Floor Statements

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

I rise today in support of House Resolution 1463 which recognizes the benefits of service learning as a teaching strategy to effectively engage youth in the community and classroom, and it supports the goals of the National Learn and Serve Challenge.

Young Americans, from kindergartners to college students, have the desire, power, and ability to make a real difference in their communities. Service learning offers a unique opportunity for them to get involved in a concrete way by integrating community service projects with classroom learning. It enriches the learning experience, teaches civic responsibility, and strengthens communities.

Research has shown that service-learning programs can have positive

impacts on youth in three general areas: academic engagement and achievement; civic attitudes and behaviors; and social and personal skills. The studies also demonstrate that students gain the maximum benefit when their service-learning experience includes a direct tie to the curriculum, planning, and design of service projects by students, structured reflection on the service experience in the classroom, and continuity of service for at least one semester.

Service-learning programs work. They meet the Nation's needs by putting the talents and energies of America's youth to work solving real issues in their communities such as homelessness, elderly care, and illiteracy. In addition, students' lives are enriched through service learning as they become engaged in their own educational process. We see the results and benefits of the work they do, and they become civic-minded Americans who make a contribution to the communities in which they live.

Learn and Service America is the only Federally funded program dedicated to service learning and enables over 1.5 million students to make meaningful contributions to their community while building academic and civic skills. Through its annual week-long National Learn and Serve Challenge, the program spotlights the value of service learning to youth, schools, and communities and instills an ethic of lifelong community service.

In light of the recent natural disasters that have stricken our Nation, it is important that young people are encouraged to incorporate service into their lives and make a difference in their community and country. The intangible benefits alone--such as pride, satisfaction, and accomplishment--are worthwhile reasons to serve.

Today I applaud the efforts of Learn and Serve America and the millions of dedicated youth volunteers for their service, and I would like to encourage all Americans to work together so we can more effectively meet the pressing needs facing our Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 642, the Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones College Fire Prevention Act, and I join my colleagues in honoring our colleague.

So often in this Chamber, we consider legislation to expand access to college and strengthen our Federal higher education programs. Today, we have an opportunity to discuss the need to bolster safety on college campuses, specifically fire safety.

The timing and the name of this bill are appropriate because this month is often designated as Campus Fire Safety Month, and there was no Member more concerned about protecting our college students from the dangers of fire than the late Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones. This bill would honor Representative Tubbs Jones by naming a demonstration program in her honor.

Our Nation's college students should be able to live on campus with the confidence that they will be safe in their dorms, apartments, or other housing. This measure will take a step toward ensuring that colleges have the ability to ensure their buildings are properly equipped with the latest fire safety measures.

This measure, combined with the provisions enacted by Congress in the Higher Education Opportunity Act, will increase campus fire safety on colleges and universities. The provisions included in the Higher Education Opportunity Act required colleges to provide a fire safety report to the Secretary of Education. The report must include statistics showing the number of fires and injuries resulting from fires on campus over the past year. It will also require colleges to report on the type of fire prevention technologies they are utilizing and any plans the colleges may have to improve their fire prevention and detection technologies. The bill before us today will help colleges think creatively about fire safety and ensure that they have the funds to move forward with their plans.

Today, we have the opportunity to honor Representative Tubbs Jones' commitment to the safety of college students and pass a measure that will help colleges keep our young people safe from devastating fires.

While I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, our efforts to help college students will be incomplete until we also approve a true and honest all-of-the-above energy reform package that puts our Nation on the path to energy independence. Our higher education system is being squeezed by high energy costs just as the rest of society is. Schools are being forced to limit their operations and reduce the number of school days just to save on utility costs and save their students the price of a day's commute.

The majority met behind closed doors to craft a bill that offers more in the way of political cover than actual energy reform. This is not the change Americans need, and it's not the change they deserve. We need a real energy policy, not one that looks good on paper but keeps vital American resources under lock and key.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we're pleased to join our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in paying this tribute to our colleague.

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

I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia. A little bit about my district. My district is the 7th Congressional District of Louisiana. It is southwest Louisiana. So I am on the border with Texas. I am on the gulf coast, and we have been a long time leader in the oil and gas industry.

We have about 3,800 drilling platforms out in the Gulf of Mexico. Most of those are located off the coast of my district. I have one of the Strategic Petroleum Reserves in my district, and it accounts for one-fourth of the oil that we hold. I also have a confluence of pipelines called the Henry Hub which is the pricing point for natural gas for the entire country.

We have a number of refineries along the Calcashoe ship channel located throughout southwest Louisiana, so we have a significant amount of the refining capacity that supplies refined products to this country.

