Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the Art Museum of Western Virginia has been transformed. Formerly located in Center in the Square in Roanoke, Virginia, the museum has undergone a multimillion dollar makeover under the guidance of renowned architect Randall Stout and has been reborn as the Taubman Museum of Art.

Created in 1951 as the Roanoke Fine Arts Center, and then fully accredited for the first time in 1977, it became the Roanoke Museum of Fine Arts in 1980. Following its relocation from South Roanoke to the downtown multicultural structure called Center in the Square, it became the Art Museum of Western Virginia in 1992, testament to the regional nature of its mission. But change beckoned the museum as it sat on the cusp of the 21st century, due both to outgrowing its space and an expansion in its collection.

A vision developed for the new Art Museum of Western Virginia. Museum officials and community supporters determined that instead of renovating an existing structure in downtown Roanoke for the new facility, a state-of-the-art structure was in order. That vision was developed not only to help bring attention to the museum itself but to help speak to the region's steady movement toward becoming a player in our technology-driven economy.

Thanks to the city of Roanoke, an undeveloped site near one of the city's busiest intersections was donated to house the museum, and the city contributed $4 million for the project. Once Randall Stout was hired to develop an image of the museum at that site, it became clear that his growing stature in architectural circles would result in the transformative structure that many had hoped for. The plan was to help put Roanoke on the map with a building that would attract visitors not only from around the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States but from around the world. On September 10, I was honored to be a participant in breaking ground for the new museum.

After just over 3 years of construction, Roanoke's new art museum opened to the public on Saturday, November 8. And I was fortunate to again be present to help cut the ribbon on a building that is difficult to put into words. But once you see the Taubman Museum of Art, you learn to understand that Randall Stout captured the mountains, valleys, rivers, and seasons in rock, steel, and glass.

The new museum in Roanoke is named for Nick and Jenny Taubman, a family name well known to Roanokers. Nick is the former leader of Advance Auto Parts and presently serves as the United States Ambassador to Romania. His wife, Jenny, chaired the museum's capital campaign. And their pledge of $15.25 million was the largest donation received toward the museum. The facility also benefits greatly from the Horace G. Fralin Charitable Trust, which has contributed financially and formatively. Under the leadership of Heywood Fralin, the Fralin Trust has contributed works by American artists that now make the Taubman Museum a home for some of the greatest our Nation has known--Winslow Homer, Norman Rockwell, and John Singer Sargent to name just a few.

Under the able direction of Georgeanne Bingham, the Taubman Museum is not only a structure housing works of art, it is becoming a true destination. The museum also houses Art Venture, geared toward bringing men, women and children together in a gallery that will permit hands-on opportunities to create their own art. A special new media gallery is courtesy of the great leaders and minds at Virginia Tech, a longtime supporter of the new museum and an integral part of the institution's plans for educational outreach in the arts. The museum even features Hokie Stone, once specific only to the buildings on Tech's campus in Blacksburg.

While breaking ground for the Taubman Museum, I said that it was a key to the new frontiers that must be crossed in the Roanoke Valley region of Virginia in order to keep it competitive in the 21st century. Now that the structure is complete, I remain convinced that the facility is the latest successful effort that is opening eyes to the vast array of possibilities that are within our reach in western Virginia. I agree with my friend Heywood Fralin that the museum is without a doubt, the most significant new structure in Virginia.

I extend congratulations to Georgeanne Bingham, Nick and Jenny Taubman, Heywood Fralin, Randall Stout, and countless others who toiled for the past 3 years to help the Taubman Museum rise to the cusp of opening. The expectations were great, but I am sure that everyone who sets foot in the museum will be deeply impressed by what it has to offer to a broad range of art enthusiasts.

The collections inside will speak well. Visitors will get to see old favorites, develop an appreciation for new acquisitions, and experience art in a technologically advanced way. And the building itself--the structure as seen from the exterior and what envelops inside--carries with it special significance. It has automatically become a landmark-- and in a setting in downtown Roanoke, it is good company. When given the opportunity to move from ground level and into the museum's interior and then move around it's exterior, one understands that it is surrounded by the landmarks that speak both to the region's past and point the way to its future--from the ancient Blue Ridge and Alleghany Mountains and valleys, to the star atop Mill Mountain, to the railroad tracks that first brought commerce to the region, to the historic buildings that served in previous centuries and have now been reborn for modern times. The Taubman Museum will join so many other efforts leading the way for the region, its citizens, and visitors through the frontiers yet to come.

I am delighted that the Taubman Museum has been erected in the Sixth District of Virginia. I encourage our Nation to embrace the structure and its contents and to come to Roanoke to enjoy this grand cultural attraction for many, many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take the time to recognize the retirement of my friend and colleague from Alabama: Terry Everett. Terry has served the people of the Second District of Alabama with honor and distinction for the past eight terms. He has been a faithful public servant fighting for farmers, veterans, and conservative values.

