Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1339 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for 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.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1339.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1339 provides for the consideration of H.R. 415, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

This structured rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order four amendments which are printed in the Rules Committee report. The amendments are each debatable for 10 minutes, and the rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and in strong support of the underlying legislation. Introduced by my colleague from Massachusetts, Chairman Barney Frank, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 415.

This legislation would designate portions of the Taunton River in Massachusetts as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program. It is important to note that this legislation has support from every House member from Massachusetts and Rhode Island and from every government of the affected communities along the river.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that this designation only affects three congressional districts in Massachusetts and two in Rhode Island. It does not impact any other State in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the Taunton River fully qualifies for and deserves this designation. As determined by the National Park Service, and I repeat, as determined by the National Park Service ``the Taunton River is eligible for wild and scenic designation based on its free flowing condition and the presence of outstandingly remarkable natural and cultural resource values.''

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that this designation is distinct for different segments along the Taunton. Two segments of the river would be designated ``scenic'' and two as ``recreational.''

Now some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have suggested that the Taunton isn't scenic enough or that it's too urban for this designation. One of my colleagues even went so far as to say that the only thing scenic about this area is the graffiti on the bridges. Mr. Speaker, I find that statement not just wrong-headed but deeply offensive to the people that I represent. That kind of elitism serves no purpose and has no role in this debate.

I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle who believe that the Taunton River doesn't meet the right criteria for this designation to actually pay attention to what those criteria are. The Taunton River is the longest undammed coastal river in New England. It is home to over 150 species of birds, 45 species of fish and 360 plant species. It is the largest contributor of fresh water to Narragansett Bay. And its shoreline provides for a wide variety of recreational opportunities. For the communities of Fall River, Somerset and the others along the Taunton, this designation will support the economic development plans within the area. In my district, the Fall River portion of the river, the ``recreational'' designation complements the city's plan for waterfront revitalization, which includes a marina and a boardwalk.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to address the baseless claim that this legislation is some sort of end around to prevent energy development in Massachusetts. This is an argument cooked up by one particular energy company that wanted to build a liquefied natural gas facility within a stone's throw of people's homes. This company has even purchased full- page newspaper ads in an ill-conceived lobbying campaign. Sadly, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have bought into their false argument hook, line and sinker.

First off, efforts to designation the Taunton began well before any proposal for a liquefied natural gas plant was announced. My mentor, Congressman Joe Moakley, filed legislation to study the river's designation in 1999, while the proposal for LNG was made public 3 years later in 2002. Secondly, this legislation is based on a study compiled by President Bush's National Park Service between 2000 and 2002.

And finally, this LNG plant proposal has been roundly rejected by the United States Coast Guard, the United States Navy, and the Commerce Department, due to overwhelming navigational suitability, environmental issues and maritime safety concerns. In other words, there is nothing this legislation can do that hasn't already been done by the people we task to keep our waterways safe.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has never been about stopping LNG or energy production. In fact, by denying the communities and the Taunton River this designation, we further hinder their ability to utilize the river as a catalyst for economic development. This bill is about protecting the natural and cultural resources of the people who live along the Taunton River. It's about telling the people of southeastern Massachusetts that their environment, their heritage, their recreational opportunities and their economic development matter too.

I very much look forward to this debate. And I am eager to hear what my friends on the other side of the aisle have to say about this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I have great respect for the gentleman from Washington State. But listening to his remarks, it makes me sad that this Chamber, this Congress, has kind of disintegrated to a point where there seems to be no collegiality and no kind of honest debate about what the facts are here.

I'm happy to yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for has question. I don't recall Mr. Frank's remarks verbatim. I am happy to look at the transcript. I did not say that. Let me respond here. And maybe the gentleman didn't hear my opening statement. But the Taunton River is eligible for a wild and scenic designation. But also part of it is eligible based on ``recreational.'' That is the word that the Bush administration's National Park Service has said is appropriate. Now, I very rarely agree with the Bush administration on anything. And I'm sorry the gentleman disagrees with the Bush administration on this. But what I find particularly cynical is the photograph that the gentleman just held up which is the exact photograph that this big-moneyed energy company published as part of an ad in a number of newspapers.

It is a photograph of the Taunton River. But the interesting thing about that photograph is the angle at which it has been taken. The fact of the matter is that this photograph that this big-moneyed energy company that my friend on the Republican side has held up is saying that this will be part of the, this area will be included in the designation which seeks to prove I think how inappropriate it has become because this industry has actually manipulated this photograph. But in fact much of that photograph is of a park.

You will note in the picture a World War II battleship. That is the USS Massachusetts. And let me show you it is no part of any industrial use today. It's part of a recreational area. The battleship is the centerpiece of a very important urban park called the Heritage Park in the city of Fall River. And there is a great deal of open space that is shielded cleverly, very cleverly in that photograph that was paid for by a big-moneyed energy company. On the opposite side of that river are boat ramps and houses that go right to the river for recreational purposes. And it's part of my district.

Now the gentleman maybe has a bias against providing working class people who live in urban areas any benefits from any kind of environmental designation. I disagree with him if that is his opinion. But he mentioned that the purpose of all of this was, in fact, to prevent an LNG site facility from being built in the middle of Fall River.

Let me put this out there so my colleagues understand this. There are currently only eight LNG terminals in the United States of America. Of those eight, Massachusetts currently has two LNG terminals in operation with a third one that has been approved by FERC. Massachusetts is the only State to permit not one, but two new LNG import facilities this decade in this country. Each of these facilities is authorized to double its output capacity.

I will yield after I finish my statement.

Reclaiming my time, the bottom line is we in Massachusetts realize the need for these LNG import facilities.

And I would like to point out to the gentleman from Washington, and if my geography is correct, Washington is still a coastal State, unless that has changed, but that his State has no LNG terminal in operation, under construction, or even proposed.

So when he implies that somehow the Massachusetts delegation is not stepping up to the plate in terms of making sure that not only New England but this Nation has energy, he is wrong. Massachusetts has been a leader on this.

