H.Res. 1433

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (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 have 5 legislative days within which to

revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1433 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 6899, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. The resolution provides 3 hours of debate on the bill, controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, American families and businesses from every city, town and village across our districts are struggling with the skyrocketing gas prices and ever-increasing energy costs, which have obviously gone over into the cost of food and every other commodity that we use. The American people are calling out for relief, which is why we have this comprehensive energy package before us today.

In considering this legislation, we must ask ourselves: How did our great Nation get into this terrible place concerning energy in the first place? Eight years ago, two oilmen took the reins of America's energy policy, and they never looked back. They held secret, closed door meetings with Big Oil and energy companies at a tremendous cost to the American people. And the Republican Congress supported them every step of the way. To this day, we do not know about the secret meetings that the Vice President held.

Just this past summer, the American people struggled through an excessive speculation crisis when oil prices jumped over $150 a barrel. Of course, when the Democrats threatened to rein in speculators, they pulled over $39 billion out of the futures market. We must address speculation before we leave this session. Because now, the oil prices are hovering over $90 a barrel, and we cannot let that go uncared for.

Just last week, we saw the havoc that the Bush-Cheney energy policies have wreaked when the Interior Department's Inspector General reported that administration employees at the Minerals Management Service, who were supposed to be regulating oil royalties, were literally accepting improper gifts and engaging in unethical conduct, such as having sex at parties, using drugs with persons, employees of the oil companies. They were literally, Mr. Speaker, in bed with each other.

My colleagues across the aisle say they want to change the energy policy, but their record certainly proves differently. The very same Republicans voted ``no'' to the first new vehicle efficiency standards in 32 years that would have saved $1,000 in fuel costs per car per year. They said ``no'' to recouping the royalties that the oil companies failed to pay to taxpayers. They said ``no'' to curbing excessive speculation in the energy futures markets, and ``no'' to requiring the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres of Federal land that they already control nationwide, and the list goes on and on.

Mr. Speaker, if the other party has its way in energy, we will have more of the same Bush-Cheney energy policy written by and for the oil companies. They would help Big Oil to get more public land owned by every American, more American oil, more taxpayer dollars, and continuing record profits while American families and businesses get stuck paying record prices at the pump and heating prices.

Mr. Speaker, today this comprehensive bill presents the administration and its allies in Congress with a clear choice on energy. Either side with the American taxpayer, side with the people who sent you here to vote and vote for this, or side with the Big Oil companies who have had the largest profits in the history of mankind and certainly do not need more tax breaks from the American public.

Now, there are significant differences between the Bush administration's policy that got us into this mess and the plan before us today. This package is an energy package for a 21st century policy that will help Americans to reclaim a clean energy future.

And the choice is very clear, as I said before, which side are you on? The bill addresses America's energy crisis in both the short term and the long term.

By releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we will immediately lower prices at the pump for American families struggling with high gas costs. And we will replace the oil at the reserve as the gas prices stabilize.

Meanwhile, by investing billions of dollars over the long term in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and mass transportation, we will harness innovation and create good-paying American jobs while strengthening our energy security.

By expanding the access to offshore oil reserves and encouraging responsible drilling, the bill promotes more exploration and will lead to increased domestic energy production.

By promoting energy efficiency and conservation in buildings, through upgraded building codes and incentives for energy-efficient construction, the bill would lead to reduced energy use and lower utility prices.

In light of the Inspector General report from the Interior Department showing that the Minerals Management Service employees were accepting gifts from the oil companies and engaging in unethical conduct, this bill would subject the MMS employees to a higher ethical standard and make it a Federal offense for oil companies to provide them with gifts of any kind.

At the same time, by providing more funding for home heating assistance, we ensure that seniors and other vulnerable populations do not have to choose between food and heating oil.

Under this bill, we would enact our first national renewable electricity standard. The power companies would be required to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, reducing the air pollution from power plants and helping address the threat of global warming.

As Americans use more public transportation in the face of high gas prices, this bill will help the transit agencies deal with the added costs of increased ridership by providing $1.7 billion in grants.

And at the same time, with the record-breaking oil company profits, it requires the oil companies to pay their fair share by repealing the tax subsidies they do not need and by requiring that the Federal Government collect the oil royalties due to the American people. That's one of the reasons why reform at the committee is so important.

This comprehensive energy legislation is the result of a serious compromise on the part of this Congress to bring down prices now and to invest in a clean renewable future. It will provide America with the American-owned energy policy that this administration has failed to deliver in the last 8 years.

Mr. Speaker, there are precious few moments in each of our lives where we have a chance to do something that profoundly affects not only our own lives but the lives of future generations.

Today, we do have a choice. Do we want to continue on the same dangerous energy policies of the past or do we want to invest in a clean energy future that will help to ease consumer costs in the short term while putting the Nation on a path to a clean energy future that will create a stronger and safer America?

Our energy choices will not only affect Americans who are suffering at the pump but profoundly affect the future of life on this planet.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford more of the same when it comes to this administration's energy policy.