Terry has served on four committees including Agriculture, Armed Services, Veterans Affairs, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. However, I would like to highlight Terry's extraordinary work for the agriculture community. As a farmer himself, Terry brought real world experience to the committee, experience that we see less and less from our members. The country as a whole has become more suburban and urban, and the members who represent it have followed. He knew firsthand how the laws we passed in the Agriculture Committee impacted the livelihood of our producers.

Since coming to Congress in 1993, Terry has been a strong and consistent voice for not only the producers of Alabama, but the entire Nation. Agriculture is Alabama's largest industry and Terry served as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Foreign Agriculture Programs during the 2002 Farm Bill. He also currently sits on that subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit and Energy and Research.

The peanut farmer knew no better friend than Congressman Everett. He served as a co-chair of the House Congressional Peanut Caucus. Under his leadership on the 2002 Farm Bill, the peanut industry moved from a 60-year-old Depression-era supply management program to a thriving industry that could respond to market signals and bring peanut farmers into the 21st century.

During the 2008 Farm Bill, Terry expanded his reach and authored a provision to help producers who were suffering from drought. This provision provided a cost-sharing component for producers to build irrigation ponds for their crops during periods of drought. Without this provision, many producers in the South would not have been able to cover the cost of an irrigation pond project. This was yet another example of Terry taking the lead on an issue that was critically important to the livelihood of producers across the Nation.

His leadership and experience will be missed. But, we do wish him and his wife Barbara all the best for a wonderful retirement.

I want to thank Ranking Member Davis, my colleague from Virginia, for not only yielding me time but also for his leadership in working so hard with Chairman Waxman, with Members of the Senate and others who have been involved in pushing this legislation forward, for helping to finally reach this day in which we have legislation that concurs with legislation in the Senate.

I urge my colleagues to support the Presidential Historic Records Preservation Act of 2008. I introduced similar legislation a few weeks ago in the House, along with my colleagues in the Senate, Senators John Warner and Jim Webb.

Mr. Speaker, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission is a statutory body affiliated with the National Archives and Records Administration. The NHPRC was established by Congress in 1934 to promote the preservation and use of America's documentary heritage essential to understanding our democracy, history, and culture.

Currently, the NHPRC is authorized to administer grants to promote preservation and use of America's documentary heritage. The NHPRC supports projects that preserve and make accessible records and archives, and research and develop means to preserve authentic electronic records. Unfortunately, the NHPRC does not preserve the documents of all Presidents.

The Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act of 2008 would allow NHPRC to make grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities to promote the historic preservation of, and public access to, historical records and documents relating to any President who does not have a Presidential archival depository currently managed and maintained by the Federal Government pursuant to the Presidential Libraries Act of 1955.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, in order to be eligible to receive these grants, an entity must qualify as a 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code or be a State or local government. In order to maintain the integrity of the grant program, the NHPRC may only approve grants to those entities that possess historical works and collections of historical sources that the commission considers appropriate for preserving, publishing, or otherwise recording at the public expense. The entity must also have appropriate facilities

and space for preservation of such historical works and ensure public access to these collections.

Finally, to maintain the fiscal integrity of this act, the receiving entity must have raised funds from non-Federal sources in support of the grant efforts. In addition, grants may not be used for the maintenance, operating costs, or construction of any facility to house the historical records of any President who does not have a Presidential archival depository currently managed by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the focus of the bill is preservation and access to documents, not constructing new buildings or monuments.

I also commend my colleagues in the Senate for their improvements to this bill by allowing the Archivist to provide greater online access to historical documents of our Nation's Founding Fathers. With this provision, future generations will have greater access to the stories and journeys on the creation of our great country.

I want to thank my colleagues, Ranking Member Davis and Chairman Waxman, for their help with this legislation. I would also like to thank the staff at the Archives and Senators Warner and Webb for their assistance, as well as the Senate Committee on Government Affairs and Homeland Security in crafting this important bill.

Finally, I especially want to thank my constituents at the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library in Staunton, Virginia, for their assistance and guidance as this bill has taken on many forms over the past few years. The Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library has preserved several thousand documents, and it is my hope that these NHPRC grants will help organizations like this serve the American public.

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

I thank my colleague, the subcommittee chairman, as well as Chairman Peterson, for their work, along with others on this side of the aisle, and join them in supporting S. 3597.

This bill makes a technical correction to the Nutrition title of the 2008 farm bill. This measure will ensure funds allocated for Community Food Projects in fiscal year 2008 remain available through fiscal year 2009. Without this correction, valuable grant funding will be lost.