Let me point out one other thing. This is not a Republican-Democrat issue with regard to the LNG facility and the Fall River. Mitt Romney, who the last time I checked was a Republican, and still is a Republican, was a leading opponent in the siting of the LNG facility in the middle of Fall River. In 2006, Governor Romney stated, ``Weaver's Cove and Fall River strike me personally as being an ill-advised site to receive LNG.'' Realizing that they were trying to site an LNG facility in a highly populated area, Governor Romney asserted, ``I don't like the idea of an LNG facility going into a populated area, not in the post-9/11 world.''

We in Massachusetts have worked with energy companies to try to site these LNG facilities safely offshore. The idea that you would site an LNG facility in an area where there are countless people within a 1- mile radius of this facility is crazy.

Richard Clarke, the terrorist expert said, ``This is a bad idea.'' Now that is one opinion. Another opinion is the U.S. Coast Guard said it is a bad idea. The U.S. Navy says it is a bad idea. The Commerce Department says it is a bad idea. You are the only one who says it is a good idea, you and a big moneyed energy company.

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing all kinds of red herrings here, but understand one thing, this is not about energy. This is about whether or not a working class city, kind of the home base of the industrial revolution that is located on this river, can be designated as a wild and scenic area, whether or not the recreational aspects of this river can be recognized, whether or not we can afford this city of Fall River the benefits to help them use this river as a catalyst for economic environment.

It is too bad that this has become an elitist debate about well, no, you don't deserve it because this is a working class, urban area, home of the industrial revolution. You don't deserve that designation. I think that is wrong.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous speaker, and I am confused because he doesn't address what we are talking about here which is the designation of the Taunton River as having a wild and scenic designation.

Again that photo that he held up, which my colleague from Washington State held up, which was a photo taken by a big moneyed special interest energy company, is inaccurate. I mean everything below the bridge seen in the middle of that picture is not covered by this bill.

Here is if you take a picture from the other side which actually is the part that we are talking about being covered, it is a much, much different picture. It doesn't fit into the strategy of this special interest big moneyed energy company, but the reality is you see a much different picture of what we are trying to protect and what we are trying to preserve.

If people want to have a debate on energy, fine. I would simply say Massachusetts is doing its part. We are actually moving forward on licensing more LNG facilities. We recognize the need to do our part. We are doing the right thing.

The objection to this site for that LNG facility is that it is in the middle of a densely populated area that when these ships had to go down the Taunton River, three bridges needed to be shut down. The Coast Guard said it was a bad idea. I'm sorry you know more than the Coast Guard, about I trust the Coast Guard to tell me about navigational matters more than I do any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The U.S. Navy complained about it. The U.S. Department of Commerce said it didn't make any sense.

So this is a smoke screen, and it really is an insult to the people who live in this area. These are hardworking people and they don't deserve to be a pawn in your political debate. So I would urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill and support the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield to me?

That picture is inaccurate. You are holding up a picture that is inaccurate. What we are looking at there is not what is covered by this designation.

Mr. Speaker, we have all kinds of inaccurate statements being made here and inaccurate photos being shown here.

Let me repeat, as determined by the National Park Service, ``The Taunton River is eligible for wild and scenic designation based on its free-flowing condition and the presence of outstandingly remarkable, natural and cultural resource values.'' That is a quote from the National Park Service.

It is also important to note that this designation is distinct for different segments along the Taunton River. Two segments of the river would be designated as scenic and two as recreational. This is not something that Congressman Frank or myself came up with out of the blue. This is what the Bush administration National Park Service has concluded.

I mean, I trust the National Park Service to tell me whether or not something fits this designation or it doesn't fit this designation, more so than some of my colleagues who are trying to make this into a political football.

Again, I would show this picture which is a more accurate picture of what we are trying to protect. And I would also say again that what I find

particularly offensive about this debate is that the people who are trying to be denied the benefits of this designation are hardworking people from Fall River. These are people who work in factories. These are people who have really been an engine for the economic development of this country over the years. And they are working class people. All of a sudden we are told that somehow they don't deserve this kind of benefit from this designation. Talk about elitism.

The National Park Service says this is the right thing to do. The previous designation of the other part of the Taunton River, by the way, when my colleague Joe Moakley brought it up, was voice voted. Everybody here thought it was a good thing. Now because we are all into politics and it is the election season, people are looking for anything to try to make a political point.

Enough with the political posturing. Let's once in awhile do the right thing. Let's once in awhile listen to what the National Park Service has said on this issue. Let's do what the people of this community want. Let's help this community benefit from the economic development incentives that will come from this designation.

These are good people. This is a good community. I am proud to represent the people of Fall River. Congressman Frank is proud to represent the people of Fall River, and I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put the politics aside and do the right thing and vote for this bill.

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

This is a photograph.

Yes, it looks so beautiful it looks almost like it has been painted, but it's a photograph.

Would the gentleman yield?

I would say first of all Massachusetts currently has two LNG terminals, and we have licensed another one. We are not opposed to LNG. We are doing our part.

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode here. This doesn't make any sense. None of this makes any sense.

First of all, I would say to the gentleman that we have just as many LNG facilities as you do in Louisiana. I would say to the gentleman that we are moving forward. We just licensed another LNG facility.

I don't know what he's talking about. It doesn't make any sense to me when you talk about we are trying to frustrate our efforts.

Let me also say to the gentleman, with regard to this particular site, the United States Navy opposed the LNG terminal in Fall River, as they indicated it would disrupt their operations in their nearby Newport, Rhode Island, base.

The Commerce Department, Commerce Secretary Gutierrez ruled that Fall River would be an inappropriate site, citing the negative impacts on the flow of commerce along the waterway and environmental concerns. The United States Coast Guard. The Coast Guard.

Now you may be an expert on navigational issues, but I trust the Coast Guard more than I trust you on these issues. The Coast Guard has rejected the LNG plant in Fall River three times.

Captain Roy Nash, the head of the port of southeastern New England, found that the plan is ``unsuitable from a navigation safety perspective for the type, size and frequency of LNG marine traffic.''