The oil and gas industry is about jobs. Every time I fly back and forth to my home in Lafayette, Louisiana, I run into four or five gentlemen typically who work in the oil and gas industry, and when I ask them where they are working, they are telling me that they are coming from or going to countries all over the globe, Angola in Africa, Equatorial Guinea, Thailand, Vietnam, and countries throughout the Middle East.

I ask them why is that? Why are you out there?

They tell me I used to work in the oil and gas industry off the gulf coast, and after the imposition of the windfall profits tax in the 1980s which devastated the oil and gas industry, they lost their jobs in the gulf coast area and they ended up going off and working all over the globe.

We have expertise all over the world in the oil and gas industry, and every one of these gentlemen when I talk to them wishes they could come back home and work in the United States, to be close to their families, to work in an area that they are comfortable with rather than being off in foreign countries and having to do all of that travel that oftentimes takes 2 or 3 days of their time, often at their own expense.

So getting a comprehensive energy policy is about good, high-paying American jobs. It is about keeping jobs in the United States. It is about growing new jobs. It is not just about the oil and gas industry.

What we have been advocating is a comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy approach, an energy approach that looks at oil and gas because we are dependent on oil and gas for most of our transportation needs, much of our electricity, and really for a good part of all of our energy needs. Oil and gas are a critical part, but at the same time we also have to look at good, tried and true methods of conservation. And we have to look at alternative fuels and renewable energy and nuclear power and clean coal technology. All of the ideas that are out there, we should be unleashing individual American genius because that is what has made this country great and has helped to solve problems of the past, and is what will help us pull out of this energy crisis that we are seeing. Families and seniors and small businesses and our schools, our local governments are struggling with the high cost of energy.

I talked to a senior not long ago who told me it was getting difficult for her to afford gas and make the usual runs to the grocery store. And she was paying high food prices on top of that, so she teamed up with folks in her neighborhood and they are still struggling with the cost of gas. This is just unacceptable. In a country that has the brilliance that the American people have and the entrepreneurship, we shouldn't be struggling with this. The sad thing is that the only thing blocking it is good policy, and this Congress has it within itself to move forward on a good, comprehensive energy policy. It distresses me it has been blocked. We have not had an opportunity to bring a comprehensive energy bill to the floor of the House.

This country has had one energy shock after another. There have been about six of them since the end of the Second World War. A number have caused significant price spikes, when you talk about 1973 with the Arab oil embargo, 1979 when the Iranian problem came up, the 1990 gulf crisis, the windfall profits tax thrown on top of the oil industry in the 1980s, and of course recently what we have seen with real high price spikes.

I am glad you brought that up. Clearly, having a whole lot of refineries concentrated on the gulf coast, in Texas or on the coast of Louisiana, we have a very soft underbelly. We have a true vulnerability with key energy infrastructure. Many refineries, while they were not damaged, they had to be shut down for a period of time. We don't have large inventories of gasoline in this country. We don't have it. So when you shut refineries down, particularly a large number of them, you end up with shortages of gasoline and this country has had to start importing gasoline to a much greater extent than we used to.

Diesel as well, and other refined products. So this a significant problem. If we had true destruction of those refineries, which could have easily happened, we are talking about a real vulnerability, real price shocks at the pump, and a long time before we can get this infrastructure back up and running.

The point is with a comprehensive energy policy, we are going to diversify our sources of energy. We need to expand refining capacity and build out in other areas of the country. We need to invest in the alternative fuels that will give us alternatives to gasoline, but it takes time for those investments. Clearly, it is important that we start the process.

In my district, a large oil company has just recently put a significant investment into an alternative fuel company that is going to be making cellulosic ethanol. It is the first cellulosic ethanol facility in the entire country. They are ramping up and there is a lot of excitement about it, and it offers great possibilities, but we have to develop this and we have to develop the infrastructure. That is going to take time. So what we have to do is strategically manage our dependence on fossil fuels right now as we transition to the next energy economy which will involve alternatives and renewables.

First of all, as we try to transition, we still need oil and gas, and we should be investing in this country and in the United States, looking at our own natural resources. A large part of the oil and gas that is

available is off our Outer Continental Shelf, in the gulf coast area, as we have seen off the coast of Louisiana and Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, but also east coast and west coast. We ought to be taking advantage and using those resources as we transition.

One of the key features that we fought for, I say ``we,'' the Louisiana delegation, for 50 years we fought to get revenue sharing whereby the tax revenue that comes to the Federal Government, some of it is shared with the States.