We are all proud Americans, but it is time we start acting like Americans once again. Our great Nation is known around the world for dreaming big and for reaching those dreams. When President Kennedy set a goal to put a man on the Moon in 10 years, America got to work and did it. It is time to set big goals and work diligently to achieve them, and that's exactly what this bill does.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make history by supporting this comprehensive bill that sets the country back on track to a clean energy future and finally begins to break our dangerous addiction to oil which we have been promising to break for at least the last 30 years. The world deserves nothing less.

[From the Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, July 30, 2008]

The GOP Energy Plan: None of the Above

Republicans may talk a good game, but their actions speak

louder than words. Republicans have voted against the

critical solutions that must be part of a comprehensive

New Direction for Energy Independence. They voted against

renewable energy and conservation, responsible domestic oil

production, short-term measures to bring down prices now and

punish those who are manipulating the oil market, and new

requirements that oil companies pay their fair share.

Instead of working on behalf of American families and

businesses, the House Republicans ``all of the above'' energy

plan simply rehashes failed ideas on domestic drilling or

proposes ideas that Republicans have repeatedly blocked in

the past. Their all-out legislative battle in recent years to

protect the record profits of oil companies earning record

profits has earned them the moniker ``Grand Oil Party.''

Americans paying $4 a gallon thanks to an energy policy

literally written by the oil industry cannot afford this the

GOP's ``none of the above'' energy plan.

The Republican leadership's ``none of the above'' record:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use it, or Price Renewable NOPEC price Public Energy

Free our oil Drill act lose it gouging energy fixing transit security -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Boehner, Republican Leader......... NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Roy Blunt, Republican Whip.............. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ............ Adam Putnam, Conference Chairman........ NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO ............ Thaddeus McCotter, Policy Committee NO NO NO ............ NO ............ ............ NO Chairman............................... Kay Granger, Conference Vice-Chair...... NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO John Carter, Conference Secretary....... NO NO NO NO ............ NO NO NO Tom Cole, Chairman, National Republican NO NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO Congressional Committee................ Eric Cantor, Chief Deputy Whip.......... NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO NO David Dreier, Rules Committee Ranking NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO ............ Republican.............................

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Castor.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, the Chair of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Green.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Committees on Natural Resources and Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

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

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have one further speaker, and then I will close.

May I inquire if my colleague has more speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, a member of the Committees on Natural Resources and Transportation, Mr. DeFazio.

Let me give the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this whole debate boils down to one issue today: whose side are you on? Which side are you on, the side of the persons who sent you here, your constituents and the businesses that you represent, or are you on the side of the oil companies? I urge a ``yes'' vote 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. 1433 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Strike all after the resolved clause and add the following:

That 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. 6899) to advance the

national security interests of the United States by reducing

its dependency on oil through renewable and clean,

alternative fuel technologies while building a bridge to the

future through expanded access to Federal oil and natural gas

resources, revising the relationship between the oil and gas

industry and the consumers who own those resources and

deserve a fair return from the development of publicly owned

oil and gas, ending tax subsidies for large oil and gas

companies, and facilitating energy efficiencies in the

building, housing, and transportation sectors, and for other

purposes. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of

rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of

order against provisions of the bill are waived. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final

passage without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of

debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural

Resources; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute

consisting of the text of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act,

as introduced, if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio

or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention

of any point of order or demand for division of the question,

shall be considered as read, and shall be separately

debatable for 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the

proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is a serious issue, and there are a lot of related issues.

The gentleman who spoke before me, and I have a great deal of respect and affection for him, we treat one another with respect. We put a price-gouging bill on the floor because we were concerned about the spikes in pricing. Indeed, we saw, as Ike was coming and bearing down on Texas, before it ever got to the shoreline, there were $5 per gallon prices, before it ever got to the shoreline, before it ever destroyed anything.

My friend voted against the price-gouging bill.

These are serious pieces of legislation. The Republicans were in charge of the House for 6 years. In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, they controlled the White House.

I have in my hand the eight pages that the administration, Mr. Bush, has submitted to us, President Bush submitted to us, over the last 8 years. Six of those years they were included in the appropriations bills passed by the Republican Congress and Republican Senate and signed by a Republican President.

In each of those bills, the administration asked to continue the moratoria on drilling, every one of them, passed for 6 years by your Congress. We didn't have the votes to pass anything.

Then we took over the control, because the Congress was fed up, frankly, with a complacent, do-nothing Congress, complicit in moving in the wrong direction, which 82 percent of America thinks we are now on, the wrong direction.

This Congress has mightily tried to change direction, and, in fact, we have in many areas, including a comprehensive energy bill last year that the President signed. Sam Bodman said it was a great bill, the Secretary of Energy. It passed in a bipartisan fashion in both the Senate and the House.

President Bush, in last year, fiscal year 2008, submitted a budget document, he submitted it, which said, the moratoria should continue. This year, the President submitted a bill, for the 2009 fiscal year, which said the moratoria should continue.

