had eight votes over 3 days on this floor, each of them getting around 400 plus votes. That is bipartisanship, that is comity, that is coming together. But have we solved what the needs of the American people are? Those eight votes, we've named three post offices, we said we're against hunger and we're for the Red Cross. That's good. But that does not solve the problems plaguing Americans.

If I was to go to a hospital and I was on the gurney being rushed into the surgery room, is it logical that I would look up at the assembled doctors and nurses and say, ``Look, when you open me up, I don't really care what you do inside just as long as you do it together in harmony, in a bipartisan way''? Or would it be much more logical for me to say, ``Ladies and gentlemen, when you open me up, solve the problem''? And that is, indeed, what the American people are looking at us to do here today is not necessarily find out how many bills we can pass on suspension, how much comity we can have, but how we can solve the problem.

To simply pass a political statement does not make a difference to individuals. We are supposed to be here to try and solve the problem. And it is very clear that the problem has to be some way in which we have an overarching, comprehensive energy proposal. That is the problem that we're facing. We need to come to this floor and actually encourage people to conserve, not by mandating conservation efforts, but by rewarding Americans for conservation efforts and they will take it from there.

We must come to the floor and finally realize that our problem is supply and demand, and that we have to increase production of that supply, that we do not have a logical pattern of funding alternative energy sources. But if we could actually increase the amount of oil and coal and oil shale and natural gas, that we could use the royalties this government would then create to actually fund a comprehensive energy program for alternative energies--for solar, for wind power, for anything else that happens to be there--if we simply decided to use an ``all of the above'' approach. We can solve our problem in the emergency, for the beginning, for the present time, as well as coming up with a long-term strategy for the future that actually would be funded.

We could finally realize that this country does not have an infrastructure that will allow energy to be moved from one part of the country to the other. There are good friends in New England who will face high costs of heating their homes this fall. We have a good pipeline that goes, but it stops before it ever gets to their part of the country.

We need to solve those problems. We need to make sure we have more refineries. We need to make sure we do something on the electric grid. And we are not. That is the solution to the problem for the American people.

We need to finally realize that the future of this country is not going to be solved by bringing experts into Washington to sit around a room and come up with an idea, but the ability of America to solve its problem rests with the people out there. Because within the American people, without their soul and heart, is the ability and the creativity to come up with real solutions if we just empower them to find those solutions and then reward them

for the creativity that they can expound.

We need to realize that the solution to our problem is that the next time we lose 84,000 jobs it is not exacerbated by the lack of energy; that the next time an airline doesn't have enough energy to run 100 planes, they don't have to fire 1,100 people because of it; that the cab driver in Washington, D.C. who now drives 2 hours extra every day because he needs that to provide enough funds for the new energy he has to provide could actually be back at home meeting his kids after school the way he used to; or that we provide enough energy in here so the father in Virginia can finally go with his son to a father and son outing; or the family in Maryland can finally have enough energy so they can re-enroll their daughters in dance and gymnastics; so that school kids in the middle of this country can finally make it to field trips this year; or the teachers in our districts throughout this country will not find their salaries to be depressed or in some cases slashed because of unusual and unexpected energy costs in their districts; so that home heating oil will not drive people out of existence; so the farmer in the field will have enough energy to put in diesel in his tractors to produce the food so that truckers will have enough energy to drive them to market so that the prices of food that we have to pick up at those markets will not be spiraling this winter and this next year. And all of those is what we should be talking about.

The river is nice; it's okay. The study is okay. But it is not where we should be at this particular time because it doesn't solve the problem.

There are a lot of rich people in this body. For them, this energy crisis is an annoyance. But for those people on fixed incomes, those people at the bottom of the scale, those people in the middle class, we're not talking to them about energy policy. We're talking about the way they cook their food, the way they heat their homes, whether they have a job or not.

Three days into the last 15 days of this session, and the most significant issue is a study bill on two rivers in Vermont. This country is aching for legislation that will nourish the body politic, and yet we continue to put up, day after day on this body, pieces of legislation that are as nutritional as cotton candy. We need to do it differently.

But, on the plus side, we will probably do this bill in a bipartisan way. Doesn't it make you feel proud?

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the discussion especially about Teddy Roosevelt, a famous President. But I would remind my friend that William Howard Taft, who came after him, created more national parks, created more land in the national forests, and busted more trusts in 4 years than Roosevelt did in 8. The difference was he didn't use public relations.