S. 3597 will allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to carry this funding forward to provide grants that help communities respond to local nutrition issues.

Because of the importance of this funding and the value that communities find in utilizing these funds to help people in need, providing food for them, I urge my colleagues to support S. 3597.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Democratic leadership announced under considerable pressure that the continuing resolution to keep our government operating will not include an extension of the moratorium on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, the moratorium on drilling in Alaska, the moratorium on extracting oil from the oil shale in the Rocky Mountain States. That's good news. That's a step in the right direction, but it's only the first step.

The American people at this time, as the Congress addresses concerns about the financial crisis facing the country, need to know that the Congress is also going to stop the hemorrhage of money out of this country, at the rate of $700 billion a year, buying foreign oil. We need to have the American Energy Act that the Republican leadership and the vast majority of Republican Members have offered, the all-of-the- above energy act, energy that will increase drilling on our Outer Continental Shelf in Alaska and in the Rocky Mountain States, increase natural gas production, clean-burning coal, nuclear power, and alternative forms of energy like solar, wind, hydrogen, geothermal, and biomass.

We need all of the above, and we need it now before we go home.

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

I support H.R. 6849 which voids the payment prohibition to farmers who have fewer than 10 acres of working farmland for the 2008 and 2009 crop years.

This measure protects farmers who would be denied benefits because it addresses a specific provision in the farm bill that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has misinterpreted. The intent of that original provision was to stop gardeners in New York City from getting program payments. It was never intended to prevent bonafide farmers from participating in commodity programs.

The farm bill provision and the accompanying report encourage the Secretary of Agriculture to allow farmers to aggregate base acres from multiple working farms to qualify for those program benefits.

However, the USDA has decided to interpret the language of that provision differently and prohibit aggregation. It is unfortunate that we are forced to pass further legislation to make sure this intent cannot be misconstrued. However, if we do not take action, the result will be damaging to thousands of farmers who depend on program payments.

I believe it is necessary that we pass this bill in order to protect those thousands of farmers who are being adversely affected by the USDA's interpretation of a specific provision in the farm bill. This is a growing concern throughout the country. Specifically, in my State of Virginia, the Virginia Farm Bureau contacted me directly because it was worried about the negative impact this interpretation would have on the livelihood of its producers.

I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the ranking member of the Commodity Subcommittee, such time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and yield back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we doing that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when Speaker Pelosi said that an energy bill that included drilling would be a hoax, she knew what she was talking about.

Last night, in the dead of night, the Democratic leadership brought forward a no drill, no energy bill. That bill is a hoax on the American people, just as she said it would be. You can put lipstick on a no- drill, no-energy bill, but it's still a no-drill, no-energy bill.

I have introduced legislation, many others have, to allow the States to participate in drilling off their coasts. Their bill prohibits that.

We will see no drilling, we will see no oil production, no access to oil production in more than 90 percent of the areas where oil exists, and we should go after it. Nothing in this bill for nuclear power, nothing in this bill for coal-to-liquid technology, nothing in this bill for the American people, nothing in this bill for my constituents, nothing but a hoax on the American people.

Mr. Speaker, during the month of August I was pleased to join over 130 of my Republican colleagues in Washington to represent the American people on the floor of this House. It is undeniable that the American people want us to develop our Nation's resources. This is demonstrated in poll after poll and exemplified with the meetings I have with my constituents. I always hear: Congressman, we must do something about energy costs!

When I heard that the Speaker had announced she would be bringing a bill to the floor to allow us to expand energy production, I felt that we had achieved success for the American people. Yes, the Speaker did hear the calls of the American people demanding increased energy production, but she isn't bringing a bill to the floor to expand energy production. Instead, she is bringing to the floor a sham piece of legislation that seeks to only give political cover to vulnerable Democrats who disagree with the will of the American people.

Some have cited how this bill opens up areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS. It may technically remove some of the barriers, but it does not include provisions to provide the traditional revenue sharing between the Federal Government and States for the income generated from these developments. What incentive do coastal States have to then develop their resources? I represent a coastal State, a State that has expressed strong interest in developing the resources on our OCS. I think the Commonwealth of Virginia should benefit from revenue sharing, just as Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have. It is unfair for Virginia to be treated differently than these other States when sharing our resources.

Sadly, this isn't the only provision that will unfairly harm Virginia. This legislation also contains a one-size-fits-all Renewable Electric Standard. This legislation assumes that all States have the exact same amount of renewable resources and can develop them, and punishes them when they cannot with penalties. The costs of energy due to the Renewable Electric Standard, as estimated by just one of Virginia's many electric utilities, will increase $900 million for its retail customers. My constituents are already paying high prices for energy; we don't need to further increase these costs! The fact is Virginia does not have as many wind and solar resources as other states. In Virginia, we have a voluntary RPS but our RPS contains nuclear and waste-to-energy, two things not allowed if this legislation becomes law.