So these crocodile tears about how Democrats have taken over and all of a sudden gas prices have spiked, you give us far more credit than we deserve in light of not being able to override the President's veto on almost anything that he didn't want. He signed some things that he didn't want like the minimum wage. He signed some things he said he wasn't going to sign, like the GI Bill. He signed some things that we passed through the House and Senate.

But these crocodile tears are unwarranted by your record, and by the submissions of the budgets, by your President, for 8 years running. Now, a couple of months ago, the moratoria which was put on by George Bush, his father, was lifted. Why? Because our constituents are hurting. Why? Because we are being held up by those who are selling oil. Why? Because the market is being manipulated and speculators are impacting on price.

You think that's not the case, or do you think all of a sudden demand went down by a third, so it went from $146 down to $92 today, within just a few months. Who believes the free market operates in a way that demand spikes for oil that much in a 90-day period? Nobody on this floor who is rational believes that.

Something is rotten in my home of Denmark. And, actually, it's not rotten in Denmark; it's rotten someplace, though. Mr. Abercrombie is going to speak on behalf of this bill, as he met with Mr. Peterson and tried to come together.

Originally this bill, the gang of 20 in the Senate, which apparently you don't like, because they are undermining the drill, drill, drill political advantage that you have sought, the 20 said let's deal with four States. We are saying let's deal with every State. We do say with sensitivity, as the previous speaker said about his State, States are going to have the opportunity to make a determination as to whether they want to proceed.

Now, you could argue that that shouldn't be the case, because, after all, that's Federal. It's not State property, you get that far out.

We have done a lot of work. We have done a lot of work in trying to work across this spectrum. I want to congratulate Mr. Rahall and Mr. Green and others who have worked so hard to try to bring us together.

I will tell my friend, we do deal with oil shale in this bill. In your bill, you repeal a section which had caused a problem. We repealed that as well, so your bill and our bill did the same thing on that. Furthermore, we said three States that have substantial oil shale ought to have the same opportunity that the coastal States have to opt in to develop that.

Whether the technology is available now, I don't know. In part, I believe the arguments used on this floor, which I will say as an aside, I think was a misuse of this floor. But notwithstanding that, arguments that were made day after day after day were not

accurate, and you knew they were not accurate, which is why it made it so difficult to respond to.

None of you ever mentioned the fact that the President of the United States, George Bush, submitted, months ago and 7 years prior to that, and you passed 6 years in a row, on your watch, the moratoria, of which you now wring your hands.

All of us are concerned. All through the summer and into the fall Americans have been filling up their cars at record prices in my district and every district, $60, $80, $100 a tank and looking for Washington to help, to see what we could do about it. We are trying to do something about it.

Now, you passed an energy bill in 2005. Your Speaker, Mr. Hastert, your majority leader or now minority leader, Mr. Boehner, and my good friend, your whip, said to us, and I won't quote them all at length but I will quote your Speaker, Americans need this bill--your energy bill passed in 2005--to lower their energy prices, to drive economic growth and job creation, and to promote greater energy independence. That's what you said your bill was going to do.

You also said, of course, in 2001, that we were going to have the greatest economy we would ever have seen if we passed your economic improvement program. I doubt that any American believes that you accomplished that objective. You passed your bill, the President signed it. Just a short number of months later prices went from $1.46, when you took over, to over $4.20.

If it was a successful energy program, it was a successful energy program in driving up the price of gasoline for all of our consumers. To see what we could do about this we met, we talked to Mr. Abercrombie, we talked to Mr. Peterson to try to bring our caucus together. It was a diverse caucus. A lot of people felt President Bush was right, those 8 years that he submitted those bills and that you passed 6 years you were in charge.

To relieve the strain on their budgets and their families, not 10 years from now but now, today, I am sure you are wondering whether we will throw up our hands on the work of compromise and retreat into finger pointing. I think we can do better than that on both sides.

Both of us want to make sure that we bring prices down, and both sides of the aisle want to see energy independence. We can pass this bill, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. You say it's not perfect. Many Members on our side say it is not perfect, but it is a very significant step and a very significant expansion of where oil could be found.

I would reiterate, there are 68 million acres right now, right now, as I stand here, that could be drilled upon right now without any further legislation, regulation or administrative action.

This legislation, this bold step towards a comprehensive energy policy, is worthy of the 21st century. Lower gas prices today, American oil and natural gas for the years to come, that's what this bill promises and will provide, and serious investment in a new generation of energy technologies for a cleaner, more secure energy future. It's all here, and we are all going on record this evening.

Here is what the energy package is going to accomplish. First, we are going to drill for more oil and gas here at home. That's what Americans have said. Use our resources. Don't rely on the Middle East. Don't rely on Venezuela. Don't rely on Russia. Certainly, don't rely on Iran. Drill here.

We have both said all along, we put a bill on the floor, drill responsibly in presently leased land, that Mr. Rahall led. Most of you, many of you voted against it. For many of my colleagues, I know that drilling is the most contentious part of this compromise, but we have worked hard to find common ground.

Drilling will come with strong, new environmental protections. Americans want that. They want resources, but they want them safely gotten. It will take place well offshore, as opposed to the 3-mile zone that will go up for grabs in 15 days if we vote this bill down and do nothing.