So this site doesn't make any sense. So the State of Massachusetts said, but we want to do our part, so we have licensed another facility. So where are we frustrating attempts on energy?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

If I may reclaim my time, the U.S. Navy, the Commerce Department and the Coast Guard said this particular site is unsuitable. Oh, and by the way, here is another photo, not an artist rendition. It looks like it might be an artist. It looks, again, very picturesque, like it could have been done in oil colors. But this is another photo of what we are trying to protect.

Let me also say that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1969 does not discriminate between urban and rural. This bill is consistent with the law and recommended by the Bush administration's National Park Service.

I yield to the gentleman briefly.

I reclaim my time.

The gentleman obviously has not read the Coast Guard's recommendation on this issue. It is more than just about a bridge, and there are many bridges involved.

Again, I would say to the gentleman that the debate is not about an LNG facility, it's about whether or not this area deserves the designation that we are debating here today.

And I'm sorry, I understand it's a political year, it's an election year, and the people on the other side are just trying to make political points. It's just sad that they are doing so potentially at the expense of some good people in Fall River.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

There is a difference between the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald, I should tell the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration's National Park Service has suggested that this is an appropriate designation. Maybe they were brainwashed, I don't know. But it is just sad that you have, on the other side, some on the other side, have tried to make this a political pawn in your election-year politics.

This is really sad, and it's unfortunate, again, that the potential losers on this could be the hardworking people of Fall River and Somerset and the people along the Taunton River. This, to me, makes sense. Again, the Coast Guard has been emphatic in their opposition to this. I am interested. It's fascinating to see some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim they know more than the United States Coast Guard. But when it comes to navigational and safety matters, I trust them.

But when it comes to designations, when it comes to parkland designations and wild and scenic designations and recreational designations, I am going to trust the Bush's administration's National Park Service more than some of my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the gentleman that on the issue of energy, Massachusetts has twice as many LNG facilities as Georgia. I would suggest he go back and do his part to help provide more energy for our country.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides, please?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an editorial from the Fall River Herald News in support of this, in support of the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, after that spin, I am going to reserve the balance of my time.

I will show more pictures. I will be the last one speaking on this side.

No, this is just a photograph. It is so beautiful it looks like art.

This is a photograph too. If you come up closer, you can see that it is a photograph.

That is correct.

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

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say that this debate has been somewhat unfortunate because it has been about everything but what the underlying bill is about. As determined by the National Park Service, let me quote again, ``The Taunton River is eligible for wild and scenic designation, based on its free flowing condition and the presence of outstandingly remarkable natural and cultural resource values.''

It is also important to note, Mr. Speaker, that this designation is distinct for different segments along the Taunton. Two segments of the river would be designated scenic, and two as recreational. By any measure, this should be a noncontroversial bill. This should be up under suspension. There should be relatively little debate on this. I mean, this is a no-brainer.

But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have tried to make this about everything other than what this truly is about, whether or not this community of Fall River, and the community of Somerset and other communities along the Taunton River can benefit from this designation; whether or not they deserve to be able to get this legislation passed, and use this legislation to help be a catalyst for economic development.

This is a hard working city, Mr. Speaker, good people who have hit some tough economic times and who are desperately trying to rebuild the city by bringing the waterfront back, and this would help.

And this is not about whether or not a LNG facility should be there or not. I mean, I personally believe it should not be there. But the State, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is doing its part. I mean, it is not like Massachusetts is saying no to any LNG facility. We have two up and running, and we have permitted another. So we are doing our part.

My friend from Washington State comes from a coastal State. There are no LNG facilities there. I implore him, help us out. Do your part. We are doing our part in Massachusetts, so this is not about us saying no to LNG. We favor LNG. We favor responsible siting of LNG and we are doing that. We have more LNG facilities than anybody else here. So we are doing our part. This is not about that. That is just a smoke screen. That is just a way to politicize an issue that shouldn't be politicized.

Now, the gentleman's suggestion that we need to start drilling in ANWR. The Republicans argue that opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an imperative for lowering gas prices, although their presidential candidate disagrees with them.

ANWR, Mr. Speaker, is a pristine wilderness, one of the most important onshore polar bear denning habitats in the Arctic. But right on the other side of Prudhoe Bay is the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska. This area has been set aside for oil and gas exploration since the 1920s. And according to the U.S. geological survey, it contains more oil than ANWR, over 10 billion barrels of oil total. And it is open for leasing, Mr. Speaker. It is open for leasing. About 3 million acres have already been leased, and about 4 million more will be up for leasing later this year. But there have been only 25 test wells drilled there since the year 2000, and no companies are producing oil from NPRA yet.

So why would we need to open ANWR when we have this huge, untapped resource right next to the existing oil infrastructure in Alaska? And when a natural gas pipeline gets built, NPRA will be even more important. It holds over 60 trillion cubic feet of gas, nearly 16 times what ANWR holds.

The focus should be on the area that has the most oil and that is open for leasing that isn't a highly sensitive environmental area.

Mr. Speaker, we need an energy policy in this country. Unfortunately, from this White House we have gotten zero. Two oil men who are focused on nothing but what the oil companies want, and for too long a Congress that has been complicit in giving the oil companies what they want and not engaged in forward thinking policies to become energy independent. That needs to change.

But in the short-term, we also need to do something else because the fact of the matter is that there are citizens in our country right now who are paying record high gas prices, and we have a winter fast approaching where oil is going through the roof. We need relief now as well.

And that is why the President should do what the Speaker of the House has urged, and that is to tap in to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which is now filled at a record high, and put more gas and oil into our market to help stabilize and lower prices to make sure that people in the immediate term can get through these difficult times.

And then we need to embrace the energy policy and the energy principles that the Speaker, the Democratic majority has laid out of a way to get to energy independence, a way to drill in a sensible and an environmentally sensible way embracing alternatives, clean renewable sources of energy now and in the future.

But what they're proposing is not the way to go. It is a smokescreen. This debate has been politicized unnecessarily. This is all about political points. It is sad that on an issue so noncontroversial that it has come to that, but it has. That's the way they want to play, but it's the wrong way to do things around here.

