Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 645, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Madam Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:

Requesting Member: Bill Sali.

The bill number: H.R. 2638.

The account: Army National Guard, other Procurement, Army.

The legal name of requesting entity: Idaho National Guard.

Address of Requesting Entity: 4040 W. Guard St., Bldg. 600, Gowen Field, Boise, ID 83705.

Description: Provided an appropriation of $1 million to upgrade current AB-FIST Trainers for the Idaho National Guard. AB-FIST trainers were fielded to the Idaho National Guard during the past decade to provide crew gunnery training for M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles to all units including the Idaho National Guard. Our current AB-FIST Trainers will become obsolete and not useable until they are upgraded to work with the upgraded Bradley Fighting Vehicles the Idaho National Guard will receive. Gunnery training for Bradley Crews is essential for the combat readiness of the Idaho National Guard.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bill Sali.

Bill Number: Defense Appropriations Bill, FY09 H.R. 2638.

Account: Navy, RDT&E.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: BAE Systems.

Address of Requesting Entity: 33964 N. Main Street, Bayview, ID 83803.

Description of Request: Provide an appropriation of $480K in FY 2009 to fund the development of a shore based Large Scale Vehicle (LSV) Operations and Data Acquisition Enhancement at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Acoustic Research Detachment (ARD), Bayview, ID.

Approximately, $140K for labor and $340K for material purchases will be required. Labor breakdown is as follows:

Management: $8,000.

Engineering Design: $8,000.

Material Research & Purchasing: $4,000.

Assembly: $120,000.

This appropriation will fund a fiber optic link from the LSV radiated noise arrays in Lake Pend Oreille to the ARD shore based data acquisition laboratory and thereby replace an inefficient floating laboratory. This enhancement will greatly improve the utilization of resources during project testing at the ARD by eliminating the need for scientists and engineers to transit to the operations range on the lake for each underway and will improve the ability to monitor LSV range ambient conditions, from the ARD, reducing the number of weather terminated operations.

Requesting Member: Bill Sali.

The bill number: H.R. 2638.

The account: RTDE,N.

The legal name of requesting entity: University of Idaho, Microelectronics Research and Communications Institute located at Buchanan Engineering Laboratory, P.O. Box 441024, Moscow, ID 83844.

The single most damaging threat to the U.S. Naval Fleet is surface and subsurface mines. As noted in a letter from the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Carderock, the Navy ``is actively developing technologies to enable electric power systems to meet future mission and affordability requirements of submarine and surface ships.'' In order to be successful, the impact of electric power and propulsion systems on electromagnetic (EM) signatures must be understood so that ships with such systems can operate successfully against mines and detection. The $1,600,000 in requested funds will be used to continue research and testing work with the Navy's Acoustic Research Detachment (ARD) at Bayview to generate numerical and analytical models of ELF signals in shallow and deep water environments in order to mitigate the mine threat and to naval vessels that use electric propulsion; these models will be verified experimentally at Bayview given the unique features of Lake Pend Oreille and the experimental capability of ARD. Approximately, $488,000 is for salaries, $105,000 for materials, supplies, computers, travel, publications, etc., $290,000 is for overhead and $675,000 is for subaward costs and $42,000 for tuition and fees. This is the last year of funding for this project.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bill Sali.

Bill Number: Defense Appropriations Bill, FY09 H.R. 2638.

Account: Navy, RDT&E.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: BAE Systems.

Address of Requesting Entity: 33964 N. Main Street, Bayview, ID 83803.

Description of Request: Provide an appropriation of $1.5 million in FY 2009 to fund the development of a Test Support Platform for the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Acoustic Research Detachment (ARD), Bayview, ID.

Approximately, $500K for labor and $1.0 million for material purchases will be required. Labor breakdown is as follows:

Management: $20,000.

Engineering Design: $50,000.

Material Research & Purchasing: $30,000.

Assembly: $400,000.

This appropriation will be used to assemble a platform that will be used on Lake Pend Oreille in support of various projects working through the ARD. The existing ARD test support platforms are old and require significant configuration changes each time these barges are utilized for various projects. This request is intended to greatly improve the future project support that will be provided by the ARD by developing a modern test support platform configured with modern systems, acoustically isolated generators, and an effective laboratory space.

Madam Speaker, continuing on the line of the previous speaker on this side, the bill that was before us last month, that did provide for secure rural schools funding, I did vote for it in committee because we were promised that it would have a different pay- for by the time it got to the floor and that PILT funding would be in at 100 percent. And I did vote against it when it got to the floor here because it didn't have a pay-for. What it had was a bunch of baloney in it.

Now, the money that's supposed to come from Big Oil, as has been referred to by the other side, there's a Supreme Court case that is a 9-0 ruling that says that that money will never, ever, ever be used in Idaho.

Madam Speaker, my district is over 62 percent federally administered land. I have counties that are over 80 percent federally administered land. Imagine what that does to the tax base for your schools. And that is the real problem that we're trying to address here.

Well, the gentleman controlling time on the other side said, well, you know, we just can't include it this time and we included it last time, a month ago in the last bill and you wouldn't support it. Madam Speaker, these are real life people we're talking about. These are school kids whose teachers get laid off because the local school district can't afford to pay them.