Our issue is still the same. Talk about these issues after we have had a debate on real issues for a real solution on the real problem of energy that affects real Americans here on the floor. That should be our priority.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

In my 6 long years of being here on this floor, and I welcome my freshman colleague from New Hampshire, we have been involved in many issues that deal with energy, and I found that what was not stopped by filibuster in the Senate, was stopped by litigation in the court, and that is part of the overall reform we are talking about, which is why we desperately need a real vote on a real solution, the American Energy Act.

May I just inquire how much time we have remaining.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I was about to be critical of the remarks of the gentlewoman from Ohio, but once she said the Senate is a problem that should be working, how can I reject that?

I would, though, remind you, if you really want to help Exxon, don't do anything. Sixty-eight percent of all the oil and 87 percent of all the natural gas is being drilled by small entrepreneurial companies. If you want competition, allow those to be successful.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope when my chairman rolls me into the surgery room and opens me up, he will solve the problem.

May I inquire of the other side if they have additional speakers left up and how much time remains.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my last 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, though not in opposition, I claim the time in opposition on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in a unique situation on this particular amendment. The gentleman who proposed it thinks it is unnecessary. I think this is a wonderful amendment. It was great when

somebody first wrote it, and now that you have incorporated it into the general discussion on these bills, I am equally as enthralled with that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I wish to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I wish to defend my good friend from Georgia. Actually he said NOT-A, which is N-O-T-A. It is just that Georgian accent, it's hard to get the letters straight there. That's something we don't face in Arizona or Utah, I realize that.

Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity, we support this particular amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of talking about a bill that asks us to review energy issues with this particular piece of legislation.

When the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was originally established, it was designed specifically to inhibit, if not stop, the production of dams across rivers where electricity could be the result. It is fitting and proper to see what kind of impact this wild and scenic river would have in that area, as well as the fact that this river, the Missisquoi River, translated means the great grassy meadow. It could possibly be the ``great gassy meadow'' if we find some kind of minerals down there, which, once again, a review of that I think would be appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch) 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, my colleague has spoken at length about the reasons--though not as long as I thought he would, let's put it that way--why he believes these stretches of the river in Vermont to be studied for the designation as Wild and Scenic, and it's very clear that he strongly believes in this bill to enact this study. He obviously has a great deal of love for his State when he challenges all of the other 49 States as not being as beautiful, at least indirectly, as Vermont. And I would just point out to him that in my State we have so much geographic diversity as far as beauty is concerned, from one area of the State where we have more rainfall than anyplace in a country--I'm not talking about Seattle; I'm talking about the Olympic Peninsula--to the area where I live, which is a desert area that has in some areas where I live less than 7 inches of rain. So I invite my friend any time he wants to come out to see what real beauty is in a short period of time, and he may want to ask me up there and I might respond to that.

But having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it's fair to say that the American people, frankly, are far less concerned about the rivers in Vermont and are far more concerned about the high price of gasoline and the fact that Congress is not acting right now on real solutions to lower energy costs.

The House of Representatives will spend over 2\1/2\ hours today discussing rivers in Vermont but not 1 minute,

Mr. Speaker, not 1 minute, on actual legislation to lower the price of gasoline. I really believe that the priorities of this Congress since we have come back from the 5-week August vacation are wrong. High gas and energy prices are hurting American workers and it's hurting our Nation's economy.

With jobs at stake, Mr. Speaker, this Congress twiddles its thumbs and busies itself once again, as we did earlier in the year, naming post offices and, today, studying the value of rivers in Vermont, in all deference to my friend from Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, this House should be permitted to have a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on legislation to expand alternative energy sources and to lift the ban on drilling offshore, both coasts, Mr. Speaker, and in ANWR and other Alaskan lands in Alaska. But, unfortunately, the liberal leaders in this Congress have blocked, up to this point have blocked, a fair ``yes'' or ``no'' vote for months because I believe, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the majority of Members of this body knows that if we were to put the all-of-the-above energy plan up for a vote, that a majority of this House would vote for it. But we have been denied that opportunity time after time after time. Instead, they voted to go on a 5-week vacation in August to avoid working to lower gas prices, to protect American jobs, to make our Nation more energy independent.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that during that time since the adjournment for the 5-week vacation, a number of my Republican colleagues, 136 of my Republican colleagues, were here every day for several hours a day, trying to attempt to call the ask the Speaker to call Congress back in session. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. So now we are back here again on a regularly scheduled basis, and we will certainly have an opportunity to have a vote on the all-of-the-above, and I will talk about that more later.