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

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

Amendment to H. Res. 1339 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. 2493) to amend the Clean

Air Act to provide for a reduction in the number of boutique

fuels, and for other purposes. All points of order against

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

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without

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

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and (2) an

amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by

Representative Dingell of Michigan or his designee, which

shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable

for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the

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

with or without instructions.

I yield back the remaining time I have, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I have no other speaker seeking recognition. I will reserve the balance of my time and have the right to close.

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

I want to join everybody that has joined in this debate today. It has been robust and transparent. But I think there have been some false choices placed out here, and I want to clear that up.

I think I am speaking for a majority on this side of the aisle that says, Let's do it all. Let's have an all-of-the-above approach.

Our side has not come to the conclusion that simply enhanced production is going to get out us of this because it is not going to. But enhanced production has got to be part of the solution. So you would find a great deal of support, Mr. Speaker, for conservation efforts on this side of the aisle, at least from this Member, for increased efficiency efforts, and for renewable efforts. But all of those things by themselves don't do American consumers any good really in the short run.

Even the call by the Speaker of the House to release part of the strategic oil reserves, that only amounts to, one suggestion is selling 75 million barrels out of the strategic oil reserve, about 10 percent of the reserve, so about a 3-day supply of oil. That doesn't do much for anybody. So let's not fall into that trap; although it is an admonition on the Speaker's part, ironically, that supply does affect price.

But here is the real point. The other side of the aisle has controlled 30 minutes this morning, and did you notice something? Did you notice that there was no answer to what the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said yesterday? The Chairman of the Federal Reserve--and this is now the fourth or fifth time that I have put this out on the House

floor today--said simply by increasing production by 1 percent, Mr. Speaker, that has an impact of dropping the price by 10 percent.

We have heard some of the best and the brightest, absolutely the A team, some of the folks who came through in the 2006 election, we have heard from the best and the brightest, and yet no answer. They didn't even pick it up. This is not some fact that I trotted out 2 minutes ago, this is a fact that I put out two or three or four times, and yet the silence on the other side of the aisle has been absolutely deafening. Why, because it doesn't fit into the orthodoxy that has absolutely bound this leadership and has taken this debate from what should be a national security debate, what should be a transition time in our public life, what should bring us all together, Mr. Speaker, and has devolved into simple pettiness and capitulation. We can do better. We know what we need to do.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. 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, I oppose this unfair rule and the underlying bill that makes a mockery of our Nation's Wild and Scenic River law.

First, this rule unfairly restricts Members from being able to offer amendments on the House floor. It's not the first time. It's a continuing pattern that we have seen over and over and over again. While every Democrat amendment filed with the Rules Committee was made in order, this rule allows only two out of 15 Republican amendments to be offered on the floor.

Seven attempts were made in the Rules Committee meeting on Monday to allow more amendments to be offered and to allow the House to consider the bill under an open rule allowing every Member of this body an opportunity to offer amendments on the House floor. Yet Democrats on the Rules Committee voted to block each and every attempt to allow a more open consideration of this bill.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may attempt to argue that some of the amendments weren't allowed for technical reasons, but those excuses ring hollow, Mr. Speaker, when they block every single attempt to allow for a more open debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to the underlying bill to designate the Taunton River in Massachusetts as a wild and scenic river. Mr. Speaker, I openly admit that I have never visited this river myself. But as they say, ``a picture is worth a thousand words.'' Mr. Speaker, I could say nothing at all, but a picture does say a thousand words. Here I have a photograph with me of a portion of this river that is anything but wild and scenic.

Now, a simple glance at this photo would be enough for the House to just halt consideration of this legislation. Such a heavily developed and industrialized riverfront, with its multilane roadways, massive bridges and fuel storage tanks should disqualify, should disqualify this section of the river from being labeled wild and scenic.

Now it's argued that the reason this portion is included is because it's ``recreational.'' Mr. Speaker, honestly, it's hard to imagine that one would choose to go swimming or enjoy a peaceful canoe trip through this portion of the river. Quite simply, this portion of the river simply should not be afforded among the highest environmental protections possible under Federal law by designating it as a wild and scenic river. Mr. Speaker, quite bluntly, if this qualifies, if this qualifies as a wild and scenic river under the intent of that statute, then downtown Manhattan can be a national forest and Six Flags can be a national park.

This bill was scheduled to be considered by the House last week, yet it was postponed and rescheduled again for this week. This delay was caused when questions were raised that the true purpose of the bill, to name this river as wild and scenic, was to block a liquefied natural gas, or LNG, plant that has been proposed to be sited there. With record gas prices and high energy costs, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question, because passage of this bill would block the proposed LNG plant from ever being built.

Now my colleagues will argue, as they have already argued, that it already won't be built because the Coast Guard and others have raised objections and there are difficult hurdles under current law to overcome. However, the fundamental point is that today the law allows, the law allows today, for an LNG plant to be built if it can meet the necessary requirements. If it can't meet them right at this minute, then over time they may meet them. Or as the need for this energy becomes more apparent, then maybe the groundswell of support could allow this project to go forward. But if this law passes, Mr. Speaker, it will be impossible to build an LNG plant if this bill becomes law.

So, Mr. Speaker, at a time when the liberal leaders of this House block any effort to increase energy production right here in America, when gas prices are skyrocketing and Americans are hurting, now is not the time, is not the time, to make energy more difficult to get or more expensive.

Now the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Frank, testified before the Rules Committee on Monday. And Mr. McGovern in his remarks elaborated on this facility. He asked that the wishes of the

Massachusetts delegation be respected in naming this a wild and scenic river because it only applies to them in Massachusetts. Well, Mr. Speaker, I must note with irony, with irony, that a request coming from the Massachusetts delegation to respect their wishes on this river, this bill, in opposition to this LNG plant. The argument is that this is in their backyard. And yet, Mr. Speaker, members of the Massachusetts delegation have repeatedly, repeatedly, voted to oppose the wishes of the Alaska delegation. On what you might ask? Well specifically on Alaska's wishes to develop the oil reserves in ANWR. Mr. Speaker, the folks of Massachusetts may have big backyards. But they don't stretch thousands of miles away to Alaska.