These are local road districts who are trying to figure out how to make roads so that when you come to Idaho to enjoy those public lands we can actually get to them. These are real people trying to deal with real problems.

Madam Speaker, if this country wants to have federally administered land in the State of Idaho, I can tell you, I understand why. It is a beautiful, beautiful State. The recreation

opportunities are great. There are places in Idaho that offer world- class recreation. But when are we going to take care of the people of Idaho?

You want to blame it on a baloney pay-for that will never get money to Idaho? If we'd have voted for this and passed it last month and it had become law, you know what we would have given the people of the State of Idaho? An empty bag. They would never have gotten a penny of that money.

So how will they pay for those teachers? How will they pay for those roads that you might want to drive on to come see the beauty of the State of Idaho?

Madam Speaker, the idea that this comes down under a closed rule, that we can't even talk about it in this bill, we can't even offer another pay-for that would get real money on the ground in Idaho I think is a shame to this body.

Madam Speaker, I'm going to urge everyone to just listen closely to what I have to say here.

There are two reasons why the pay-for doesn't work that was in the bill last month. And these are a matter of court cases, and I want to remind everybody again, the one that went to the Supreme Court was a 9- 0 ruling. There are very few of those that come along.

The first reason is because the courts have said you cannot go back and change a contract that has been made. You just can't do it, except in some very, very narrow areas that were recognized by the court.

The other reason is because, in those narrow areas, you can't use that money in the State of Idaho. I don't care if you tax the oil companies to kingdom come. There is not a penny that was in that pay- for in that bill last month that would ever end up in Idaho. And that's the reason why I voted against that bill, because it would have left the State of Idaho--had we passed it, had it become law, it would have left the State of Idaho holding an empty bag.

And let me tell you something, Madam Speaker, an empty bag will not pay a teacher's salary. It will not pave a road in the State of Idaho so that you can come visit Idaho and come visit the natural beauty there, which is amazing.

Madam Speaker, this not about whether we're going to prefer Big Oil. It's not about priority. It's a matter of responsibility of the Congress of the United States. If you're going to come to my State, if you're going to come to my district and you're going to impose Federal administration on the lands that are in my district, then step up to the plate and have the responsibility so that you don't leave us holding an empty bag, so that you don't leave us without a tax base so that we can pay our teachers and pave our roads.

It is the responsibility of this Congress, and the idea that we would come here with this bill under a closed rule and shut us out is a shame on this body.

Madam Speaker, it has come to my attention that France, long regarded as a bastion of protectionism, actually features some of the world's most inviting research and development tax credits. These credits are open to any company, whether they are American or French, and cover half of research costs up to 100 million euros.

It is a sad state of affairs when American companies can't budget for long-term research costs because Congress has failed to make the R&D tax credit permanent, yet France offers impressive tax credits across the Atlantic to do the same work.

Let's act now to make America's R&D tax credit permanent here in the United States so we will not lose our cutting edge to the Old World.

Madam Speaker, the country we live in is far too big to see all at once, and many of us have only heard stories of some of its subcultures, hidden treasures, and the uniqueness of thousands of local communities.

One world that some of us never see is the dark world of human trafficking. Because trafficked persons look just like the rest of us, it is a difficult world to perceive. And yet, this underground global economy in persons is thought to involve as much as $132 billion a year, with profits from its trade reaching over $200 billion.

This sordid culture, to which most of us are happily blind, crosses all national boundaries, including our own. Perhaps the most widely recognized form is sex trafficking of women into prostitution, but we must also recognize the trafficking of migrant workers, who are often deceived into leaving their homelands into forced, brutal labor without travel documents that give them the identity with which to escape. There is also the forcible use of children to beg for street gangs or work in dangerous conditions, and what I think is the most disgusting, the recent trend of Western tourists engaging in child sex tourism, traveling the world looking for children who are being held in prostitution by their captors.

We like to think that we live in a modern and modernizing world, where barbarism is merely a bad memory. Yet, raw evil persists in our time. Ignoring human trafficking only pulls a shade over an already dark practice. But ignoring it makes it no less real and no less horrifying.

The State Department's 2008 Trafficking in Human Persons Report reveals the truth, but sickens us at the same time. The report quotes one self-justifying American schoolteacher about his child sex tourism, ``I'm helping them financially. If they don't have sex with me, they may not have enough food. If someone has a problem with me doing this, let UNICEF feed them.''

America is not great because we are perfect or because we refuse to accept injustice when we see it. Child soldiers, 8-year old prostitutes, domestic slavery, this is all real, and you can read about it in the State Department's report. The problem does not go away when we close our eyes, so it is imperative that we open them and act on this problem.

It's easy to think of this as a Third World problem. The numbers and the brutality are best gazed at from a distance, when we can shake our heads in horror and promptly change the channel to a different station. However, according to the State Department: The U.S. is a destination country for thousands of men, women, and children trafficked largely from East Asia, Mexico, and Central America for the purposes of labor and sexual exploitation. The Trafficking Victims Prevention Act of 2000 has been a great step forward in this fight, its purpose being to punish traffickers, protect victims, and prevent future trafficking.