Proponents of this legislation will tout how green this bill is; however, if my colleagues really want to promote green energy they should encourage the production of more nuclear sites which provide CO2 emission-free energy. The rest of the world is far outpacing the U.S. in its commitment to clean nuclear energy. We generate only 20 percent of our energy from this clean energy, when other countries can generate about 80 percent of their electricity needs through nuclear. It is a travesty that this legislation does not once mention or encourage the construction of clean and reliable nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is the most reliable and advanced of any renewable energy technology, and if we are serious about encouraging CO2-free energy use, we must support nuclear energy.

Furthermore, this legislation does not even address some of our most promising domestic alternative and renewable energy supplies. There is not one thing in this bill that addresses clean coal technologies. Coal is one of our Nation's most abundant resources, yet the development of coal-to-liquid technologies is completely ignored by this bill.

What's even more troubling is the energy resources this bill continues to keep out of the hands of American consumers. The Democrats' legislation prohibits environmentally responsible exploration of American oil shale resources unless states ``opt-in'' to such a system and the bill does not allow local communities to share in the revenues generated from oil shale exploration. The Department of Energy estimates that 2 trillion barrels of oil shale exists within the United States, resources that the Majority does not seem to want to develop.

Furthermore, this legislation does not permit responsible exploration of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, known as ANWR, in Alaska. According to estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey, ANWR holds between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable reserves, potentially producing nearly a million barrels of oil a day. Exploration and development in ANWR would open only 2,000 of the 19 million acres of the refuge, or the equivalent of an area one-fifth the size of Dulles Airport in an area the size of South Carolina.

This legislation does nothing to address the energy concerns of our country. This legislation only makes the situation worse and it is the product of a flawed process that does not have bipartisan support! If we really want to make our country energy independent, this Congress must pass an energy bill that allows and encourages the development of our Nation's resources. Americans are tired of Congress playing politics when they are in desperate need of relief from high energy costs. It is time for Congress to get serious and allow Americans increased access to their energy resources.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act of 2008. I introduce this as a companion bill to legislation being introduced today by my colleagues in the Senate, Senators John Warner and Jim Webb.

Mr. Speaker, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, NHPRC, is a statutory body affiliated with the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA. NHPRC was established by Congress in 1934 to promote the preservation and use of America's documentary heritage essential to understanding our democracy, history, and culture.

Currently, NHPRC is authorized to administer grants to promote preservation and use of America's documentary heritage. The NHPRC supports projects that preserve and make accessible records and archives, and research and develop means to preserve authentic electronic records.

The Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act of 2008 would allow NHPRC to make grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities to promote the historical preservation of, and public access to, historical records and documents relating to any President who does not have a Presidential archival depository currently managed and maintained by the Federal Government, pursuant to the Presidential Libraries Act of 1955.

Mr. Speaker, in order to be eligible to receive these grants, an entity must qualify as a 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and be exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of that Code, or be a State or local government. In order to maintain the integrity of the grant program, NHPRC shall only approve grants to those entities that possess historical works and collections of historical sources that the Commission considers appropriate for preserving, publishing, or otherwise recording at the public expense. The entity must also have appropriate facilities and space for preservation of such historical works and ensure public access to these collections.

Finally, to maintain the fiscal integrity of this Act, the receiving entity must have raised funds from non-Federal sources in support of the grant efforts. In addition, grants may not be used for the maintenance, operating costs, or construction of any facility to house the historical records to any President who does not have a Presidential archival depository currently managed by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the focus of the bill is preservation and access to documents, not constructing new buildings or monuments.

This is important legislation that will preserve our Nation's documentary heritage, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, each week, folks across Virginia and the Nation are confronted with the rising cost of energy, from the cost at the pump to soaring electric bills. Energy is vital to every sector of our economy, including homes, small businesses and industries. When energy supplies are tight, families and businesses are severely impacted by the resulting increase in energy costs.

While the majority has succeeded in strangling any efforts to tap into traditional energy resources in America, our Nation's citizens have suffered. They have suffered with skyrocketing gas and food prices, and they have suffered from the fear that we are ever dependent on foreign, and sometimes hostile, sources of oil.

While the leadership of the majority in Congress can't seem to get its act together to solve this problem for the Nation, as a representative of the people of Virginia, I cannot stand by and simply watch this spectacle. The time for action is now.

Virginians understand that a major component in lessening energy costs is to produce more energy. In fact the topic of energy production on Virginia's Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, has received serious discussion by the Virginia General Assembly. I believe that Virginia should have every tool available to access its energy supplies. Unfortunately, a congressional moratorium on exploration of the

OCS prevents the Commonwealth from having every tool available to address rising energy costs.