We must recognize that if this industrial riverfront is permitted to be added to our Nation's wild and scenic rivers list, then truly all qualified rivers are diminished. This doesn't just affect Massachusetts. It affects every State in which there is a wild and scenic river. And in my home State of Washington, there are several.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

Well, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I tried to get him to yield when he was closing on the last bill, and he didn't. So when one talks about collegiality, one should start maybe with his own.

The point is, on this issue, is it not correct that in Rules Committee last night or the night before last when we were up there, you stated, and Mr. Frank stated, very specifically, that the House should respect the wishes of the Massachusetts delegation? And is it not true that the gentleman I think from Massachusetts and maybe other members of the Massachusetts delegation have done precisely the opposite as it relates to the wishes of the Alaska delegation?

Would the gentleman yield on that point just for clarification? Is the gentleman denying that this is not a photograph of the Taunton River?

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

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

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. WESTMORElAND. If you can look at the overall connection of the dots, this is just another one of those connections that shows that the majority party here is not going to give a clear up-or-down vote on increasing our oil production. It is going to continue to give the world and other countries the idea that we are going to be dependent on their foreign oil, and it is another example of: Well, we may have stretched the truth, and the people ate it up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I made the observation that passing this bill with what this picture shows--

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, when I asked the gentleman if this in fact was a picture of the Taunton River, the gentleman responded in the affirmative. Now there may be some changes, but he did say this is the Taunton River.

Now in my remarks I said that this diminishes the wild and scenic rivers that are in every place in this country. I said that there are several of them in my State. So I would just ask my colleagues this one simple question: Are we going to change the wild and scenic designation in this country to look like this? Or like this? This is a picture of the Klickitat River which is a wild and scenic designation in my State.

So if we are going to argue on the merits of wild and scenic, and making something that is urban like this as wild and scenic, we need to take into consideration what it historically has been, like the Klickitat River in my State.

That is a fundamental argument that is going on here today. There are others things that enter into it, and I would be more than happy to engage in that later in my remarks. But this is a fundamental difference, and what they are trying to do with this wild and scenic designation in an urban area compared to what has been done all across the country, including my home State of Washington.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend from Louisiana, I want to ask my friend from Massachusetts, and I will be happy to yield, that picture you have, I understand, is an artist's rendering of the river; is that correct?

It is a photograph?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, how much time on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

A lot has been said here just recently in the last exchange about plans. I have here a Boston Herald editorial called ``Cold Water on River Plan'' dated the 10th of July. I will read parts of it here:

``Bay State pols have a long tradition of using the law rather creatively to further their own political aims. But the effort by U.S. Representative Barney Frank to transform a stretch of industrial riverfront in Fall River into a 'wild and scenic' resource is as shameless as it gets.''

They go on to say, ``It is the latest attempt to kill a controversial plan for the Weaver's Cove liquefied natural gas terminal.''

I repeat once again, it's not people from other parts of the country talking about this. This is the Boston Globe. Or the Boston Herald.

[From the Boston Herald, July 10, 2008]

Cold Water on River Plan

Bay State pols have a long tradition of using the law

rather creatively to further their own political aims. But

the effort by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank to transform a stretch

of industrial riverfront in Fall River into a ``wild and

scenic'' resource is as shameless as it gets.

Think ``A River Runs Through It'' and you can picture the

waterways that typically win ``wild and scenic'' designation.

But until Republicans intervened Frank was close to securing

that protected status for the Taunton River, limiting

development along the river and its ``immediate

environment.''

It is the latest attempt to kill a controversial plan for

the Weaver's Cove liquefied natural gas terminal. A vote was

canceled yesterday, with Frank's office suggesting

Republicans wanted to make it a ``national issue.''

Well, they HAVE pointed out the irony of top Democratic

leaders (Sens. Kennedy and Kerry sponsored the bill in the

Senate) going all out to kill a plan that would ease the

delivery of natural gas to New England customers. . . .

Yes, environmentalists have been seeking a special

designation of the river for years. But if anyone believes it

would have gained this kind of momentum without Weaver's

Cove, well, we have some rusty container ships, fuel storage

tanks and warehouses along the Taunton River you might be

interested in.

The amusing thing is none of this seems necessary, given

that the Coast Guard has already rejected Weaver's Cove based

on quite ligitimate concerns about navigation and safety.

Guess you never can have enough insurance.

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

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

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

We have had a discussion in several areas on this project. Let me start with the most fundamental area, and that's the designation of wild and scenic. I pointed out, by making this river, which is industrial--and I might add, by the way, that the initial study called for studying the wild and scenic designation only on the upper stretches, as I understand, of the Taunton River, not the lower. But the final report came back, because, as the report said, if the river could talk, this would be what they wanted.

My goodness, we are listening to rivers. I would like to see that testimony to see what the river exactly said.

But at any rate, the bottom half was put into this wild and scenic designation.

As I pointed out, this is dramatically different, dramatically different from other wild and scenic designations across the country like the Klickitat River in my district. We talked about the issue of power and siting energy plants.

The gentleman from Louisiana, where there are a lot of natural gas areas, among other energy producers in that State, is certainly knowledgeable when it comes to that. There is a lively exchange on this.

Also, the Boston Herald, as I pointed out said, editorially, a week ago, less than a week ago, that this is a shameless way in order to take this issue off the table.

But here is the final component, and we really haven't talked about that yet, but I do want to talk about that.

I have an article here from The Herald News, which is the Fall River Herald News, and it's an article, the byline is by Mr. Will Richmond, it was written on the 15th of July, which was yesterday.

The headline that I see here is ``Scenic Designation Could Sink Riverfront Businesses.'' I bring that up in this context because my friend on the other side of the aisle was making the argument that this designation would be

good for the economy and so forth, presumably from the standpoint of tourism and so forth, but there are some businesses that are located right in this area, and they have some real doubts.