While the number of prosecutions has gone up and steps clearly have been taken to help the victims, we can make a significant move to prevent trafficking by ensuring that the U.S. is not a destination country. One way to further this goal is to create a Northwest Trafficking Task Force to coordinate these efforts on our Northwestern border, running across Washington, Idaho, and Montana. This thousand- mile border is often patrolled merely on horseback. Without adequate resources, we cannot effectively fight this problem; we must catch it at the border.

We are morally responsible to ensure the God-given dignities of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this country. We must have the vigilance to keep watch over these freedoms so that no form of human bondage is accepted or ignored.

I humbly ask my colleagues to open their eyes, consider these facts, and stand with me against this horror of human trafficking here at home.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining for each side.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion here and I think the main issue we are dealing with is how do we end our addiction to foreign oil. Can we drill our way out of this problem; can alternatives be used to replace crude oil. I think those are the two primary positions that are being bantered about on this floor.

As the American public is watching this debate, I am sure they must be quite baffled because both sides claim only they are correct. I think the answer, can we drill our way out of this problem, can alternatives be used to replace crude oil, the answer to both of those questions is probably ``kind of.''

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I was at the Idaho National Laboratory. It is one of the premier nuclear and alternative energy research facilities in the U.S. Here is what the experts at the INL told me when I was there. They said wind energy is about a 2 percent energy solution. Solar is not much better, and it is a lot more expensive. They talked about hydrogen. Currently we generate hydrogen by burning natural gas. That actually loses energy. Today there is no good source for the carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide that they say is needed to develop other forms of alternative energy, unless we are going to burn coal, and coal is not included in this bill except that we are going to increase excise taxes on that coal.

How will we get enough hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide to make alternatives a reality? Well, the folks at the INL said we will need to have next generation nuclear reactor facilities, not today's light water reactors that people are seeking to permit today. Next generation reactors operate at higher temperatures, and at those temperatures, chemistry and the reactions that take place, they take on new characteristics and that will allow the generation of hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide in quantities that will make alternatives a reality.

Here is the problem. According to the Idaho National Laboratory, next generation nuclear facilities are two to three decades away from becoming a reality.

This bill does nothing to develop next generation nuclear reactors, and it doesn't really address the alternative energy in a meaningful way because of that. The bridge has to be made with crude oil and natural gas. The problem is this bill permanently locks up almost 90 percent of those offshore resources so it doesn't really address even our most limited need for crude oil.

Mr. Speaker, we need crude oil for more than just gas and oil. No plastics will ever be made from a windmill. No industrial chemicals will ever come from solar panels. No ink for printing. No asphalt that we need to make pavement to drive those electric cars and hybrid cars on. Well, Mr. Speaker, it just doesn't deal with those energies.

What does it deal with? Well, it increases taxes to the tune of about $18 billion. I wonder how many people in America believe that if we increase taxes on oil companies, that somehow that will cause them to reduce the price they charge for gas and oil. That is an absurd, absurd suggestion. In fact, what is going to happen is those taxes will go right down the pipeline, through the gas tank right into your gasoline tank where you will be paying higher prices for the gas and diesel that you need.

It was suggested earlier that we use so much energy in this country. You have all heard T. Boone Pickens on television say, gosh, we burn so much of this crude oil. I am not ashamed that we use a lot of energy in this country. It has made us the most prosperous Nation on the face of the planet, and it has allowed us to help essentially every other country on the face of the planet at one time or another. And America has proven time and time again that with our prosperity, we will also be generous to other countries at the time when they need it. Without that prosperity, we would not be able to have that generosity. Using energy makes us prosperous.

Just over a year ago, the Business Roundtable put out a report. Their conclusion was that to meet our energy needs for the future, we had better get our hands on every bit of energy we can from every source possible. That includes all of the alternatives. It includes nuclear. It includes crude oil and natural gas in increasing quantities. This bill does not get us there with any of those things.

I guess the question at this point is what kind of future do we want for our kids and our grandkids.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of this body, I am here to tell you that I want a future for my kids and grandkids where they will be prosperous. And for them to be prosperous, Mr. Speaker, we will need to get our hands on every bit of energy we can from every source possible, and this bill will not get that job done.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, in its current form.

Madam Speaker, today, millions of Americans will go to work, and the overwhelming majority of them will drive. No matter what type of car they use, tens of millions of Americans will use privately owned passenger automobiles to get to and from work and school, the stores where they shop, and the soccer fields where their kids practice. That's reality. That's here and now.

We have to think about how to help the people that we represent today, the great majority of our fellow citizens for whom the past few months have been an energy nightmare.

We are here today because my colleagues and I on this side of the aisle believe in what our distinguished leader has called the All-of- the-Above Energy Agenda. Many of us, including me, came here during the August recess to call on our friends in the majority to come back and work with us on an energy policy that would enable us to access America's incredible natural resources in an environmentally responsible way quickly and effectively.

That's why I'm offering this motion to recommit so that the House may vote on the American Energy Act now. Madam Speaker, this is a question of stewardship. We all look forward to a future where fossil fuels are less prevalent. We're all working toward that future. We need to pursue solar and wind power, advance hydrogen fuel cell technology, and encourage nuclear energy so we can cut through the red tape and construct plants as soon as possible.

All of these are components of the American Energy Act, and I rise to call for a vote on that act today. But the American Energy Act also calls for drilling right now.