Therefore, I rise to introduce legislation to allow Virginia to request oil and natural gas exploration activities off its coast. Should these exploration activities prove fruitful, then the legislation would allow Virginia to petition for drilling for these precious resources. This bill does not mandate that Virginia explore or drill off its coast. It simply removes the Federal Government's longstanding barriers to these activities. The final decision of whether to explore or drill is placed squarely where it should be--in the hands of the people of Virginia, through their State legislature and Governor.

This legislation is not a cure all, and it does not fix the problem all across the country. However, Virginia's two Senators, one from each political party, have introduced similar legislation over in the Senate, and this is promising. In order to demonstrate how broad the support is for allowing States to decide this issue for themselves, I would encourage Members from all States to introduce similar legislation until a threshold of support is achieved that breaks the Democrat leadership's logjam on this issue and allows the will of the American people to be heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from North Carolina, for their hard work, particularly the gentleman from Minnesota. He thought that, following the passage of the farm bill earlier this year, that he would have a lighter burden. And instead, we have devoted a substantial amount of time to this legislation. Six hearings were held, more than 30 witnesses were invited before the committee, and literally, dozens of meetings took place as well to reach the point we are at. And I want to commend him for that work.

And I think that he has done a very good job in fending off some very bad ideas that the committee heard about from other Members and from others who wanted the committee to do a whole lot more than we are doing in this legislation.

But I will tell you that I think, quite frankly, the whole process is one that is not complete. We really shouldn't be bringing this up the day before the Congress recesses for August. We should take it up in September, after this particular bill has been examined more closely by more people and has, perhaps even held a hearing on the legislation itself.

Nonetheless, I understand the constraints he is under. He has been advised that we have to take this legislation up now. And that is what is really troubling to me the most about the legislation. I am going to support it. I think it is a modest improvement in the oversight of our commodity markets. And certainly, if there is excessive speculation in the energy markets, we all favor curbing that abuse.

But quite frankly, what we really are not getting to do is what took place in the last vote we just cast, the decision to adjourn this Congress this week without anything on the calendar this week to deal with the problem that is most concerning the American people, and that is the fact that we do not have a program to increase the domestic supply of American energy.

And we, on the Republican side, just last week, introduced legislation that already has 120 cosponsors or more, the American Energy Act, that would do all of the above. It would increase production of oil and natural gas, which we badly need, given the price that we are facing at the pump. It would have incentives for the development and expansion of nuclear power, clean burning coal technology. It would have incentives for the development of exciting new prospects for new types of energy, it would promote solar and wind power and renewable fuels and hydrogen technology. It would promote conservation, which the American people are already being forced to do because of the high price of energy they are facing at the gas pump today.

And I talked to a woman just last week who informed me that to fill the tank at her home with kerosene that will heat her home next winter she has been told will cost her $2,400.

We need to be producing increased production, American production of energy. That is what we should be debating here today. That is what should be on the floor today. And I do not understand why the leadership on the other side of the aisle will not allow us to have a vote on this.

It is very clear that the overwhelming majority of the American people want to see us take action on this. It is very clear that the significant number of Members on the other side of the aisle would join with virtually all of the Republicans on this side of the aisle in supporting legislation to make America energy independent. But we are not getting that vote, and the reason we are not getting that vote is because the leadership on the other side will not allow it.

What do they have to be afraid of in an American democracy that we can't vote on the American Energy Act?

That is what this is really all about. They want to go home and say they have done something about energy, when, in point of fact, they have done nothing about the supply of energy in this country because they will not allow us to vote on increasing the supply. That is what this legislation should be addressing, but instead, we are going to address legislation that simply reforms what is being done in the commodity futures trading markets. Certainly, that is a good thing and an important thing for us to look at, but it does not get at the crux of the problem we are facing.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, but I would urge my colleagues to point out that this is not what we need to be debating here today at the end of July just before we go home for the August recess.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to recognize the Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) who is the ranking Republican on the subcommittee of jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) who wishes to engage in a colloquy with the chairman on an issue in which I share the concerns raised by the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the chairman how many speakers he has remaining. I'm the only one right now on the floor on our side.

I reserve my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment of the gentleman from Georgia about the fact that he favors drilling. I favor drilling. Most of the people over here who have had the opportunity to speak favor drilling.

We favor doing a whole lot more than drilling, too. We would like to see increased incentives for nuclear production. We would like to see incentives for coal liquefaction and clean burning coal technology, coal sequestration technology. We would like to see legislation to encourage hydrogen fuel cell technology, solar technology, wind technology to be expanded to make America energy independent.