I don't know how many of you are for that. Maybe all of you are for it on that side. I don't think our citizens are for it. In the areas closer to shore, we are letting the States themselves make the final call. To my colleagues on the Republican side who argue that States won't opt in without revenue sharing, I reply this, if the ground swell for drilling is as strong as you have said it is, and I believe it is, surely our State leaders will listen.

Do not ascribe to us the only ones who will respond to the public's desire to find more resources. Certainly our State leaders will respond as well. They will feel comfort that their State has made that determination.

That's not to mention the job creation that will occur in States, what a motivation that is. We are also including diligent development provisions, which, by the way, you included in your 2005 bill. We thought it was a good provision. We called it ``use it or lose it.'' You voted against it because it wasn't your bill. You voted for it when it was development in your bill. When we put it on the floor, you voted against it.

Second, we are going to take immediate action to lower the price of oil by releasing 10 percent of the oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We proposed that; the President said ``no.'' We said don't buy any more. The President said ``no.'' Both of those policies are now being pursued by the administration.

Tax incentives for plug-in hybrid cars, solar and wind power, biofuels and energy efficient homes. Why? Because we can't drill ourselves out of this. We need to drill, we want to drill, we are providing for drilling, but that's not the solution.

It is part of the solution. We all understand, you say, all of the above. We say, yes, let's invest in alternative research, for cutting- edge energy research, support for mass transit and renewable energy.

We need all of those steps if we are going to be energy independent.

Some day soon I think we will look back on these investments as the beginning of the end of our oil addiction. We are going to fund them by recovering the royalties the oil companies owe the American people. Who here believes you need to incentivize a company to produce a product that is getting the highest price it has ever gotten in history. I don't find that premise in my free market concept. The free market operates that if people are buying your product and they are paying you a very good price, by golly, you try to provide more product for them.

Refineries were operating at less than 90 percent, or about 91 percent this summer, the lowest point they have been at refining capacity in a number of years, not because they didn't have supply. They have got supply. There are no shortages, there are no lines. They are just charging a high price.

We are going to fund that research, as I said, by asking the oil companies to pay their fair share. They are making good money and our citizens shouldn't have to pay more to run their government because some oil companies are not paying their fair share. It simply doesn't make economic sense to do billions of dollars of tax cuts to oil companies while our citizens are paying high taxes.

All of that is our energy solution. We have not left a stone unturned or a remedy untried. To my Democratic colleagues, I don't think a single one of us is happy with every single provision in this bill. I know I am not. There would have been some additional things I would have liked in this bill. But I also know that is the price of a good compromise, and making good compromises is our business. To my Republican colleagues, you have told us loud and long, and I want to congratulate Mr. Peterson for the work he has done in bringing this issue to the fore and talking about it, not just this year because I have known him for a long time. We served on the Appropriations Committee, and he has been consistent and constant in his focus on this issue.

Your Presidential candidate is running for office under the motto ``Country First.'' We would all run on that platform.

I am for Mr. Obama, as all of you know. He wants to see change and a new direction. But certainly all of us agree that our country comes first, perhaps not before God, perhaps we would say our family is critical, but certainly country is our consideration.

Democrats and Republicans, we are all being watched today and they can see partisan differences, partisan divide, and sending a partisan bill to the Senate. We can perhaps do that, and maybe we will. Our public will not be pleased. This bill is not perfect. It is not everything you wanted; it is not everything I wanted. But it is a substantial expansion on drilling, a substantial investment on renewables, a substantial investment on conservation. We ought to pass this bill.

I would yield briefly to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, that provision, of course, was added under your leadership to manufacturing. It wasn't in manufacturing, as you probably know, when it was originally adopted because it was not perceived that the oil companies were in manufacturing as the bill contemplated to be.

Then you thought the oil companies weren't doing well enough, and so you wanted to add that provision and you added it under Republican leadership. Very frankly, we thought that was not a wise move at that time, and we don't think it is a wise move now. And very frankly, I don't think the American public thinks that the oil companies will go out of business if we don't give them this tax incentive.

I will yield one more time, and then I will conclude.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1433, I call up the bill (H.R. 6899) to advance the national security interests of the United States by reducing its dependency on oil through renewable and clean, alternative fuel technologies while building a bridge to the future through expanded access to Federal oil and natural gas resources, revising the relationship between the oil and gas industry and the consumers who own those resources and deserve a fair return from the development of publicly owned oil and gas, ending tax subsidies for large oil and gas companies, and facilitating energy efficiencies in the building, housing, and transportation sectors, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6899.

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

Mr. Speaker, the pending legislation, H.R. 6899, has as its additional cosponsors the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from Michigan, the dean of the House, Mr. John Dingell.

My colleagues, today we stand at a crossroads, and the two paths before us are crystal clear. Those of us supporting the pending legislation bring with us the new-age conviction that in order for this Nation to be truly secure, we must bridge the gap between our addiction to oil, to a future empowered by more secure, safe, and reliable sources of power, that we must shatter the shackles of the past and remove the bonds that have placed such a burden on the American people and on our security as a Nation.