We need to drill--drill offshore, drill in ANWR, drill in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, drill in the new fields of North Dakota--aggressively develop oil sands and oil shale; we need to drill wherever there is a realistic promise of obtaining fuel for America's families.

Let me give you some examples of why. According to an assessment conducted by the Minerals Management Service of technically recoverable oil and natural gas, the OCS contains 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Both could be obtained safely and in an environmentally sound way.

In addition, there are an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or approximately 20 percent of the undiscovered technically recoverable resources in the OCS that are completely off-limits today, but the extreme lobby that seems to have a grip on the majority's energy policies won't allow us to go get it, and people suffer as a result.

My motion to recommit promotes and offers effective incentives for energy conservation and more efficient use of our energy resources. It promotes all manner of alternative energy sources, and even establishes a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain.

We fuel our cars and trucks and heat our homes and businesses because hardworking men and women take risks, drill for oil, refine it, store it, ship it and then sell it to individual customers. We need more of it--a lot more--now.

We are all mindful that drilling won't make our energy problems disappear, but it will start us in the right direction. In the next few years, the oil that new drilling provides would start flowing into our fuel pumps. And in the interim, the fact that America is finally shattering our long-term dependence on foreign oil will send an unmistakable signal to friend and foe alike that America will use more of her own resources and thereby regain a degree of economic independence that we have lost for far too long.

We have heard talk that there will be another new comprehensive energy bill from the Democrats. We also just took a break for more than an hour because there is not agreement across the aisle on what that bill will look like. Apparently, there are real questions whether the Democrat Members even support the proposal of Speaker Pelosi of a day ago. But I submit that now is the time to stop politicking, to do the right thing and vote on this motion to recommit right now. Everything the American public is asking us to do is included in this motion. America wants this all-of-the-above kind of legislation.

Now a point of order has been reserved. That means that those across the aisle will try to beat this motion on a technicality. If we ask Americans, do you care more for an amendment to this river study bill that is totally free of technicalities or for Congress to finally vote to conserve, produce alternative energy and drill here and drill now, we all know they wouldn't care one whit about technicalities. They want energy.

Earlier, Chairman Rahall said Republicans and Democrats have been too busy trying to blame each other for high gas prices. Well, I say America is blaming all of Congress for high gas and diesel prices. And I submit on my side of the aisle, by offering this amendment--that America wants--we're doing our part to make things right with the American people.

I invite my colleagues across the aisle, don't sidestep this opportunity to do the right thing because of a technicality. Do the right thing. Vote for this motion to recommit so we can finally get the job done that the American public is demanding.

Point of Order

Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, today the low-income families and other disadvantaged Americans are disproportionately affected by high energy prices.

Just to be clear, this is about low income. It's about the poor. It's about veterans, seniors and children. We have reached a point where our poorer citizens are spending greater and greater percentages of their limited income on energy.

With the average cost of fuel more than $4.05 per gallon, some now have to determine whether they can get to work or even buy food. This price tag and the fact that this body hasn't done anything about it are wreaking havoc on the daily lives of Idahoans and Americans across the Nation.

Just last week I talked to a woman from Idaho whose husband is disabled and not eligible to receive disability benefits. She is the sole source of income for her family. She was worried about just being able to afford to get to work.

It's time for partisanship to be put aside. It's time for Congress to act, and it's time to increase American production of crude oil and natural gas.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Antonio Ysura, winner of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) Young Entrepreneur Awards.

Antonio encompasses the goal of the NFIB Young Entrepreneur Foundation (YEF) which encourages young people to consider careers in small business and entrepreneurship and to help further the education of these students. Antonio started his own photography business in Boise. In light of his successful business operation he was awarded a scholarship for higher education. He is only one of 416 high school seniors across the country to receive this distinguished award.

YEF has encouraged and supported the entrepreneurial dreams of 1,900 students with scholarships totaling $2,200,000. I commend NFIB and YEF for this outstanding accomplishment and commitment to our youth.

I am honored to take this opportunity to congratulate a leader of our next generation of small business owners. Antonio, I wish you much success in your future endeavors.

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

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

Fire season is here and wildlands are in flames across the Nation as we speak. California is currently reporting 24 large fires, and along with California, there are large wildland fires burning in Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Virginia, and North Carolina.

Since January of this year, some 46,113 wildland fires have burned more than 2.71 million acres, destroying more than 461 residences, 15 commercial buildings, and 979 outbuildings. But it's not just property, homes, community, watersheds or livelihoods that are at stake when a wildland fire burns. Lives are also in danger, and since January of this year alone, eight firefighters have died while on duty to fight wildland fires.

For many areas of the country, the wildland fire season is just beginning.

This is an issue that I have familiarity with, as each year in Idaho the skies fill with smoke from fires. Last year alone, more than 2 million acres burned in Idaho, threatening lives, homes, and communities.

I commend the gentleman from West Virginia, my chairman, on his initiative to move a bill and bring this critical issue before the House of Representatives today. Real solutions to these deadly and growing wildfires must be found, and I appreciate his efforts to this end.

Regrettably, the bill before us today will not do enough to address the raging wildfires across this country. Communities, homes, and lives will remain at risk from wildland fires.