But instead, today we're voting on legislation--which I support, which does a good job of enhancing the ability of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to oversee futures trading, brings more transparency to that, and I support it. But it is not going to solve the problem that the American people face, with the high cost of gasoline going into their tanks, of fuel oil that they're going to have to purchase to heat their home this winter, the higher cost of electricity that they're facing because this Congress refuses to allow us to vote on the American Energy Act and other good pieces of legislation that have been offered here in this Congress to increase the domestic supply of energy.

That's what we should be spending our time doing, not voting to go home for the August recess and leaving that very, very serious problem--which is having a very significant impact on our economy-- unaddressed. We should have a vote on the American Energy Act.

I think it is a very serious mistake for the Democratic leadership to deny this Congress and bipartisan Members on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to vote on what the American people want us to vote on. That's the problem that they see here in Washington. They don't understand it. And I don't understand why the Democratic leadership is afraid of allowing democracy to work and have the vote that we need to have here in the Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, but I urge them to continue to fight for the legislation we need to have on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment with the bill before us today, H.R. 5541, the Forest Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act or the FLAME Act. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the authors of this bill are well intentioned and truly want to solve the wildfire funding problem, but, sadly, the FLAME Act does not provide the comprehensive solution needed to adequately resolve this problem.

With the unhealthy conditions in our forests, extreme drought, and the increasing influx of people building in fire-prone areas, the size and severity of wildfires has dramatically increased. In the 1990s, an average of 3.2 million acres burned each year. Since 2000, that annual average has doubled to 7.1 million acres. The cost of fighting these wildfires has skyrocketed, from averages of $400 million annually in the 1990s to roughly $1.4 billion in 2007. This year an area roughly the size of Connecticut has already burned, at cost of over $665 million to date.

This is not just a western issue. In my home State of Virginia, more acres have burned already this year than in any single entire year since 1963 at a cost of millions of dollars.

As firefighting costs have increased, the overall USDA Forest Service and Department of the Interior budgets have not. So, the Forest Service and DOI are footing the bill for these large, unpredictable emergency wildfires within the confines of a flat budget. For the Forest Service, this has meant a 77 percent increase in fire expenditures, a 23 percent decrease in funds to manage the national forests, and a 38 percent decrease in funds to help States and private owners manage their forests. Whether you're a wilderness advocate, a hunter, a mountain biker, or a logger, everyone will be impacted if we don't solve this problem.

Wildfires are not only consuming more forestland, they are consuming the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior themselves.

The FLAME Act falls short of protecting the Agencies' budgets from this continued erosion. H.R. 5541 does not change the current budget practice of funding firefighting based on the average expenses over the previous decade. Without this change, we will continue to see more and more of the Agencies' budgets go toward fire and less towards taking care of our Nation's forests.

In addition to this shortfall, the FLAME Act lacks a comprehensive set of solutions to the problem. Fixes to the wildfire budgeting system must be accompanied by strong cost containment and accountability standards while also ensuring firefighter safety, incentives to encourage communities to step up to the plate and reduce wildfire risks, and more tools to prevent or minimize damage due to catastrophic wildfires, particularly in our Federal forests.

H.R. 5648, the Emergency Wildland Fire Response Act of 2008 which Chairman Peterson and I introduced along with a bipartisan group of our colleagues, provides this comprehensive solution. Unfortunately, negotiations for a more comprehensive solution were cut short.

I'm pleased to see that the authors of the FLAME Act have incorporated aspects of H.R. 5648 that encourage communities to step up to the plate and become ``fire-ready'' and encourage the Agencies to contain costs in their firefighting efforts.

Unfortunately, even with these improvements, the FLAME Act ignores the underlying problem causing the increases in firefighting costs--the unhealthy condition of our Federal forests. We will continue to see skyrocketing firefighting costs and more damage to our forests, watersheds, and communities unless we take steps to reduce fire risk in our Federal forests. We must provide the Agencies additional tools to get our Federal forests in a healthy, more fire resilient condition.

My alternative bill, H.R. 5648 provides a new contracting tool for the Forest Service to partner with States to address these unhealthy conditions in Federal forests. This authority has been tested in Colorado and Utah where it's proven to be very effective. Unfortunately, H.R. 5541 contains no such tools.

Mr. Speaker, as California and other States are dealing with massive wildfires even as we speak, we shouldn't squander our time with legislation that is only half the solution. H.R. 5541 is akin to using the watering can to fight a wildfire: it might have some short-term benefit of slowing down the flames, but ultimately, it won't stop the fire.