But, Mr. Speaker, in the past, in the past, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Harry Reid, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, they are the leaders of the Democrat Party here in the U.S. Congress. Yet the one thing, other than being Democrat leaders, the one thing they all have in common, Mr. Speaker, is that they have in the past always opposed offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska. I think the majority of the Americans feel contrary to that view. And they fight and block any action on that at every turn. They refuse to act and to allow a vote on a drilling and alternative energy plan that would ultimately lower gas prices.

To me, Mr. Speaker, I just simply have to say in this election year that it's clear that liberalism has been put ahead of the need to help American workers and families struggling with high gas prices. We need to end the stranglehold that they have on America's ability to produce more of its own energy and on American jobs and the economy. And we can do that, Mr. Speaker, very simply by opening the resources that we have in this country. We need to change their no, no, no stance on producing more American energy.

This Congress, Mr. Speaker, and we all know this, needs to vote on the all-of-the-above energy plan. In that plan it includes promoting alternative energy sources, like wind and solar power. I might add parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that we have a nuclear plant in my district, we have hydro plants in my district, and we have wind machines in my district. I am all in favor of all of the above, and our all-of-the-above energy plan includes precisely that.

This plan recognizes the need for more nuclear power. As I mentioned, I have a nuclear power plant in my district. Of course, it protects the value of hydropower, and that is the most abundant energy source for us in the Northwest. But it also allows, while we transition to a new energy source in the future, it allows drilling offshore and in Alaska and on other Federal lands.

Mr. Speaker, it really is time for the liberal leaders of this Congress to stop blocking a vote on producing more American-made energy. It's time for Members of Congress to stop hiding and to start voting.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that we are not elected to avoid taking positions on tough issues. We are elected to stand up and resolve those tough issues for the American people. So it's time for Congress to set aside naming post offices; in deference, again, to my friend from Vermont, studying rivers. It's time to get serious about addressing the high cost of gasoline and voting yes or no on real solutions, including drilling offshore and in Alaska.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is the last speaker, and he is prepared to close. I know I have several Members that have asked for time. So, Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself such time as I may consume until other Members come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned just briefly in my remarks that after the adjournment prior to the 5-week vacation and, by the way, that adjournment resolution was passed on a straight partisan vote. Every Republican voted against it because we felt we needed to stay here to help resolve the energy problem rather than go on a 5-week vacation. But there were a number of Members, I can mention 136 Members, that came down here and talked about the need for energy.

During that time, Mr. Speaker, the lights were off here, the microphones were off, and the cameras were off. Yet there were a number of tourists, as we always have coming through the U.S. Capitol, their Capitol, and they were invited to sit on the floor and talk with us, interact with Members that came down and spoke.

The 2 days that I was here, and I admit I was only here 2 of those days, the last 2 days, and I had private conversations with a number of tourists that came through here. I have to say they were not from the Northwest, although there were some from the Northwest, but there were some from the South, and they were all kind of perplexed as to why the people's House, the House of Representatives, probably the genius part of our Founding Fathers in making a representative body, of which all Members that have served there, and there are slightly over 11,000 Members that have served in this body and, Mr. Speaker, every one, every one of those Members have been elected to this House. There has never been a Member that was appointed to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Now why do I say this in the context of energy prices? The genius of our Founding Fathers was that the House of Representatives and the fact that every one was elected is probably more in tune to what the people's wishes are across the country.

And so they were, frankly, the people I talked to, perplexed. Well, if this is the people's House, why haven't you had the opportunity to have a vote, just a vote up or down, recognizing, listen, we know that a majority rules, and I am prepared to take the consequences of that if my position on any issue fails to get a majority vote. I recognize that. I think every Member of Congress understands that. But to not have the opportunity, not have the opportunity to even vote, even vote on a proposal, really perplexes the tourists that came through here the 2 days I was on the floor.

In talking to my other colleagues, some of whom were down here as many as 13 days, and more, they had what I would say were similar experiences with their conversations with people that came through here.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that my district is the district that in central Washington that is a center of virtually--I won't say all, but a great deal--of electricity that is produced in the Pacific Northwest. Within my district, for example, probably the hydroelectric facility that most Americans can associate with is Grand Coulee Dam. Half of that dam is in my district and the other half is in my colleague's from the Fifth District, Cathy McMorris Rodgers' district.

But, in addition to that, I have up to 10 dams that are wholly within my district or I share with other Members of Congress, including my friend and colleague from across the river in Oregon, Greg Walden. There are three dams there where we share half of those dams.

That produces about 70 percent of the electricity in the northwest. It is renewable, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely renewable, and we need to expand that, and a portion of expanding hydropower is in the all-of- the-above energy plan I talked about earlier that we have been denied a vote on. We have been denied a vote on.