The other path is less enlightened. It carries with it the belief that a subservience to the policies of the past can sustain the country in the years and decades ahead. It would sacrifice America's energy security on the altar of Big Oil's profits and its profiteering. The choice is quite clear.

Before us today is landmark legislation that would, for the first time since 1982, sweep away moratoria precluding oil and gas leasing in much of the Federal waters off America's coastlines.

As a result of the pending measure, roughly 85 percent of all oil on the Outer Continental Shelf will be available for production. We are opening up to 400 million acres off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts to drilling. We are expanding the availability of oil by at least 2 billion barrels of oil, enough to power 1 million cars for 60 years.

But in doing so, we have built in safeguards. I repeat that: we have built in safeguards. We do not undermine the defense posture of this country and the Defense Department's need to engage in military operations in America's waters.

We protect national marine monuments and sanctuaries, and we provide for the consideration of the interests of the coastal marine and human environment. And importantly, we are cracking down on the incredible failure of the Interior Department to ensure that Americans are getting paid a fair rate of return for the production of their, and I emphasize their, Federal oil and gas reserves and resources. These reserves are not owned by Chevron or Shell or by Exxon; they are owned by all Americans. They are owned by all Americans by birthright.

Yesterday, another former Interior Department official who was in charge of collecting Federal oil and gas royalties pleaded guilty to rigging bids. Last week reports were released by the Interior Department's Inspector General which found ``a culture of ethical failure'' in a division of the Minerals Management Service as part of what I believe to be a burgeoning scandal. This is an agency that is supposed to safeguard one of the largest non-IRS streams of revenue to the Treasury. It is almost like Teapot Dome all over again.

At the same time, Government Accountability Office reports were released that found that the United States receives one of the smallest shares of oil and gas revenue in the world. Think about that. We receive one of the smallest shares of oil and gas revenues of any country in the world.

The reports also found that Federal oil and gas leases are not being diligently developed. We on this side of the aisle have been saying that for months. Production is only occurring on 12 percent of offshore leases and 5 percent of onshore leases. And as I have been bringing to light through a number of hearings held by the Natural Resources Committee, the Interior Department is unable to provide certainty that companies are paying the royalties owed to the American people, a culture of ethical failure, indeed.

The legislation before us contains bold initiatives to crack down on this legacy of abuse. It would require the diligent development of Federal oil and gas leases, require that prompt, transparent and accurate royalty payments are made, and would tackle the ethical failures occurring at the Interior Department. Leading the vanguard in our march to a more energy self-reliant and secure future is this legislation's establishment of a strategic energy efficiency and renewable reserve.

This initiative would finance the development of renewable and alternative energy technologies, provide increased assistance for low- income

home energy and weatherization programs, and advance carbon capture and storage, among other items. And we are dedicating over $6 billion to this fund over the next 10 years.

All of the above. All of the above. How often have we heard that in this debate? All of the above. It is here my friends: oil, natural gas, oil shale, wind, solar, coal energy efficiencies and energy conservation.

As I noted earlier, today we are at a crossroads. The difference is clear between those of us supporting this measure and some of those on the other side of the aisle who have been trumpeting their bumper sticker ``drill here, drill now'' approach to our serious energy situation.

They would open up everything to Big Oil. Perhaps some of them would even open up the National Mall if they could to drilling rigs. They would give away the store, no accountability, no safeguards, no expectation of a return in terms of energy or revenue.

We, on this side, instead, seek to protect America's interests in American resources. Make more Federal oil and gas available to drilling? Yes. That's what we're doing in this bill. But we're doing so in a manner that safeguards our environment, ensures the diligent development of those energy resources, and demands that the American taxpayer gets a fair return. Royalties due, royalties paid.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would note to the gentleman that just spoke, the minority, when they

were in power, tried very hard writing bills late at night, so nothing should surprise them as far as the timing of this bill.

I yield, Mr. Speaker, 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a very important champion of this bill and cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

It's interesting to note that the gentleman from Texas has just spoken about that we should have a straight up-or-down--or, I'm sorry, that we should have amendments, that he's complaining about the closed rule as other Members on that side have. Yet their mantra over the last several months has been, Let's have a straight up-or-down vote; let's have a straight up-or-down vote. I would say that's what we're getting to before this evening is over with.

I would note also the lack of hearings to which we've been charged. This energy debate has gone on ad infinitum on numerous pieces of legislation, often bills having nothing to do with energy, during 1- minutes, during Special Orders. Even when the House was not in session, the other side had their energy debate.

So I would say there are various parts of this bill that have passed the House before, have been debated on ad infinitum in committees and/ or on this floor. So there is really nothing new in this piece of legislation, and it's a piece of legislation that has been debated over and over.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of our Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and also a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, an individual who's helped us a great deal in the drafting of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to yield 1 minute to the distinguished dean of the House and cosponsor of the pending legislation and chairman of our Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I'm glad the gentleman from Alaska has returned to the floor and reclaimed managing on his part. I hope he's been back in the cloakroom speaking to his Governor, Sarah Palin, and urging her to speak with his Presidential nominee, John McCain, in regard to opening up ANWR, since the gentleman is so anxious to open up ANWR. I would note that his Presidential nominee is opposed opening ANWR as well.