That being said, I will vote for this bill because it does move the ball forward. I'm hopeful that we can improve it as we move forward and ask my colleagues to join me in this effort.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Peterson, for his work in this area. We held a hearing on this issue on Tuesday of this week. In the farm bill which the Congress just passed overwhelmingly several times, we overrode the President's veto, it includes legislative language that takes further steps to complete the closure of the Enron loophole. In that testimony we received on Tuesday, we received assurance that between the language that was in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act passed in the aftermath of the Enron scandal, and in the language that was included in the farm bill, the Enron loophole is now closed.

I have no reason to oppose this legislation and I therefore will support it. It simply tells the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to do what it already has the authority to do, and based upon the testimony that we received on Tuesday is already doing to ensure that there is not excessive speculation in the energy futures markets. I have every confidence that they will do so, that they will heed this additional voice of support for their doing their jobs. But, quite frankly, this legislation does not do what needs to be done by this Congress.

The Democratic leadership in this Congress is continuing a pattern that the American people are increasingly concerned about, and that is to do everything they can to try to blame everyone but themselves for the problem that we face in this country of having years of neglect of not having a domestic energy policy dedicated toward increasing the supply, increasing the supply of oil, increasing the supply of natural gas, increasing the supply of clean-burning coal, increasing the supply of nuclear power, increasing the supply of alternative fuels, increasing efforts to bring about new technologies. This is the all-of- the-above approach that this Congress should be taking that our conference has taken. In fact, we have worked very hard to see that this policy be brought to the floor of the House.

Yes, I will support this bill telling the CFTC to use its authority to curb excessive speculation, but I think it appalling that we aren't doing the job that needs to be done. It is being blocked by the party that controls the access to the floor of this House.

H.R. 2279, to expedite the construction of new refining capacity on closed military installations in the United States, and for other purposes, sponsored by Representative Pitts of Pennsylvania with 55 cosponsors. From the House Energy and Commerce and Armed Services Committees, last major action taken, a motion to discharge petition filed by Mr. English, petition 110-9. Why haven't we seen this bill brought to the floor of the House?

H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007 sponsored by Representative Thornberry of Texas, 77 cosponsors, referred to the Committees on Natural Resources, House Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce. Last major action, June 10, motion to discharge petition filed by Mr. Walberg. A motion was filed to discharge the Natural Resources, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce Committees of this action. No action taken. Why hasn't that bill been brought to the floor of the House?

We have this week another discharge petition on H.R. 5656 which repeals the requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition of alternative fuels, a discharge petition filed this week by Representative Hensarling. Why hasn't this legislation been brought to the floor of this House?

There are scores of other bills sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats dedicated to relieving this energy crisis that have been bottled up by the Democratic majority.

When, Mr. Speaker, will we get the chance to vote on these very worthy bills? When will we get the chance to actually start offering relief from the outrageously high gas prices that American consumers are facing?

That's the problem we are confronting. That's the problem that the leadership in this Congress is not allowing us to address. That's what needs to be done, not telling the CFTC to do the job that they are already doing and already have the authority to do, but acting to make sure that we are increasing supply of all sources of energy, new sources of energy, traditional sources of energy, acting to make sure that the incentives are in place for Americans to conserve. My goodness, they are already doing that. We are seeing that reflected in their activities. This Congress could be helping them out. It is failing to do so. And that, Mr. Speaker, is why we are failing the American people when the leadership of this Congress does not allow us to have these votes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the CFTC, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.

I support this resolution because it gives nothing new to the CFTC but it gives it encouragement to do its work. It does not make any finding that there is excessive speculation in the market, and if there is excessive speculation in the market, then I certainly expect and support action by the CFTC to exercise its emergency powers to do so.

But the gentleman is exactly right when he notes that India and China are increasing their consumption of all different types of sources of energy, and they're not the only ones. They're just the largest ones.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to say further to the gentleman that when demand around the world, and not just in China and India, is increasing as steadily as it has in recent years and the United States sits back and waits for other countries to increase that supply and increases our dependence upon foreign oil from such unreliable sources as Venezuela and Nigeria and the Middle East, and we then think that simply asking the CFTC to do its job will solve this problem, that is a very serious problem.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Agriculture Committee and the ranking member of our Department Operations and Oversight Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a joint analysis prepared by the majority and minority staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the testimony of Michael Greenberger before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on June 3, 2008. It responds to a number of assertions made about what might happen to the market. And while I certainly would hope that something could be found to lower gas prices by as much as Mr. Greenberger suggested in his testimony, here are several pages of reasons why that may indeed not be the case.

Select Excerpts of the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on

Investigations

8. STATEMENT: ``Overnight, [prohibiting the trading of

energy commodities in Exempt Commercial Markets) will bring

down the price of crude oil, I believe, by 25 percent.''