There is no question that there are budget issues that must be addressed. We require the Forest Service to fight these fires, while we have handcuffed that agency at the same time, whether through its budget or with forest management practices.

Over and over again on this floor, we have had discussions of how to pay for the measures that are passed by this body. And yet, the Forest Service used to provide a source of revenue. It used to manage Federal lands, selling the harvested timber and thereby bringing in revenue.

Today, in most areas, active harvesting and forest management is nonexistent on Federal lands. This has had a twofold effect. There's less and less money generated by the Forest Service, while there are also ever-growing fuel loads on federally managed lands.

I agree that we cannot expect an agency to budget for the very large wildland fires that we have seen develop over the last 6 or 7 years. To do that is something like asking an American family not only to budget for ordinary and foreseeable expenses, like dental care, health care and car repairs, but also to budget for a serious car accident or tragic health crisis that would eat up 50 percent of their entire budget for the year.

Yet that is the point we have reached with the Forest Service. Today, roughly 48 percent of the Forest Service's budget is dedicated to wildland fires, but we still expect the Service to be able to budget for these fires.

We agree there is a problem with the funding. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't fix that problem. While well-intended, this bill fails to correct the 10-year funding average problem we currently face. Even if it did, merely erasing and rewriting lines in a ledger book does nothing to fix the crisis on the ground in federally managed lands. Moving money to different accounts will not solve the problem.

While well-intentioned, unfortunately the bill before us today fails to address the more critical issue, forest management. The greatest obstacle our public land managers face in preventing catastrophic wildfires isn't dollars, it is having the ability to overcome mountains of red tape and lawsuits filed by extremists. The laws that Congress has created in an attempt to save our forests have now become the biggest obstacles to saving them from wildfires.

Congress should not be addressing funding for suppressing these large fires without addressing the cause of these large fires as well, the increasing and unchecked fuel loads in our national forests that surround or are adjacent to homes and communities.

The critical link between pre-fire forest management and fire fighting was illustrated at the hearing we had on this bill in the Natural Resources Committee in April.

During that hearing, Arizona Governor Jane Napolitano, a Democrat, testified that the 2006 woody fire near Flagstaff, Arizona, was halted before it reached 100 acres because of the hazardous fuels treatment that had been done in that area. And according to Governor Napolitano, those treatments dramatically minimized the fire's devastation.

Similarly, during that hearing our colleague Norm Dicks testified about the large fuel loads that continue to accumulate in Federal forests.

He pointed out that the larger fires have resulted from increasing tree density and fuel loads.

We will continue to have larger and larger fires until we reduce fuel-loading. Until we provide the tools for pre-fire forest management to reduce fuel-loading, the western United States will

continue to see homes burn, watersheds destroyed, and even lives lost. We must provide the tools to preempt these devastating fires, the kind of preemption pointed to by Governor Napolitano that protected so many people and homes in the 2006 Woody Fire near Flagstaff.

Last year, during the Poe Cabin fire in Idaho, in one area the fire moved some three miles in a mere 20 minutes. In that area, several homes that had defensible space around them due to fuel reductions on private land survived the fire, while other structures in that area without defensible space did not survive.

One of these homeowners was able to get his wife out while he stayed just a bit longer to finish loading his truck. However, because of the fast-moving and intense fire combined with the heavy fuel-loading on Federal ground, he became trapped by the fire and was unable to leave. While this could have quickly become a tragic story, this man lived and his home survived thanks to the fuel reduction that had been done around his home.

While this was a result of the fuel reduction done wholly on private ground, many communities and individuals abutting these forests do not have the luxury of enough land to adequately protect the communities, watersheds, homes and lives. Providing the tools to these communities to protect their homes, livelihoods and very lives from these devastating fires is something we can and must do when addressing long- term funding to suppress the fires. We should be discussing solutions like the one I proposed, H.R. 4245, to provide the agencies with one more tool to reduce hazardous fuel loads around communities and homes.

In the great State of Idaho, many communities have put the time and energy into developing Community Wildfire Protection Plans, but implementation of many of these plans has been significantly delayed in large part because of the NEPA process. These CWPPs, as my colleagues know, are cooperative plans, requiring community collaboration and input in the formation of the plan. By delaying treatment for the safety of communities through unbelievable red tape, we subject these communities to be threatened by large wildfires.

Mr. Speaker, this is not only a bipartisan issue, this is a nonpartisan issue. It's about public safety and sound forest management that will benefit millions of Americans. My bill, which I would urge this body to take up as it addresses these wildland fires, would provide for a categorical exclusion from the NEPA process to provide another tool for timely treatments to protect these communities from large and devastating fires and preserve our pristine national forests. Too many homes have burned and too many lives have already been lost. We must provide real tools for firefighting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

I too rise today to commend the heroic efforts of firefighters throughout our Nation. At times they are called to pay the ultimate sacrifice to save the life and property of others. I have had the honor of meeting the men and women who fight these wildfires in my State of Idaho, and there is no greater example of courage than these folks.

I understand how important it is to provide firefighters who battle wildfires with the right tools they need to do their job. Threats to human life are compounded by the fact that more and more people are living in homes near the fire-prone forests, placing themselves and the firefighters who try to protect them at greater risk.