This legislation, however, increases domestic oil production in Alaska by mandating annual lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve which has more than 10 billion barrels of oil, more oil than the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to yield 4 minutes to a very distinguished member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Pennsylvania, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Ms. Schwartz.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Shelley Berkley.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. Anna Eshoo.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, a valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. Speaker, just to remind the previous gentleman, he ought to read the bill because there is a State opt-in for oil shale leasing, including in his own State.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) who has been a real stalwart in helping us develop this comprehensive energy bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman from Louisiana has just described the revenue program as ``typical'' and that we are doing away with the ``typical revenue sharing.'' I would remind my colleagues, that is not an accurate statement.

The OCS Lands Lease Act passed in 1954 had zero revenue sharing in it. Zero revenue sharing. It was only in 2006 when this Congress passed revenue sharing to allow four States to share in that money, due to hurricane relief, those four States being Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Revenue sharing was a one-shot deal.

So for the gentleman from Louisiana to describe it as typical, and many on that side have attacked this bill because there is no revenue sharing, a bribe to the States, if you will, to opt in, is just not an accurate description of this legislation. Revenue sharing has never been typical of leasing and the Outer Continental Shelf.

I will yield.

Reclaiming my time, it was a one-shot correction due to hurricane relief, Katrina.

Onshore, yes. We are talking about the Outer Continental Shelf here. You said OCS.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, God forbid, that this bill be known as a drill here, drill now, drill everywhere, drill irresponsibly piece of legislation.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, a gentleman who has done yeoman's work in bringing this together as a caucus on this legislation, and I salute his knowledge and expertise in developing this legislation, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from New York, the Chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, for many months the liberal leaders that control this House have blocked, dodged, and refused to allow a vote on legislation to produce more American-made energy.

Democrat leaders have been absolute in their opposition to lifting the ban on drilling offshore, and they have repeatedly and adamantly refused any action on such legislation to help lower gas prices that are hurting people at the pump.

And yet today, Mr. Speaker, after these many months and years of stamping their feet and yelling ``no,'' are we now to believe that these same liberal Democrats, standing before us today with a salesman smile on their face, are we to believe them that they are now declaring that this is a pro-drilling bill?

Mr. Speaker, the American people are not fools. They won't be taken in by this sham of a bill that will actually lock down Americans' ocean oil reserves.

There are two phrases that come to mind, Mr. Speaker, about this bill. The first is ``grasping at straws,'' which is defined as trying to find reasons to be hopeful about a bad situation. The second phrase is ``fig leaf,'' which means something you use to try to hide an embarrassing fact or problem. Mr. Speaker, with this bill, Democrats are grasping at straw fig leaves.

There's an election coming up, and Democrats are desperately in search of political cover, political cover for their long record of opposing drilling and producing more American-made energy.

This straw fig leaf bill was written in secret. There were no public hearings on this bill. The first copy of it was made public at 9:45 p.m. last night, barely 12 hours ago, and it's 290 pages long.

The Democrat-controlled Rules Committee blocked every single Member of this House from being able to offer their ideas for improving this bill. No amendments were allowed to the bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, Democrats are simply playing a political game. Everybody knows this bill will never pass Congress and become law, but don't take my word for it. Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana said this bill is ``dead on arrival in the Senate.'' And when you examine the details of this bill, it certainly deserves to be dead, Mr. Speaker.

It permanently locks up vast amounts of America's oil and gas reserves, including more than 10 billion, with a B, 10 billion barrels of oil on Alaska's remote North Slope. It leaves 88 percent of America's offshore energy resources locked up. It increases taxes by billions of dollars, taxes which will land squarely on the shoulders of American consumers. And it permanently bans drilling within 50 miles of American shores.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why is this fact important? It's important because, according to the Interior Department, of the nearly 10 billion, again B, barrels of oil believed to be offshore in California, only 5 percent is beyond the 50-mile barrier.

Mr. Speaker, what this simply means is that this bill permanently bans drilling on 95 percent of the oil believed to be off the coast of California.

As if a permanent ban on drilling in the first 50 miles offshore were not enough, drilling between 50 and 100 miles out would also be effectively banned. By refusing to allow States to share in revenue generated by offshore drilling, this bill guarantees that drilling offshore will never be permitted by the States.

Right now, States along the Gulf of Mexico are paid a share of the oil produced in those waters. Under this bill, royalty sharing won't be allowed. As a result, States would have no incentive to allow any drilling whatsoever. In fact, I would submit they would have a disincentive. Why would a State allow someone to come into their back yard and pay them no share of the profits that would be made by the offshore drilling? It is the equivalent of the government opening a Starbuck's or a McDonald's franchise in your garage or family home but paying you nothing,

even to alleviate the cost of dealing with the impacts of that business.