Furthermore, I mentioned that I have wind plants in my district. Because generally in areas that I mentioned earlier on, that there was not a whole lot of rainfall in certain parts of my district, but the wind does blow. Now the wind, of course, is only good if the wind blows. But if the wind blows, it adds to the other facilities, like hydro, like hydro, or like nuclear. And I have a nuclear plant in my district.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that my constituents are well aware that we need to have a diverse energy portfolio. Without having an opportunity in the people's House to at least address the issue of all of the above, seems to me to be contrary, seems to me to be contrary to what this Congress is all about, and indeed what the House of Representatives is all about as it was envisioned by the Founders.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have talked about what we did in August, and I have talked about the fact that up until August, and now we have a new session coming in after the break, that the Democrats have blocked and blocked any vote on lifting the ban.

But I have heard during the break that there are a number of brave Democrats who I think went home, talked to their constituents, and find out that their constituents were saying we need to become more energy independent. As a result, they proclaim that they support now offshore drilling to increase the supply of gasoline and oil and to make America more energy independent.

Well, listen. To all of my colleagues that maybe during the August break and having listened to their colleagues or to their constituents at home, I have a very positive message for you, and I have an opportunity for you, because by voting against the previous question, Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues can prove that you are supporters of drilling and producing American-made energy. Of course, if you do not, that means that you side, of course, with Speaker Pelosi and you oppose drilling.

By defeating the previous question, Mr. Speaker, I will move to amend the rule to make in order H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, and I have talked at length about what it is. This bill will reduce the price at the pump by enacting an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Once again, what it does, it increases the supply of American-made energy by using environmentally sound technology and innovations. It does so by improving conservation and efficiency and, Mr. Speaker, it promotes a diversity by renewing alternative energy sources, like wind that I had talked about, and solar.

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

Mr. Speaker, I again ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Congress, as they return from the 5-week recess--vacation, in some people's terms--and begin the work here in the fall before the election, so that we can finally vote, Mr. Speaker, on real solutions to the real and painful problem of high gas and energy prices.

American workers and families are hurting. Congress can help, can help today by voting on and passing this legislation, the American Energy Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's time to show whether you're really for lowering gas prices or whether you will continue to vote in lockstep with those against lifting the ban on offshore drilling and promoting alternative energy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Well, of course I am going to do that. And, listen: Mt. Rainier I can see from my district on a clear day, because it is 14,410 feet high. But it is quite a view when you view it from a desert setting. So I invite you the next time you come back to come over to my district for all the great wines, where the wine grapes are grown, by the way. And I understand my friend likes to have a cold beer once in a while. The taste of that beer comes from the hops that are grown in my district.

So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding on that basis, and I look forward to his visit. I appreciate it and yield back to him.

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1419 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend remarks on House Resolution 1419.

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

H. Res. 1419 provides for the consideration of H.R. 3667, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources, makes in order three amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Representative Grijalva, Ranking Members Young and Bishop for helping to bring this bill to the floor today. And I would like to thank the staff of the Natural Resources Committee for their very hard work on a bill that is of great importance to my State of Vermont.

The Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are two of the most beautiful rivers in the most beautiful State in the Nation, and that, with all due respect to the man from Washington, I claim to be the State of Vermont. These rivers are bordered by the largest and perhaps the highest quality silver maple floodplain forest remaining in our State of Vermont. They are also home to diverse animal life, including brook trout, rare freshwater mussels, and spiny soft shell turtles. It's a favorite walking, hiking, fishing area for many people in northern Vermont and, indeed, from Upstate New York and all around Vermont.

Additionally, the Missisquoi River is part of this extraordinary 740- mile northern forest canoe trail, which is home to some of the best flat-water canoeing in Vermont and in the Northeast. Both of these rivers are highly valued by the surrounding towns and the communities. It has great recreational areas, swimming pools, and boating. Vermont parents that grew up swimming in these rivers take their kids back there, and it's a place in Vermont of just extraordinary scenic and natural beauty.

The bill, as these study bills all do, provides for a study of the two rivers, and it represents a first step toward protecting Abenaki Indian archeological sites along the flood plains, protecting scenic waterfalls and gorges, and a way of life that has been in these communities surrounding the two rivers for generations.

Passage of the rule will allow the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act to be considered on the floor by the full body, and I urge support of this rule and the underlying bill.

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

I am the last speaker on our side, so I will reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that my friend from Washington would question my assertions about the beauty of Vermont, and I will invite the Member from Washington to come to Vermont so I can let you firsthand experience the evidence that I have had so much opportunity to observe myself.