Let me read a couple of excerpts, if I may, out of this article:

``With the U.S. House of Representatives scheduled today to vote on the designation of the lower Taunton River as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, shipbuilders and other businesses located on the banks of the waterway are anxiously watching.

``The designation would hamper businesses, they say, possibly even leading to closures.''

Now before I go on, I would just say, how does that help the people that live in this area by this designation?

And I go on to quote, and I'm quoting a Mr. Donald Church, who is with Seaboats, Inc. He is the owner of Seaboats, Inc. And he says, ``It's all great to be touchy and feely, and it's great to protect the environment. But people in this city have got to have jobs.''

He goes on to say that because of this, there is some question, and it ``could easily lead to him selling his business,'' which, I might add, has a $5 million annual payroll.

On the other side of the river, there is another shipbuilder, Gladding-Hearn, and their president, Peter Duclos, and I hope I say that correctly, said, and I quote, ``Our feeling is that it's a stretch to be applying a noble environmental act on this part of the river,'' Duclos said. ``This area is industrial historically. Fall River wouldn't be here without a deep water part. I'm not sure this legislation is in the best interest of the businesses along the river.'' And he's talking about potentially adding 50 new jobs, but they have some real concerns about this designation.

Now, I might say, Mr. Speaker, from my experience in the western part of the United States, where we have these ``nice'' environmental designations, wild and scenic being among them, you have, our experience in the West has been, a restriction of use on these rivers, rather than an expansion. And this is precisely what these shipbuilder owners are saying with this potential designation on the industrial area of this river.

So we have three aspects to this, as I mentioned. We have the aspects of undermining what the intent was of wild and scenic designation as it was put in law to really protect wild and scenic. We have the issue of energy. That has been well discussed, especially when we have energy prices going up, and we have a potential here to locate an LNG plant. And then we have the issue of jobs in this area where there is concern in this area.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that, if for no other reason, it is a reason to defeat the rule, it is a reason, actually, to defeat the previous question so we can talk about energy; and I will be offering an amendment to that effect. But it is about defeating the rule so maybe the Rules Committee can go back, make an open rule and perfect this legislation to make it more palatable, not only to the Members of this House, but also to people that live in that area.

And, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have this inserted in the Record.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 more minute.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, how much time is on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from Massachusetts if he is prepared to close, if I close.

I just asked the gentleman is he acknowledging that the other was an artist's rendition? Is he acknowledging that then?

I am talking about the other one.

Mr. Speaker, I surmise from that that he is the last speaker on that side; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, with that then I will yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, instead of considering a bill to designate industrialized riverfronts as wild and scenic to block an LNG energy plant from ever being built, this Congress should be debating bills that result in more energy and more energy production within the United States. Instead of bills that could result in higher energy costs, like this one, Congress should be working to lower gas prices and decrease the cost of energy. America needs to produce more oil and gas and energy using our own abundant reserves.

It is time for the House to debate and vote on bills to open ANWR, our oceans and Federal lands to drilling. If we were to increase the supply of oil, then the price of oil will decrease. Instead of allowing these proposals to be given a fair vote, the liberal leaders of this House are bending over backwards to block ideas to produce more American-made energy. Today, every Representative will have a chance to break Speaker Pelosi's blockage against bills aimed at lowering gas prices, and they can do that, Mr. Speaker, by voting no on the previous question. By voting no, we can end this obstruction and we can get to work.

If the previous question is defeated, I will simply amend the rule to allow the House to consider H.R. 2493, the Fuel Mandate Reduction Act, which will reduce the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend requirements and onerous government mandates if they contributed to unaffordable gas prices. This is a commonsense bill that will help lower gas prices by ending government mandates and manipulation that increase the cost to everybody's pain at the pump.

So, 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 once again urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can debate, in an open manner, the part of the energy crisis and solutions to the energy crisis that we face in this country.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Well, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Illinois, who has assisted me on what we call the Green Energy Act in the Financial Services Committee. And that really is an act--which we will hear in that committee in a week or 10 days--designed to improve energy efficiency and renewable energy in various housing across the United States. Because he recognizes, as do I, as do millions and millions of Americans, that if we save a Btu, if we save a gallon of gas, it's earned; a gallon of gas saved is a gallon of gas earned, a Btu saved is a Btu earned. We can do much better, Mr. Speaker, than we've been doing when it comes to energy efficiency and adding renewable energy sources. And that's what the Green Energy Act is all about. And it applies to Native American housing, as does the motion to instruct, so that all Federal housing that's underwritten, supported by the Federal Government will be improved to energy efficient standards.

That's what we need to be doing, looking at efficiency, looking at renewable energy types of approaches. Because as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said yesterday to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) when he asked the question, well, what do we need to do to improve our energy situation? The Chairman of the Federal Reserve said we have to be more efficient in the way we use our energy and we have to start with renewable energy sources.

But I agree with my friend from Illinois, it's a comprehensive approach. We need to have drilling in the 68 million acres that currently is under lease by the oil companies and is not being used. And we have the bill that comes up this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, called the DRILL Act, ``Drill Responsibly In Leased Lands,'' that will go forward this afternoon so that oil companies take advantage of all the acreage that they have. Sixty-eight million acres is the size of New England plus, I think, New Jersey added on. It's a huge piece of property both on land and in the Outer Continental Shelf. That land and that water is already available for drilling.

So part of it is drilling, in terms of what we have right now. And I would encourage all my friends on the Republican side of the aisle to support the DRILL Act this afternoon because what we want to make sure is that oil companies don't just hold the property, but they use it. So they use it or they lose the lease; and we get it on to somebody else who's willing to proceed with drilling. Because we know we need to have oil--that's really a transitional fuel for the next 10 years--but we need to then move to energy efficiency and renewable energy sources so we're not addicted to one commodity.

This country has to have other ways to power itself. And as the gentleman from Illinois remarked, tomorrow some of my friends from the Republican side of the aisle are going to discover Golden, Colorado. It's the finest place on this planet. That's my home, that's my neighborhood. And I would recommend that everybody come visit Golden, Colorado, but the reason they're coming is to visit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is the finest laboratory for alternative energy and sustainable development in energy efficiency in the world. And at that laboratory we are working on those next generation of energy and fuels and the way to power this Nation in solar, in wind, in biofuels, in hydrogen, in geothermal, and all sorts of other things. And I congratulate my friends for coming over to visit the National Renewable Energy Lab, which they really have never supported much until now.