RESPONSE: According to recent market data, there is little

to no trading of crude oil contracts on exempt commercial

markets in the United States. Prohibiting the trading of

energy commodities in a market in which no trading is

currently taking place is, thus, unlikely to have an effect

on the price of crude oil. Moreover, although there have

never been any Exempt Commercial Markets for agricultural

commodities, many agricultural commodities have recently

experienced substantial price spikes. There is no credible

evidence that simply amending the CEA to regulate energy

commodities as if they were agricultural commodities will

lead to lower energy prices.

19. STATEMENT (p. 8): ``The Senate Permanent Investigating

Subcommittee has now issued two reports, one in June 2006 and

one in June 2007, that make a very strong (if not

irrefutable) case that trading on ICE has been used to

manipulate or excessively speculate in U.S. delivered crude

oil and natural gas contracts. The June 2006 report cited

economists who then concluded that when a barrel of crude was

@ $77 in June 2006, $20 to $30 of that cost was due to

excessive speculation and/or manipulation on unregulated

exchanges.''

RESPONSE: The 2006 and 2007 PSI reports focused on the role

of excessive speculation in U.S. commodity markets; neither

report contained any findings on whether traders manipulated

crude oil or natural gas prices.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the chairman if he has additional speakers. I have only myself to close.

That being the case, I will yield myself the balance of my time to say to the chairman again, I thank him for his work on this issue.

I support this measure. Certainly, I expect the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to address any problems with excessive speculation in the energies markets and to use their emergency powers to do so, if appropriate.

But I will tell you that this is a problem that's been going on a lot longer than recent speculation in this market. It's been going on for years because of a lack of increase of supplies of oil and natural gas and other basic sources of energy in this country.

All we ask of the Democratic leadership is to put the bills on the floor that get what the American people want, and that is a vote to open up America to increase domestic supply of energy. The Speaker of the House doesn't have to support the legislation. The majority leader doesn't have to support the legislation. All they have to do is let this happen on a bipartisan basis, and we will have a bipartisan vote to do what the American people want. Let us have that vote. Let us have that debate on the floor of this House, and we will do what the American people want.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor James Madison University and ask my colleagues to support House Resolution 1051. I want to thank my colleague from North Carolina and my colleague from Maryland for managing this legislation on the floor, and the chairman and ranking member of the committee for their support of this resolution, which recognizes an outstanding institution of higher education which I am proud to represent in the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia.

This resolution celebrates James Madison University on the occasion of its 100th anniversary, which held a week-long celebration culminating with the centennial celebration on March 14, 2008. The entire JMU community celebrated with galas, portrait unveilings of JMU dignitaries, statue presentations, and a photograph of nearly 3,000 students, faculty, staff and alumni forming a ``human 100'' to celebrate the centennial.

James Madison University, located in my congressional district in Harrisonburg, Virginia, is surrounded by the beautiful Shenandoah Valley and has proved to be a catalyst in Western Virginia, building on the agricultural base of the region to create a center for higher education and innovation.

James Madison University has grown from its establishment as the Normal and Industrial School for Women in 1908 to its renaming to Madison College in 1938 and eventually to James Madison University, where it presently enrolls nearly 17,000 students and employs 3,000 full-time and part-time faculty and staff.

Since its establishment, James Madison University has been led by Presidents Julian Ashby Burress, Dr. Samuel Page Duke, the namesake of JMU's mascot, the ``Duke Dog,'' Dr. G. Tyler Miller, Dr. Ronald Carrier, and the current President, Dr. Linwood H. Rose.

In my service of representing the Sixth District of Virginia and JMU, it has been a true pleasure to work with former President Dr. Ron Carrier and current President Dr. Linwood Rose as they have skillfully guided James Madison University into the 21st century.

Madam Speaker, from its inception, James Madison University has been at the forefront of education. Originally a teachers college, today JMU provides groundbreaking research in information technology, security and alternative fuel sources, and offers more than 100 degree programs, including 68 undergraduate, 30 masters, two educational specialists and six doctor programs. In its 100 yearlings of existence, James Madison University has conferred more than 98,000 degrees.

Based on this outstanding curriculum, in 2007 U.S. News and World Report, for the 17th time, ranked JMU as the top public, masters-level university in the South, and JMU's graduation rate, 80 percent, was the highest among all public and private schools in the South.

Madam Speaker, James Madison University's alumni have impacted the Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States and the entire world. Madison graduates travel to the farthest corners of the Earth to perform groundbreaking research and provide leadership in corporate boardrooms, athletic fields, State legislatures, and even here on Capitol Hill.

I am pleased to have introduced this resolution, cosponsored by the entire Virginia delegation and more than 50 Members of Congress, that recognizes the rich history and accomplishments of this remarkable institution on the occasion of its 100th anniversary.

I urge all the Members of this body to join us in congratulating James Madison University on its 100th anniversary and to support this resolution.