And consider this, Mr. Speaker, if this is truly a drilling bill, why is there no outcry from the radical environmental special interests? Mr. Speaker, it's because they know that drilling will never happen under this plan. Those who are opposed to drilling can vote for this bill secure in the knowledge that drilling will never actually happen under this sham bill.

Mr. Speaker, my district in central Washington is the home of Grand Coulee Dam and vast amounts of hydropower. It is the home of the only nuclear plant in the Pacific Northwest. It is home to the vast majority of wind farms in Washington State. And it is home to the Pacific Northwest National Lab, a leader in renewable energy research.

Those who call central Washington home believe in an all-of-the-above plan that lowers energy prices. That means promoting alternative energy sources like wind and solar power, recognizing a need for more nuclear power, protecting our valuable hydropower dams, and also allowing drilling offshore in Alaska and on other Federal lands. But this bill, Mr. Speaker, does not address those issues.

The Democrat plan just means billions of dollars in higher taxes, more government mandates that will increase costs for everyone, and a permanent ban on most of our offshore resources.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the American people deserve a vote on legislation that truly expands alternative energy sources and lifts the ban on offshore drilling and in Alaska. They deserve a vote on H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, but the liberal leaders of this Congress have blocked a fair yes-or-no vote on this bill for months. They blocked a fair yes-or-no vote, Mr. Speaker, because I believe they know if it were on the floor, it would likely pass.

Mr. Speaker, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi control the Democrat Party here in this Congress. They oppose drilling. They have fought and blocked it for years. Every time drilling has come up they've said ``no, no, no.'' And this bill is just more of the same because it says no drilling in Alaska, no to truly lifting the offshore drilling ban, no to opening up oil shale in the western United States, no to hydropower as a renewable energy source, no to non-carbon emitting nuclear power, no to building new refineries here in America, and no to clean coal and coal-to-liquid technology. The only thing that the Democrat bill says yes to are tax increases, permanent bans on drilling, and continued high prices.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my opening remarks, I want to shine the light on an area of this bill that has not gotten much attention, partly because no one had a copy to read this bill before 9:45 last night.

Of serious concern are the costly new mandates included in the national Renewable Energy Standard that this bill creates. The most likely and certain result of this is to increase the power bills of almost every American family and business that it affects. That's right, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat bill isn't going to lower gas prices, but it will increase power bills.

The most egregious of it all is that this new mandate is slanted and biased by saying solar and wind power are renewable under the standard, but that hydropower isn't. This discrimination against hydropower is absolutely ridiculous. Hydropower is the most abundant source of renewable energy in our country. Hydropower is renewable, clean, non- emitting, non-polluting, and a reliable energy source.

Mr. Speaker, those are the facts.

And consider this; if capturing the sun shining and the wind blowing is renewable energy, then so is water running downhill, which is precisely what hydro is all about. But believe it or not, it is not renewable by definition under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, when Democrats--who just days ago were proudly declaring their career-long opposition to oil drilling--are suddenly preaching the merits of this self-proclaimed drilling bill, you know, it's really hard not to laugh, except for the fact that families, workers, farmers, schools and small businesses are struggling under the high cost of gasoline, and really this Democrat Congress is doing nothing to help.

Instead of real solutions to real problems of high gas and energy prices that Americans are facing, this Democrat Congress has chosen to look after themselves in writing this bill. What do I mean by that? This bill will do nothing, nothing but give Democrats a talking point and a 30-second television commercial where they can smile and claim that they are supporting drilling for American oil.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule and this sham bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Republican whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis of California.

(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton of Texas.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a Member of this body who has been absolutely steadfast on the proposition of expanding our energy supply, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire if my friend, the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, has any other speakers?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Speaker, I have two additional individuals, and then I am prepared to yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, a Member who served here previously and who was very active on this issue, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

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

Mr. Speaker, my plea to those Democrats who proclaim their support for more drilling and making America more energy independent, I urge you to vote ``no'' against this sham bill by voting ``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to make in order H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act.

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, once again I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question because that means we will have a vote on both their bill and our bill.

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

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

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this ill-conceived, if it was conceived at all, legislation.

I don't know how many of you ever saw the Peter Pan story, the movie, or even read it. This is a Peter Pan story. You know, they have the imaginary bowls, the bowls that were not imaginary but they were empty, and they convinced Peter Pan, Robin Williams, to use his imagination and the bowls will be full of food.

And this is what you're doing today, Mr. Chairman, and the people that wrote this bill, who we do not know who did write it. Use your imagination. We're going to have the oil for everything because this bill produces oil.

It produces nothing. This is a Peter Pan story. It's a figment of the imagination. It is a political gimmick. It is a sham on the American people.

Shame on this House, that the courage wasn't there for the leadership to go on both sides of the aisle, listen to those that have some expertise in this problem we are facing today, the high cost of energy, and work together and pass an energy solution to a problem that produces not only fossil fuels but other forms of fuel, that solves the problems for the commuter who has to go to work. And Mr. and Mrs. Commuter, if you think this bill today that came out of this leadership on that side produces one bit of relief to you as you drive to work, don't believe it. Go see Peter Pan. That's all this bill is.