In April of this year, I offered an amendment to the United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2008 that allowed the Administrator of the United States Fire Administration to develop and distribute information on the importance of clearing biomass from Federal lands. This commonsense amendment will require USFA to work in consultation with other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, to ensure that the USFA provides the best possible recommendation. As we come upon another deadly

and costly fire season, this information is as vital as ever. We must provide our Federal employees, who are the best in the world, all of the tools they need to keep our communities and themselves safe from catastrophic wildfires.

I urge the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee to hold more hearings on the crisis situation in our Nation's forests. We have had just one hearing this year on the wildfire problem compared to six last Congress. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to continue to work on providing firefighters and our public land management officials with the necessary tools they need to do their job. As firefighters risk life and limb to protect us, the least we can do is to provide them with everything they need.

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

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I would yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, Mother Teresa once said: ``Any country that accepts abortion is the poorest of the poor.'' On that basis, I fear that our own great country is in serious trouble.

While current law forbids family planning agencies from using Federal funds for abortion, those same organizations are able to receive those title X funds for their other family planning services, even if the organizations also provide and even promote abortion.

Today, as long as the bookkeeping of the two divisions is kept separate, these organizations can reallocate their resources and free up money for providing abortions. In other words, it appears that an accounting gimmick masks the way Planned Parenthood uses Federal dollars to fund its abortion services.

As many know, Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortion in the country, performing more than 264,000 abortions in 2005 alone. However, Planned Parenthood receives more than $336 million from the Federal Government each year. Planned Parenthood affiliates enjoy special access to discount drugs, grants through the title X program, and a 90 percent Federal Medicaid match for family planning activities. In effect, Congress is playing favorites by subsidizing the largest business in the abortion industry.

Now, lest there be any confusion, abortion is an ``industry'' in every sense of the word. Abortion providers rake in over $400 million a year from women and girls who believe that they are receiving a simple health service. However, to the tune of $372 per abortion on average, abortion-providing businesses are turning a major profit. For instance, while Planned Parenthood reports that it is a ``not-for-profit'' organization, it had an ``excess of revenue over expenses'' of almost $56 million in 2005 and $112 million in 2006. Remember, this is the same organization that receives over $336 million in government grants and contracts each year.

I find it outrageous that taxpayer dollars are subsidizing abortion in the United States. The absurdity of this abuse is illustrated by the long-standing Mexico City policy. Instituted by Ronald Reagan in 1984, this policy prohibits foreign aid from going to nongovernmental organizations which provide or promote services related to abortion. If we recognize the importance of prohibiting foreign abortion providers from receiving our taxpayer dollars, how can our domestic policy be any different?

I also adamantly oppose funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood that is alleged to have committed substantial fraud. The former vice president of finance and administration of the Los Angeles Planned Parenthood affiliate estimates that affiliates in California overcharged State and Federal Governments by $180 million, despite internal and external warnings that its billing practices were improper. If Planned Parenthood is able to abuse its government support by as much as $180 million in California alone, imagine the possible magnitude of its fraud nationwide.

The Federal Government clearly has a significant interest in identifying and recovering those excess payments. However, I believe that any funds that support abortion are ``excess payments.''

We in the Federal Government have no business providing money to help end a human life. As the Declaration of Independence makes clear, our Nation was founded on the idea that our Creator has endowed every person with ``certain unalienable Rights,'' the first of which is life. Now, 232 years after our predecessors signed that document in that First Continental Congress, now we have to ask, how is it possible that we in Congress are allowing the money of unsuspecting ordinary Americans to support businesses that specialize in terminating human life, when our Declaration of Independence recognizes that those are unalienable rights, the right to life?

We in Congress are charged by our Nation with the responsibility to ensure oversight of Federal funds, and it is abundantly clear that providing ``excess'' funds to abortion providers is not the proper use of taxpayer dollars. I call on my colleagues here in the House to end taxpayer subsidies of abortion by ending Federal support for Planned Parenthood. Let us thereby begin to restore the richness of spirit that Mother Teresa spoke about so eloquently.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record the letter from Assistant Secretary Allred relating to this bill that my colleague from Oklahoma referenced in her remarks.

Department of the Interior,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, DC, June 25, 2008.

Hon. Don Young,

Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Natural Resources,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Young: Thank you for your letter of June 19, 2008,

to Secretary Kempthorne regarding a recent report on oil and

gas by the House Committee on Natural Resources. Secretary

Kempthorne has asked me to reply.

In your letter you asked that the Department of the

Interior (Department) address the report's claim that oil

companies hold non-producing leases on 68 million acres which

could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 of natural

gas each day.

The report does not reference specific locations for much

of the data and therefore we cannot ascertain where each of

the numbers was derived. It appears the report took raw data,

some of which can be found on the Department websites, and

then used various formulas to reach certain conclusions. The

report does not disclose the assumptions or formulas used.

The views contained in the report are based on a

misunderstanding of the very lengthy regulatory process. The

existence of a lease does not guarantee the discovery of, or

any particular quantity of oil and gas. To

truly determine this, lessees must develop data and

eventually explore their leases which requires numerous

permits involving compliance with various environmental laws

and regulations. This process often takes months or years. In

addition, lessees undertake a vast array of business steps

prior to making a decision to move a lease into production,

and must obtain another set of Federal and State permits to

do so. I would like to provide some background on both

points.