For instance, in Louisiana now with new production, we have the opportunity to share in 37.5 percent of revenue that will go to the State to help the State do environmental repair along the gulf coast. It will help us invest in infrastructure, and it also provides an opportunity to invest in alternatives fuels. That provision was enacted in the Energy Security Act of 2006, something we fought very hard for and it is a very good bill.

It is critically important that States along the coast have that revenue-sharing option available to them. That is the incentive for them to allow drilling off their coast.

And that helps them build their infrastructure. The Democrat bill earlier this week didn't allow that. And that's one of the reasons why I think this was a sham approach. It was saying, we'll give a little lip service to drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, but we're going to restrict certain areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, and we're not going to allow revenue sharing, which is something the States all want. And that's the essence of federalism. That's a great way to do it.

And I would say for folks back home in Louisiana who may be listening to this, our 37.5 percent revenue sharing was also jeopardized by this Democratic bill. So after 50 years of fighting to get revenue sharing for Louisiana in the 8.3 million acres that were opened up in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, we could suddenly lose that if that bill were to go all the way through the Senate and the President signed it. Fortunately, the President says he's going to veto it, but our own Democratic Senator, Mary Landrieu, has said this bill is dead on arrival.

It is my understanding that that revenue sharing is at risk.

There is no assurance that that revenue would be retained. And that's a very important incentive to get the States to play ball with this. And let's take advantage and use those natural resources that we're so fortunate to have. We're at a time right now where oil reserves are being depleted around the world, and oil infrastructure is really in a state of decay in many of these countries. It's the free market companies, the big companies that are around the world that have the kinds of technology that we need to get in there and do this. But with everything else in decline, we need to be taking advantage of using our own resources while we transition, and increase investment in alternative forms of energy, alternative fuels, whether it's biofuels, because there's a whole host of new generation biofuels that we're on the cusp of working with. We need to invest in that, but it's not going to happen overnight. So that's why it's critically important right now to make strategically good decisions about how we use our resources.

We owe that to the American people. This Congress will be irresponsible. Our Democratic friends will be irresponsible if they don't allow a comprehensive energy reform package to come to the floor of the House.

I fully agree with you. And we in Louisiana know that good energy policy can march hand in hand with environmental policy that's sensible, and it's also good for the economy and it grows jobs. We have seen that. We've seen what happens when bad policy affects an industry like the oil and gas industry and you lose jobs. We've seen that kind of cycle. And there's no reason for that. Those are policy decisions made by those who are truly uninformed.

What the American public has already very clearly stated is that they want a comprehensive energy policy. And we have it within ourselves to do that. This is not rocket science.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to mention to my friend from Texas that we're with you on this. My State got hit by four hurricanes, two really devastating hurricanes in 2005, Rita and Katrina, and now Gustav and Ike. And folks are suffering back home on top of the suffering that they've had as a result of high prices at the pump. And I have to say, it frustrates the heck out of me to come up here to try to get something done to help folks back home and around the country suffering with these high gas prices, and we can't get it done. We're playing political games up here because of the leadership on the other side. It's very frustrating because folks in Texas, my friend's State, my home State of Louisiana, are really suffering doubly because we have born the burden of providing energy for this country in Louisiana and in Texas. And yet, folks back home are saying, what's wrong with the rest of the country? What's wrong with the Democratic leadership? Why won't they give us an energy policy.

Give us a vote. We've got the bills. We've got the answers. Give us a vote. That's all we're asking. And I yield back to my friend from Texas.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to ask if you considered repealing section 199, which is basically singling out the oil and gas industry for a tax which all of our manufacturers don't have to pay--

If the majority leader would yield.

This provision hurts the larger companies which are necessary with the technology to drill in deep water. The smaller companies participate in that. So if we hurt our deep water abilities in the United States off our Outer Continental Shelf, we are making ourselves less competitive and we are hurting job prospects.

I have seen so many folks from Louisiana who are serving all over the world, working in the oil industry who have left the United States, left Louisiana because they have to work over there. We could keep these jobs here.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Utah for yielding, and I stand with him on these issues.

Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of setting priorities. I just got back Monday evening for votes. I left my home State of Louisiana, my district of southwest Louisiana, that was just hit by Hurricane Gustav. Folks are suffering. Seniors are suffering back home. Seniors are suffering all over the country. Seniors in Vermont are suffering and they're going to suffer with high prices of heating oil this coming winter. Farmers, I have got farmers that lost their crops just last week, and they're faced with high diesel costs and high gasoline costs and high fertilizer costs because this country doesn't have an energy policy. What are our priorities? This is the most important bill we have done so far this week, and it's a study and it's a study based on what the subcommittee found there to be no risk involved. So I have to question what are the priorities of this Democratically led Congress.