By the way, I have been to Washington. I climbed Mt. Rainier three times and was out on the San Juan Islands.

For bragging about Washington, yes, I will.

Thank you, my friend from Washington. We better get back to the focus at hand, because now Vermont quality beer has been challenged as well as the beauty of Vermont rivers. So we will just call this part of the debate a draw and proceed.

Two things in response to comments made by my friend from Washington. Number one, it appears that there are no reservations or no stated objections to the study itself that is, frankly, quite important to Vermont. This is a very special part of our State that has the opportunity with the benefit of this study to be preserved for generations ahead, just as it has been cared for and enjoyed by generations in the past. So it is a very, very serious issue to the folks in Vermont. It is just a very special place.

The gentleman has not raised any specific objections. His objections are more in the nature of spending time on this instead of spending time on something else. So I would urge the Members to take that into account when they are voting on the previous question.

Second, I will address the energy arguments. This has been the refrain on the part of our friends on the other side as a response to every piece of business that we are doing on behalf of the American people. I think it has become apparent that this has become much more of a political debate than it has been an effort substantively to solve a very, very serious problem. Let me give a little commentary about that.

Number one, my friends on the other side have been in control of this institution and had the Presidency and the control of Congress for the past 12 years, until this Congress, and had an opportunity to enact comprehensive energy legislation when it was quite apparent to the American people that the problem of our excessive dependence on oil was a real and urgent problem.

They did nothing. In fact, the energy act they passed quite astonishingly provided taxpayer incentives, tax deductions, tax credits, to oil companies that were enjoying record profits. It is a mature industry, it is a profitable industry, yet the energy policy that was pursued and failed by our friends on the other side during the 12 years they were in charge basically was to give oil companies more taxpayer money.

It made no sense. There was no effort to use the power they had of the majority to bring to the floor legislation that would promote alternative energy. There was no effort to take the power that they had and provide tax incentives for the alternative energy industries that we know we must support if we are going to reduce and ultimately eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

I won't yield. My intention, my friend from Washington, is to respond and bring this to a close, thank you.

So, number one, we are hearing objections from people who when they had the power to do the things they

claim they want to do, didn't use the power they had to accomplish those objectives.

Number two, when we have brought forward legislation and passed it, it has been with their objection. And what they claim they want to do are many things that we did over their objection. I will give a few examples.

To deal with the short-term price pressure at the pump and with home heating oil, this House of Representatives passed legislation that I sponsored to stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and take off some of the demand on oil. That has contributed to helping bring down the price of gas at the pump by 5 to 25 cents a gallon.

Secondly, this House of Representatives has gotten tough on speculators. The evidence is overwhelming that part of the runup in the price of gasoline when it was heading up to $150 a barrel was because of the speculative control and influence of hedge funds in foreign trading operations. We brought to this floor legislation, and just the fact that we did it finally, when it was ignored and accepted and mollified by our friends who were in control for 12 years, has helped bring down that speculative premium.

There is no justification for any one of our constituents when they pay for a gallon of gasoline or a gallon of home heating oil or a cubic gallon of natural gas to have included in their price a speculation premium for profiteers, and this Congress passed legislation to challenge that, against the opposition of our friends on the other side. So we have taken very specific actions to try to do what we reasonably can do to bring down the price pressure that is ripping off the American consuming public.

Second, we have passed energy legislation that is comprehensive, again over the opposition of our friends on the other side. One of the things we did was provided for tax credits for the alternative energy industry. We have to do that. That is of urgent, vital economic and environmental concern to this country.

We passed legislation that took away the tax breaks that are going to oil companies. There is no basis whatsoever to ask the taxpayer to pad the profits of a mature and profitable industry. They don't need it. They are doing quite well without additional taxpayer money to their bottom line.

But the new industries, the alternative energies that my friend from Washington mentioned, wind and solar, geothermal and biomass, they do need a boost, and historically when we have been at our best is when we have had the wisdom to use tax policy in a targeted and focused way to give a boost to these emerging industries and technologies that are good for the American economy and good for our environment, and that is what we need to do.

We have passed this in the House several times. Our friends on the other side opposed it. Our friends in the Senate won't move on it. We are prepared to do it again. But the suggestion that has been made repetitively, over and over again, that the leadership of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives is standing in the way of energy policy is flat out wrong. It is flat out false. Why is it being offered? It is being offered for political purposes, I would suggest.