Obtaining a lease is just the first step. The lessee must

first obtain the myriad of permits and approvals for

exploration activities and development plans that are

required before production can occur. Exploration, which

occurs after the issuance of the lease, is critical. For

example, after an operator acquires an onshore lease they

must obtain Geophysical Permits, Permits to Drill, Sundry

Notices, and permits that may be required by State

government. In addition to all necessary permits being

obtained, an operator must also file a plan of

development.

Development offshore is equally complex. An operator must

obtain Geological and Geophysical Exploration Permits,

Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Permits, an Army Corps of Engineers

Permit, Permits to Drill, and Marine Mammals/Endangered

Species Permits. If a lessee makes the decision to move to

development, in addition to the myriad of required permits,

an operator must file numerous plans, including Deepwater

Operations Plans, Oil Spill Response Plans, Hydrogen Sulfide

Plans, Development Plans or Development Operations

Coordination Documents.

While these lists are not exhaustive, they illustrate the

efforts that must be undertaken before a lease can be

explored and developed and production comes online. A more

comprehensive list of the various permits, approvals, and

other legal and regulatory prerequisites that may be required

based on site specifics for both onshore and offshore

production is attached for your information.

In addition to the processes mentioned above, other factors

affect potential development and subsequent production. These

factors include capital investments and equipment such as

drilling rigs and platforms.

In shallow water, approximately one in three wells results

in a discovery of a quantity of oil and/or natural gas

sufficient to produce economically In deeper water, one well

in five is economical. Shallow wells cost approximately

$200,000 for just the drilling. In deepwater, the drilling of

one well may cost $100 million to $200 million. A full

development project, including a platform or floater,

involves multiple blocks and has cost as much as $3.5

billion. Onshore development is less expensive. A well cost

10,000 feet or deeper well will $2 million to $3 million. A

shallow well runs about $200,000.

To illustrate further that a lease does not mean the

discovery of oil and gas, it is important to look at the well

success rates. For onshore leases, the well success rate is

about 10 percent for new areas. For areas already developed,

it is much higher--about 95%. For offshore, in shallow water,

the success rate is about 33 percent. In deepwater it is

about 20 percent.

In the Gulf of Mexico, 1132 new deep water exploration

wells have been drilled since 1995, with over 170 new

discoveries. While the government does conduct activities to

determine resource availability, it is the private sector

that funds exploration activities for more refined data and

analysis on a site specific basis that can lead to

production. The lengthy processes we have in place can lead

to more production but it takes time to find the exact

location of those resources.

In today's market, it does not make business sense for

lease holders to defer or forgo pursuing production and

continue to pay rental fees. In addition to the bonus bid

paid at the time of a lease being issued, lessees are

required to pay rentals for leases. In Fiscal Year 2007,

$267.2 million in rental fees was collected as rent for

oil and gas, coal, and other mineral leases.

If a lessee determines that leased acreage does not contain

sufficient resources to produce economically, it will

typically relinquish the lease, and the Federal Government is

free to offer the tract at a subsequent lease sale. However,

only after numerous steps are taken, and leased acreage is

determined to contain economically and technologically

producible oil and gas, can a lessee justify the significant

investment required to bring leased acreage into producing

status.

While increasing the productivity of already leased land is

important, to ensure our country's future security and

economic well being we need to open new areas for

development. The lengthy processes we have in place, which

can lead to more production, means that we need to look to

new areas. We cannot ignore that the world's demand for oil

has grown dramatically. Meanwhile, the supply of oil has

grown much more slowly. As a result, oil prices have risen

sharply, and that increase has been reflected at American

gasoline pumps.

Sincerely,

C. Stephen Allred,

Assistant Secretary,

Land and Minerals Management.

Attachments.

Plans and Permits Required on OCS

The number of required plan and permit approvals is on the

order of 25 to 30. The reason for a range is that the

specific lease holder may not file for certain permits on

their own. For example, they may not file for a G&G

(geological/geophysical) permit but it is certain that no

lease holder will move forward without geophysical data to

guide them. They may obtain sufficient data from a third

party that acquired under their own speculative permit with

the intention to sell the information to successful lease

bidders. Additionally, there may be supplemental plans filed

to cover changes in assumptions based on newer information

and other steps that not all lessees will need to file. The

overview of MMS regulations is at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/ homepg/regulate/regs/reg_sum.html with a discussion of the

plans and permits at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/ regs/laws/env safe.html_#perapp. Following is a fairly

complete list of the plans and permits that a lessee may have

to file to bring a lease to production:

List of Typical Plans and Permits Required to Bring a Lease to

Production

Oil and Gas Lease.

Geological and Geophysical Exploration permit.

Exploration Plan.

Coast Guard Compliance review for mobile drilling units.

Oil Spill Response Plan.

Oil Spill Financial Responsibility.

Hydrogen Sulfide Plan (some locations).

Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination

(Exploration).

Army Corps of Engineers Permit (Navigation and National

Security).

EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.

EPA Air Emissions Permit (some locations).

Marine Mammals/Endangered Species permits from NOAA or FWS

(some locations).

Application for Permit to Drill (exploratory wells).