But I do see some unanimity coming among both sides of the aisle and a consensus coming among all of us that we have to really work on all phases of an energy plan, whether it's drilling, renewable energy, or energy efficiency.

Now, I've sort of boiled it down to three things, and I call it the three P's: Produce what we've got. We haven't talked about this second part, which is punish the people who are hoarding and gouging and speculating. And the third P is promoting energy efficiency and alternative energy. We can do that. And this country will be better off because it will be good for national security, it will be good for the climate, and it will be good for jobs. Thousands and thousands and thousands of ``green energy'' jobs will be available through promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency.

One of the things that my friend from Illinois just talked about, which is drilling in ANWR, which is a reserve, a refuge, that's 10 years off. And the greatest projections are that that's 3 months' worth of United States supply of oil. So we're going to wait 10 years to drill for 3 months' worth of supply.

Now, one of my friends who I just saw on the floor, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), calculated that an average American family will spend $57,000 on fuel costs before the Republican plan to drill in ANWR would ever take effect. We've got to be working on other things before that. And the first one is to drill on the 68 million acres that are under lease and ready to go today. The second is to punish the people who continue to drive up the futures prices if, in fact, there is speculating or gouging going on. And the third is to promote alternative energy and energy efficiency.

But I support the bill that will come up before the House this morning, as does my friend from Illinois, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume for a couple of comments.

I want to respond to my friend from Illinois concerning the support of the National Renewable Energy Lab. We'll start with that one.

I would concur that there certainly has been some support, but the two things I would point out to my friend are one, last in 2007 was the first time, really, the budget had been increased to the National Renewable Energy Lab in years and years and years under a Democratic majority. My friends who are going to go visit the National Renewable Energy Lab all voted against that, number one.

Number two, in the prior Republican Congress, there were cuts to the National Renewable Energy Lab where, in fact, scientists and engineers were going to be laid off. They were, in fact, laid off until the President went out to visit the National Renewable Energy Lab, and the department scrambled and reinstated those engineers and scientists who were going to be laid off in the face of the need for coming up with other ways to power this Nation. So I know that my friend from Illinois and I are in agreement that we need to change the way we power this Nation, and there is a transition to get there.

Then we need to be efficient in the way we use our energy, and we need to come up with other ways so we're not beholden to just one commodity. When we're beholden to one commodity, oil, we're beholden to eight oil countries, many of which don't like the United States, and to five oil companies. We have to change that picture or we're always going to face this problem. It's time for us to learn from our past.

The other thing I'd like to say in response to my friend from Illinois is that he talked about secret meetings. Well, the secret meeting that we really need to be talking about is the secret meeting held by Vice President Dick Cheney to create the energy policy that now has resulted in $4-a-gallon gasoline.

When the Bush administration took office, the price of oil per barrel was less than $30. Today, it's $150 or thereabouts. Maybe it has come down a little bit in the last few days, but is it any wonder that that happened with two oilmen running the White House? I don't think so.

With that, I'll yield 5 minutes, or such time as my friend may consume, to Congressman Yarmuth from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have?

I appreciate my friend from Texas yielding to me. If people knew what happened in this secret meeting, we might know today why oil is at $4.35 a gallon, why it has gone from under $30 a barrel to almost $150 a barrel. But the Vice President has refused to provide any information to the public or to the Congress about that meeting.

I yield myself such time as I might consume.

First, I would just like to say to my friend from Texas that with two of them in the White House and both Houses of the Congress in Republican hands up until 2006 when we started changing the direction of this nation, we saw that oil price going up and up and up and up. And it didn't change under them. If we always continue to drill and don't look at that as a transitional fuel and move to alternative energies, we're going to be in trouble. And we're going to have to learn this lesson over and over and over again.

With that, I will yield 4 minutes to my friend from Wisconsin.

I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to return the Chamber to what this bill is, which is Native American housing and the motion to instruct conferees, which we are all in agreement upon, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion to instruct.

We have gotten into a great debate over energy. And as I said earlier, the gentleman from Illinois and I and a number of people that sit on the Committee on Financial Services have worked on a bill which we call the GREEN Act. It is Green Renewable Energy Efficiency Neighborhoods. The purpose of that bill, similar to the motion to instruct with respect to Native American housing, is to provide energy efficiency incentives and renewable energy incentives with respect to housing across America. It creates a green mortgage market so there is a market to buy mortgages of homes that are energy efficient or have renewable energy features. It also helps to upgrade 50,000 of the 3 million units that the Housing and Urban Development either own or underwrite so that people in low to moderate-income housing have energy-efficient homes and lower utility rates.

One of the things that we and the gentleman from Illinois were talking about at the outset of this bill, was about trying to reduce utility costs in Native American housing, and that goes across the board for all low to moderate-income homeowners.

It has a number of other things involving residential energy development grants, as well as utilizing the services of the banks in particular areas, low-income housing areas to add energy efficient and renewable energy features to homes in various areas in cities and towns across the country.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion to instruct. I look forward to this bill going forward, and I look forward to having this conversation on the GREEN Act with my friend from Illinois in a couple of weeks when that bill comes for markup.

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

Madam President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, legislation we have called the

Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action. We are introducing this legislation because, as the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee, we understand that we are on an unsustainable fiscal course; that we confront a budgetary crisis of unprecedented proportions if we fail to act. That crisis will be caused by a combination of our current budget deficits and enormous Federal debt, combined with the explosion created by the baby boom generation.

Here is the outlook we confront with respect to the demographic tidal wave coming at us. We see, in 2007, we are at about 40 million people who are of retirement age, and that will grow to 80 million by 2050, dramatically changing the budget circumstance for this country.