Now, let me tell you this: That although we have passed comprehensive energy legislation several times in this House, although each time we have done it we have had to overcome the opposition of our friends on the other side, and although every time we bring up a legitimate piece of legislation that is part of the public business that this Congress must conduct, whether it is a study on the Missisquoi River, an energy bill or any other bill, every time we do our friends try to cease the debate and distort what has happened, we are prepared, as the gentleman from Washington knows, we in the Democratic Party, our leadership is prepared to bring up yet another comprehensive energy bill that does include all of the above.

The fact is, on our side we have passed all of the above time and time again, against the opposition of our friends on the other side, and then it has run into a brick wall in the other body or the steadfast opposition of the President of the United States. But the gentleman from Washington is aware that the leadership is prepared to bring up yet another bill to give us another opportunity to do the right thing.

Let me say this: I actually think it would be great to work together with the other side. I come from a State where we shift majorities back and forth. Sometimes the Democrats were in control, sometimes the Republican were in control. I was the senate president and I was the minority leader. I learned that in order for us ever to get anything done, we had to ultimately work together. I also came to understand that neither side had an absolute claim that they were the only people who had a good point of view, who had an iron grip on truth.

I believe that it would be best for all of us if there was some willingness to try to work on the substance, rather than just use this as a political football, and my observation is that for whatever reason, it is tough to get to that point here in the House of Representatives in Washington.

I wouldn't yield, my friend, because I will be bringing this to a close.

I want to take the opportunity, as I must, when the assertions are made, falsely in my view, that the Democratic leadership is standing in the way of energy policy change, that is just flat-out wrong. The energy for energy reform has come from the leadership on the Democratic side. Frankly, it has come from the American people, who are tired of a Congress that passed off as an energy policy giving more money to the oil companies.

We have to make a fundamental decision in this hyper-political atmosphere of a presidential election whether we want to continue politics as usual, which in my view is a dead end, or we want to work together to achieve what we know is important for the American people, that is, short-term relief for prices at the pump, and it is a long- term energy policy that frees us from the dependence on oil from foreign countries.

So, Mr. Speaker, having said that, let me just close by coming back to this very important bill. It is a study. It is not necessarily important for many other parts of the country. But one of the things that makes this Congress and this country great is mutual respect. When there is a disaster in the Gulf Coast, all States pull together to help out. When there is flooding in the Midwest, all States pull together. When there is an opportunity for a small State like Vermont to take a step with Wild and Scenic River study that will help us and help our citizens enjoy the beauty of our land, I seek the help of my colleagues to let us accomplish that goal.

It is my request and my urging that all Members vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Amendment to H. Res. 1419 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

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

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6566) to bring down

energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production,

encouraging the development of alternative and renewable

energy, and promoting conservation. All points of order

against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority

leader, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if

offered by the majority leader or his designee, which shall

be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for

40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is it is my opportunity now to yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question.

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

H.R. 3667, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act, was introduced by our colleague from Vermont, Representative Welch. This bill would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to authorize the National Park Service to study specific sections of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in Vermont for their potential inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

I want to thank our colleague from Vermont, Congressman Welch, for his hard work on this measure. This is a good piece of legislation, which will help showcase the natural heritage of Vermont.

We are coming upon the 40th anniversary of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in October. It's important to celebrate the legacy of this act, the preservation of some of our wildest rivers and the safeguarding of our scenic waterways for generations to come, and to acknowledge the essential role that stewardship and a conservation ethic play in the management of our Nation's rivers and streams.

The Missisquoi is a tributary of Lake Champlain, located in northern Vermont. The Trout is a tributary of the Missisquoi. With its headwaters in Lowell, Vermont, the Missisquoi extends almost 100 miles, flowing north into Quebec, then returning to Vermont to flow west before finally ending its journey at Lake Champlain.

As it runs its course through open pastoral fields, scenic gorges and native hardwood forests, the river is a remarkable example of a northeastern ecosystem. It is bordered by the largest and perhaps highest quality silver maple floodplain forest remaining in the State of Vermont. American elm, white ash, white oak, and red maple are found along its banks.

The river is home to diverse fish and wildlife, including native rainbow and brown trout, rare freshwater mussels, spiny soft-shell turtles and river otter. While on the river's banks, bobcat, white- tailed deer, and moose can sometimes be spotted, and the surrounding marshes host large flocks of migratory birds.

In addition to these natural qualities, there are numerous Abenaki Indian archeological sites along the floodplain.