Application for Permit to Modify (any changes in drilling

program).

Application for Permit to Modify (to plug and abandon

exploration wells).

Deepwater Operations Plan (for some locations).

Conservation Information Document (for some locations).

Coast Guard Structural Review (for floating production

systems).

Certified Verification Agent Review (for some locations).

Development Plan or Development Operations Coordination

Document (depending on location).

Pipeline Right-of-Way. Coastal Zone Management Consistency

Determination (Development).

Application for Permit to Drill (development wells).

Application for Permit to Modify (any changes in

development drilling program).

Application for Permit to Modify (to plug and abandon

development wells).

Platform Removal Application.

Pipeline Decommissioning Application.

Permits, Plans, and Surveys for Development of an Oil and Gas Lease On-

Shore

BLM Permits, Plans, and Surveys

Geophysical Exploration Permit--Notice of Intent; Notice of

Completion--(Required if the operator chooses to conduct this

optional activity) Purpose: Allows exploration for oil and

gas resources on Federal lands.

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) Review--Environmental review may consist of review and

documentation through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA),

Categorical Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by

the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the

Decision).

Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it

is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.

Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.)

Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always

completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural

survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May

involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation

Officer.

Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by

the BLM or the operator to BLM standards.

Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when

endangered species may be affected by the project.

Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or

Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have

historically used an area or have expressed an interest in

proposed projects.

Oil and Gas Lease--(Required) Conveys a basic right to

develop oil and gas from Federal Mineral estate pending

approval of additional site-specific permits.

Land Use Plan Conformance--The proposed lease is evaluated

to ensure it is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.

Tribal Consultation--May occur at the leasing stage if not

current in the land use plan.

Endangered Species Act Consultation--May occur at the

leasing stage if not current in the land use plan and there

are endangered species present.

Communitization/Unitization Approval--(Some Locations)

Creates management units to improve development efficiency.

Plan of Developent--(If operations are located within a

unit agreement) Creates a development management plan for the

Unit.

Application for Permit to Drill (APD)--(Required) Contains

the operator's proposed

drilling and surface use plans and any additional permit

requirements added by the BLM. The BLM may also require

Cultural and Wildlife surveys.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review--

Environmental review may consist of review and documentation

through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), Categorical

Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by

the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the

Decision.)

Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it

is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.

Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.)

Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always

completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural

survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May

involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation

Officer.

Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by

the BLM or the operator to BLM standards.

Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when

endangered species may be affected by the project.

Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or

Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have

historically used an area or have expressed an interest in

proposed projects.

Sundry Notice--(Required) Notifies the BLM of the

operator's proposed changes to the APD.

Approval and/or Review--In limited cases may involve NEPA,

Cultural, Wildlife, ESA reviews and consultation.

Hydrogen Sulfide Plan--(Required if the poison gas may be

encountered) Plans for protection of public health land

safety in the event of a hydrogen sulfide leak.

Right-of-Way Grant--(Required for any development that

occurs off the lease area.) Provides legal access for roads,

pipelines, and powerlines.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review--

Environmental review may consist of review and documentation

through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), Categorical

Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by

the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the

Decision.) Usually completed in conjunction with the APD

NEPA analysis.

Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it

is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.

Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.)

Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always

completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural

survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May

involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation

Officer.

Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by

the BLM or the operator to BLM standards.

Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when

endangered species may be affected by the project.

Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or

Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have

historically used an area or have expressed an interest in

proposed projects.

other federal. state. or local permits and plans

Air Emission Permit--(May be required by State).

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit--

(May be required by the State or EPA).

Section 404 Permit--(May be required by the Army Corp of

Engineers if the project would potentially dredge or fill

waters of the U.S.).

Storm Water Prevention Plan--(Required in some States).

UIC Permit--(Required for Class II wells--water disposal or

reinjection).

Spill Prevention Countermeasure Control Plan--This is a

permit required by EPA when oil and gas activities have the

potential to impact waters of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the justification for this legislation is a report from Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee, and in that report the conclusion is reached: ``We can estimate that the 68 million acres of leased but currently inactive Federal land and waters could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day.''

Mr. Speaker, may I ask that the gentleman controlling the time on the other side be yielded time to respond to a question?

I understand that the Department of the Interior has issued a letter saying that they don't agree with the assumptions of your report.

Can you name a single professional organization or government agency that has told you that they agree with the assumptions or calculations used to reach the conclusion that I have just read from the report?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is ``no.'' There is no professional group or government agency that agrees with those assumptions.

In his opening remarks, the good chairman said we must ``increase our supply'' of crude oil and that the answer to our energy needs in the short term is to increase American production.

Then why aren't we voting on that today? The fact is that the assumptions that this bill is premised on are false and that there will be no increased production from this bill.

Congress is to blame for the shortage of American production today, and this is having a real impact on people. There's a gal who is a certified nursing assistant in Boise, Idaho, who's taking care of my mother and my younger sister in a nursing home.

Mr. Speaker, this young lady, who's a CNA, last week took her husband's bicycle and a few other items to a pawn shop to get $37 so she could put gas in her car to go to work at this nursing home to take care of my mother and my sister. This is having a horrendous impact on real life people.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for partisanship to be put aside. It's time for Congress to get to the real answer, which is increasing American production.