We know we face enormous challenges with Medicare and Social Security. You can see the long-term cost of Medicare. The shortfall over 75 years is now estimated at $33.9 trillion. The shortfall in Social Security over that same period is $4.7 trillion. These are staggering amounts, a shortfall in Medicare of almost $34 trillion, a shortfall in Social Security of over $4.7 trillion.

Looked at another way, Medicare and Medicaid spending, according to experts, if it stays on the current course, will consume as much of our national economy as the entire Federal budget does today.

Let me repeat that. If the trend lines continue, by 2050 we will be spending as much, just on Medicare and Medicaid, of our national income as we spend for the entire Federal Government today. This fundamentally threatens the economic security of the country.

At the same time, we have tax cuts in place. they are extended, according to the President's proposal, it will drive us right over the cliff.

This chart shows the Medicare deficits in purple, the Social Security deficits in green, and the cost of extending the President's tax cuts in red. We can see the combined effect is to take us right over the fiscal cliff, deep into debt and deficit in a way that is unprecedented.

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve said this about our budget outlook in January:

[O]ne might look at these projections and say, ``Well,

these are about 2030 and 2040 and so . . . we don't really

have to start worrying about it yet.'' But, in fact, the

longer we wait, the more severe, the more draconian, the more

difficult . . . the adjustments are going to be. I think the

right time to start is about 10 years ago.

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has it right.

Senator Gregg and I are coming to our colleagues today and calling for this bipartisan task force for responsible fiscal action.

What would it do? Simply, it would be given the responsibility to address our unsustainable long-term imbalances between spending and revenue. Everything is on the table. The task force would consist of 16 members, 8 Democrats, 8 Republicans, all of them Members of Congress, except for 2 representing the administration. The Secretary of the Treasury would chair the task force. The obligation of this group would be to submit a report on December 9, 2008. It would take 12 of the 16 members to report a blueprint for our fiscal future. They would be given the responsibility to find ways to address the shortfall in Medicare and Social Security and the ongoing and endemic budget deficits. These 16 members, 8 Democrats, 8 Republicans, would have the opportunity and the responsibility to develop a plan for our fiscal future, but it would take 12 of the 16 to report a plan, and the plan would only come at the beginning of the next administration. This would not be part of election year politics. This would be part of a serious plan to address our long-term fiscal imbalances.

If 12 of the 16 agreed to a plan, it would then receive fast-track treatment in the Senate. It would come to a vote without amendment after 100 hours of debate. Final passage would require a supermajority, 60 votes in the Senate, 60 percent of the House of Representatives.

Senator Gregg and I have worked on this all year. We have discussed this with many Members in both the House and the Senate. This is our best judgment of how best to proceed. We believe this would give the Congress and the country an opportunity to write a better fiscal future, one that would strengthen America, reduce our dependence on foreign capital and put us in a position to keep the promise that has been made to the American people of a country that is strong and fair, that respects those in retirement and, at the same time, gives maximum opportunity to those working to strengthen their families and this country.

I thank my colleague Senator Gregg, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, for the extraordinary time and effort he has put into developing this proposal.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed comments in the Record about this proposal: Support for it from David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States; support from the Concord Coalition, the bipartisan Concord Coalition that is well known for its support of a fiscally responsible future; and from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Again, I recognize my colleague, the very able Senator from New Hampshire, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Madam President, I again thank my colleague, Senator Gregg, who has been incredibly engaged in this effort. He is very fairminded in the structure of this proposal and I think visionary in terms of understanding the need for action.

I say to my colleagues or staffs who may be listening, all those who recognize we are headed for a fiscal cliff and that we need to take action, this is our opportunity. This is it. Those who say we have to do something, here is our chance. This is completely bipartisan, eight Democrats, eight Republicans. It takes 12 of the 16 to make a report, a supermajority; that is, to assure it is bipartisan in result. This is a task

force of Members of Congress and representatives of the administration, 14 Members of Congress, 2 representatives of the administration. It is not outside experts, people who would not be responsible or be held accountable for the outcome. These will be people who are accountable, who are responsible for the outcome. This is a measure that will lead to a vote.

I say to my colleagues, this will assure that the work of this group will come before the Congress if 12 of the 16 agree. Because if they do, there will then be 100 hours of debate but no amendment permitted, and there will be a vote up or down. Those who recognize it takes us working together to face up to these difficult problems, I ask them to join with us, Republicans and Democrats. Absent this, I suspect what will happen is further delay, further divisiveness, and no real result. That will mean even tougher choices in the future.

I urge my colleagues to think carefully of this moment. This will not be considered until after the election. We have done everything we can to take election politics out of this, understanding it is highly unlikely that a matter of this import would be considered in an election year and that perhaps the best opportunity is at the beginning of a new administration. None of us know whether the new administration will be a Republican or a Democratic administration. None of us can know the makeup of the next Congress. What we do know is we face a ticking timebomb. The faster we act, the better for our Nation.

I am happy to yield.

I thank the Senator. I had a number of my colleagues, as the Senator knows, come to me with great concern. Their concern was: Gee, you are putting the Presidential candidates in an awkward position. How are they going to react to this? My reaction was: This is a gift to all the Presidential candidates, this is a gift to the next administration because this will provide them a bipartisan blueprint on how to proceed with some of the most vexing issues facing this country.

So I see absolutely no downside for either side, Republican or Democratic--for Presidential candidates on either side or candidates for Congress on either side--because this is a process leading to a proposal that would have bipartisan support if it is to proceed.

If I were an incoming administration, I would welcome a bipartisan plan to deal with Social Security, with Medicare, with the growth of deficits and the debt, and not to have it come in the middle of an election but to only be presented after the election but before the next Congress meets and the next administration takes on its responsibilities.

I see it as not only a gift to the candidates but, more importantly, as a gift to the American people to take on some of the greatest challenges facing our country and to do it in a bipartisan way and to do it in a way that actually leads to a result and action.

I again thank my colleague. This is the beginning of an effort. I ask colleagues on both sides, please, join us in this effort. Let's do what we all know must happen--that we must take on these issues, that we must come up with solutions, and we must do it sooner rather than later.

I thank my colleagues.