And the river is well-known for its outstanding recreational opportunities as well. It is part of the Northern Forest Canoe Trail--a historic 740-mile water trail through New York, Vermont, Quebec, New Hampshire, and Maine--and outfitters consider the northern part of the river to be the preeminent flat-water paddling spot in Vermont.

It is also renowned for its waterfalls, and the Great Falls on the upper river is recognized as Vermont's largest undammed waterfall.

Simply put, this river is a superb illustration of Vermont's postcard perfect national scenery.

During a hearing on this bill, the administration testified in support of the bill, but recommended that changes be made to clearly specify which segments should be included in the study, as not all of the sections of the river in the original bill were appropriate for consideration. They recommended other technical changes as well.

The Natural Resources Committee amended the bill to respond to those recommendations and clarified which sections of the river would be studied for the wild and scenic attributes.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3667 simply authorizes a study of this river. It is a preliminary step, not a final designation.

Its enactment would simply trigger a process which will allow the National Park Service the opportunity to gather information from, listen to, and coordinate with State officials and local communities; with farmers, business owners, and river outfitters; and with hunters, anglers, birders, paddlers, and hikers--all those who value this river. Only then, after careful consideration and with input from all the stakeholders, will the National Park Service provide recommendations to Congress about the potential of this river.

That is all the legislation does. It is that simple. Let's not lose sight of what this bill is about.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3667.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm encouraged by the newfound populism of my good friend from Utah. And I agree that a comprehensive approach to energy has to be something that this Congress accomplishes within the week. This does not negate what I believe to be a good piece of legislation that is before us.

And it is considerable work. We have to unravel 8 years of failed energy policies. We have to unravel the relationship between Big Oil and the administration so that the consumer, the average Joe out there, will get the kind of break and attention that he needs and she needs with regard to energy costs and the rising cost all around us.

Having said that, let me now turn to the sponsor of this good piece of legislation, the gentleman from Vermont, Congressman Welch, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I realize the political statements that are being made by my friends on the other side of the aisle. I understand them. I think relative to this bill I don't appreciate them, but I really believe that there has to be an understanding that our leadership and the Democrats on this side of the aisle can actually walk and chew gum at the same time, that we can deal with an issue that we are dealing with here today that affects the State of Vermont and deal with the very pertinent issue which is the energy policy for this country.

With that, Mr. Chairman, let me yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for such time as she may consume.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Let me yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Ohio, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of our full Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds.

We have no additional speakers.

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

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion let me say I associate myself with the comments that our chairman, Mr. Rahall, made about transparency and about the deeply needed reform in that agency, given the disclosure and the investigation by the Inspector General. This is a good piece of legislation. I urge its approval.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the amendment as the designee for Mr. Rahall.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require that the study authorized by H.R. 3667 analyze any potential impacts a wild and scenic river designation for this river might have on the possession or use of a weapon, trap or net, including a concealed weapon.

As with many of the amendments offered today, I do not believe this amendment is necessary. The underlying legislation already is more than sufficient in what it directs the Secretary to study when considering a wild and scenic river designation. Further, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act already makes perfectly clear that these river designations are not intended to infringe upon existing State authority to manage hunting or fishing.

Nevertheless, Chairman Rahall has filed this amendment in an overabundance of caution, and as a good-faith effort to dispel any rumors that this bill will impact existing policies on hunting and fishing. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just as a friendly correction for the gentleman from Georgia, nada is spelled N-A-D-A. So none of the above doesn't quite fit the acronym, so there might need to be a search for an appropriate balance.

The other thing, and he mentioned a good point. Under the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee are 68 million acres under lease and not in production under the public lands of this country. So under that jurisdiction, I think the committee has made that effort to try to extend the public lands as a source for energy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want a point of clarification, that we didn't attack the 2005 Republican energy bill because it was done behind closed doors. I think the point on the attack is relative to the fact that it was shortsighted, Big Oil driven, and an utter failure.

I thank the Chairman.

With regard to the Bishop amendment, we have no opposition after reviewing it, and we would accept this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the Flake amendment.

Upon review of the amendment of my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake), we are prepared to accept it and will not oppose the amendment.

I reserve.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate the excellent work you did and your eloquent description of a beautiful river. If I have any say about it, we're going to make you an honorary Vermonter and bring you down that river and make you paddle your way from one end to the other and have you see for yourself how beautiful what you described really is. Thank you.

I want to respond to some of the comments.

Mr. Chairman, my opinion is that one of the greatest Presidents of the United States was Theodore Roosevelt. He came to the Presidency when his predecessor was assassinated. It was a time of great turmoil, social and labor unrest, a need for corporate reform, trust busting. President Roosevelt had his hands full taking on those economic challenges.