It has nothing in there to produce energy. In fact, it probably will drive down the ability to produce energy. It will help foreign countries.

I just heard my chairman talk about Big Oil, how bad Big Oil is, and put the blame on Big Oil. Where do you think you're getting your oil today as you put it in your tank? From Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Chavez, foreign countries that have control of us right now. We ought to be talking about that. Forget talking about Big Oil, because this body, and I've said it before on this floor of the House, both sides of the aisle have not seized the ability to solve the energy problem by developing fossil fuels.

Coal. There's nothing in this bill about coal to liquification or gasification. There's nothing in this bill about nuclear power. There's nothing in this bill that produces any energy. In fact, this bill takes land that's open now and closes it, and take lands that was closed and opens it, but it happens to be 50 miles offshore. Any oil in between there can't be developed.

And by the way, my good friends, if any State contiguous to decides not to have it drill 50 miles and out they can say no, and they will say no because there's no revenue sharing in this bill. None.

It is probably the best way to call this bill the Venezuela, Russian, Middle East Oil Production Act, because you're protecting the foreign countries under this legislation.

I don't know why I'm getting worked up about it because we all know this is a political gimmick. It's never going to go anywhere. It's not going to become law. But it will give some people cover to say, I voted for more drilling and more production. This bill does not do that.

It will increase energy costs. And I'm a little concerned on both sides of the aisle again because oil has dropped down to $93 a barrel today. You know, if that would have happened last year we would have said, my God, the world's coming to an end. Oil went to $93. But it was $145, and we are being lulled into this type of legislation saying we're going to solve the problem and nothing is occurring to solve the problems of the American consumer. We're right where we were last year and the year before that, and that's wrong.

It does leave out ANWR. I wasn't going to bring up that, but the closest, quickest way to produce a million barrels a day to the United States was to open ANWR. No, we left that out. Can't happen. A million barrels a day for the next maybe hundred years, for the American consumer. Every barrel would have gone to the United States of America. A little provision says you can't export any of this oil to overseas. We're not exporting oil, we're consuming it. But we're consuming most of our oil from overseas, paying the foreign countries the oil prices today because you have not come to this floor, not one hearing in our committee on this issue.

This bill was written in the midnight. I shouldn't say the midnight, the midnight sun. I would say it was written in the darkness of night. And introduced last night, had the rule last night, 500 pages. I have read it, and it produces nothing.

You can get more energy out of this bill, ladies and gentlemen, if you take all the copies of the bill and put it in a bonfire. And that is not good for this House of this Nation. You had the opportunity.

Now, I don't understand, really, why anybody would support this legislation at all because we're committing something wrong to the American people. We had a chance.

I see people from oil-producing States over on that side. Why did you buy into the concept we wanted to bring a bill to the floor that does nothing but say I helped develop more oil when it doesn't do it?

If you believe that, you would have let us have this bill, 2 weeks, 3, 4 weeks ago, but you didn't because you know when it finally gets out to the public and they start understanding what's occurring, that the public will understand, yes, it was a sham.

And I'm tired of politics on oil in this body. We have a Speaker that believes that we have to save the planet because we can't burn any more fossil fuel. If that's the case, then let's admit it. I believe this is what she believes, and I think that's sad.

I believe we ought to say, okay, we do have to have fossil fuels and we can develop the other forms of energy but it takes time. We need that bridge. This bill doesn't do that.

So we're going to come back here next year, the public will be hoodwinked. The public will have high prices again, nothing will be done.

If we're really wise, we'd take this bill today, totally defeat it, send it back and work across the aisle for the American people, work across the aisle for solutions that would no longer have the yoke not of Big Oil around our necks, the yoke of the foreign countries that took those billions of dollars. The largest transfer of American wealth in history occurred because this body didn't act correctly and did not develop the resources so we wouldn't have to transfer that wealth overseas, and we did it.

So we have a responsibility to defeat this legislation. It was conceived in the dark. Who the father is, I do not know. But we do know it's not legitimate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Again, I have great respect for my friend from Texas, and I understand the pressure he's under.

But just think for a minute. There's no real offshore exploration in their bill. There's no renewables in their bill. There's no oil shale in their bill. Of course there's no ANWR in their bill. There's no nuclear in their bill. There's no clean coal to coal to liquids in their bill. There's no new refinery capacity in their bill.

There is no electricity price hike control in their bill. And most of all, there is no lawsuit reform in their bill.

This bill is, in fact, a ``no'' bill: no energy, no energy, no energy.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas and the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee be allowed to control 21 minutes of the general debate time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman from West Virginia was giving a history lesson a moment ago. We passed ANWR on this House 10 times, never got out of the Democrat Senate side because of filibuster, and Bill Clinton vetoed it. And my candidate has sort of changed his mind with his new Vice Presidential candidate, who is going to be the next Vice President of the United States, who strongly supports drilling in ANWR.

I am convinced with her great personality and her knowledge, she will be able to convince him the right way, more than we do Mr. Obama.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).