He was a war President. The skirmish in Cuba and the Philippines were still very much alive, and he had to deal with that as President. Very serious issues with the Supreme Court. And in the midst of all of that he still found time to be a peacemaker and was the winner of the Nobel Prize for the work that he did in bringing together the Soviet and Japanese conflict and helping those folks resolve the end of that war.

But Theodore Roosevelt was also a person who respected and did more, perhaps, than anyone else to protect our environment. And amidst his responsibilities, where he had to simultaneously deal with enormous economic anxiety in this country, when he had to deal with foreign affairs that involved making America a strong country and bringing together peace in other countries, he would never, ever, busy as he was, urgent as his demands were, belittle the work of the House of Representatives when they were taking up what is now being characterized as a ``waste-of-time bill'' because it involves two rivers in the State of Vermont. He wouldn't do it. He's a bigger man than that.

He reflects the leadership that we can provide to the American people where we simultaneously take on the challenges, as President Roosevelt did, but also pay attention to the posterity that is our responsibility to leave behind.

I just want to say as a Vermonter, I want to say as a Member of the House of Representatives that if we can't find time to do those things that are going to allow us in Utah, in Arkansas, in Arizona and in Vermont to save our rivers and to do what is going to preserve our country and leave behind legacies like President Teddy Roosevelt did with the National Park Service that we revere and enjoy, then we don't deserve the vote of confidence that we get from the folks who send us here. We can do both.

Now my friend from Utah has essentially made an argument that there is more important business to be done, as if that suggests we don't have time to do other important business about protecting and preserving our environment and having mutual respect for the particular concerns, in this case, of Vermont.

But it's that same comity that has allowed us to come forward and step up as Vermonters and Arizonans to help the folks in the Midwest from their flood and to respond to the gulf coast with the damage that they sustained. It's political. That's what we know.

The reality is our friends on the other side had 12 years in control here and their energy policy was one thing: give tax breaks to oil companies. You can't make that up. Oil companies are doing well. I don't begrudge them their profits. But why do you reach into the taxpayers' pocket and ask taxpayers to give the most profitable corporations in the world, running a mature industry, doing well, why do we ask the taxpayers to give them $13 billion? When you reveal that fact, they don't even know how to respond because you can't make that kind of stuff up.

So this House of Representatives, under the leadership that now is being castigated for a failure of leadership, has repeatedly passed legislation against the objections, almost unanimous, of our friends on the other side, to stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to squeeze out the speculative premium in the price of a gallon of gas at the pump. That can provide some short-term relief. We did that. We passed comprehensive energy reform, again, against the objections of our friends on the other side. We took away the tax breaks from the oil companies, not because oil companies are a target. They're doing important work. They know how to do their work and they know how to do it well. But why in the world would our friends on the other side want to give $13 billion in tax breaks to a mature and profitable industry when that money comes directly out of the pockets of American consumers who need that money in their pocket to pay the price at the pump? They've resisted that. They opposed it.

Our friends on the other side are also aware that even though we have passed legislation against their objection, it has gotten stalled in the other body, threatened with veto by the President, we're ready to do it again. Our motto is

try again, try again, and keep going because, bottom line, we want to address that problem. And we have actually been doing things in our 2 years on the watch despite their resistance when they had 12 years to get the job done and essentially caved into the interests of the oil companies.

So, Mr. Chairman, as a Vermonter and the sponsor of this bill, I want to object to what is really a rhetorical and political device, and that is ridiculing the importance of these two rivers to the people of my State for a partisan political argument. Energy is incredibly important and we have delivered. We've put substantive proposals on the floor. They have been debated and they have been passed. They've been stalled in the Senate or threatened with veto by the President. We're prepared to do it again. We're also prepared to reach out to the other side because we all know that in the end if we are going to be successful, we do have to work together, particularly where we have divided government. But it takes two sides, two bodies, and a President to be willing to do that, and it has not been forthcoming.

So I want to go back to a very simple fact. This legislation is about allowing Vermonters to have a study for scenic status on two rivers that are very precious to us, places where moms and dads have taken they are kids, taught them how to hunt, taught them how to fish, taught them how to be families, taught them responsibility. And there is a place for us and a time for us to do that as well as face these large issues like energy, like the war in Iraq, like redefining our foreign policy. So this is a very important piece of legislation to us, and I, as one Member of Congress, object to having it be held hostage to what is essentially a political game that's been going on far too long.

And I want to thank the chairman for the tremendous work that he's done. And, Vermonters, thank you as well.