We in Louisiana have been bearing the burden of providing energy in this country for quite a long time, and we have seen our coasts, our precious wetlands devastated, and now we are trying to rebuild those wetlands. Is that a priority? It's certainly a priority to me. But clearly getting an energy policy has to be one of the top priorities for this country. We should all recognize that. And I think my colleagues across the aisle, after spending August back home hearing from folks in their districts, would understand that.

We in Louisiana know that energy policy and environmental policy and economic policy all march together. That's good policy. We're also talking about jobs. Mr. Chairman, every time I fly home on the little stretch between Houston and Lafayette, Louisiana, I run into folks from Louisiana who are coming back or going to countries all over the globe, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Thailand, Vietnam, countries throughout the Middle East, Louisianians with oil and gas expertise who wish they could be back in this country closer to their families. No, they're having to travel all over the globe and be away from their families for months on end to make a living in the energy industry. These are jobs that were lost to this country. These were manufacturing jobs that were lost to this country in the 1980s when a Democratically controlled Congress imposed a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry. And what's their answer today? Well, let's get rid of the manufacturing tax credit on oil and gas companies. Let's single out the oil and gas companies. Well, on one hand you say you want good jobs and good manufacturing jobs, but then you propose policies that drive these jobs out of this country. I don't get it. I just don't get it, and the folks back home in Louisiana don't get it.

I talked about the environment. Down in my district we've got a beautiful stretch of wetlands and marsh. It's a bird habitat for ducks, a breeding ground for ducks. White Lake, a beautiful lake, a pristine lake, is down there in Vermilion Parish. That land is managed by BP Amoco, and they have done an outstanding job with the environment. Just yet another example of good environmental policy working hand in hand with energy policy because what does it mean? Jobs, good American jobs.

Explain that to the folks in Michigan. Explain that to the folks in Ohio who are struggling right now. If you want good American jobs, you get a good energy policy, an all-of-the-above energy policy. An energy policy that looks at oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf and Alaska, shale oil, nuclear energy, looks at building refining capacity, and also invests in renewables and alternatives. That's what we're advocating over here. We want to work in a bipartisan fashion.

But, no, the other side, our friends across the aisle are finding ways to avoid the issue. That's not what the American public wants today. Everybody knows what the polls are showing. Seven out of ten Americans want a comprehensive energy policy. How can you go home and explain to the seniors, an elderly woman back in your district who can't afford gasoline for her car to go to the grocery store to pick up a few essential items, so then she has to carpool with three others and now they can't afford it?

I'm all for conservation. I believe conservation is a critical part of our energy policy, but yet conservation is not enough. We need a real energy policy, an all-of-the-above approach.

Our friends across the aisle are proposing all kinds of things that we're hearing about. They're proposing a policy that permanently locks up 80 percent, 80 percent of American energy on the Outer Continental Shelf. Our friends are proposing permanently locking up 1 trillion barrels of oil from oil shale in the inner-mountain west. How can you explain that to the American public? What's your explanation? How can you say we want to permanently lock up more than 10 billion barrels of oil on Alaska's remote North Slope? And how do you explain no to nuclear power when countries like France rely on nuclear power for 80 percent of their electricity? People around this country are struggling with high utility bills.

We ought to be looking at ways to diversify our sources of energy and putting this country on a sound footing, putting America first. How can our friends across the aisle do nothing about constructing clean coal and looking at that type of new technology? This is critical. And yet again they propose additional tax increases on the energy companies that are trying to provide energy for this country. I just don't get it. I don't get it.

Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this Chamber ought to look at that plaque up there. Look at that plaque. It quotes from Daniel Webster, who says, ``Let us develop the resources of our land.'' The resources of our land. We shouldn't be holding back. This is

the only country holding back on this. Let us develop the resources of our land. Let us call forth its power and build its institutions. That's what this Congress should be doing. Not wasting time. I have got to go back home and explain why I spent a week up here while folks back in Louisiana are struggling after another hurricane and I have got to explain to those folks that I came up here and we didn't do anything substantively in this Congress and we didn't do anything that they care most about: getting an energy policy.

Read that plaque again: ``Let us develop the resources of our land.''

Last week a powerful hurricane hit southern Louisiana.

First I want to thank all the volunteers and workers who are helping in this recovery effort.

Hurricane Gustav, as Hurricane Ike threatens to do, highlights the importance of American energy production in the Gulf of Mexico. Dangerously, America remains just one major storm or one geopolitical act from another major hike in the price at the pump.

Gas prices affect our food prices, the economy in general, and people's pocketbooks directly.

Throughout August I joined my fellow House Republicans in urging Speaker Pelosi to bring Congress back to session to help American families struggling with dramatically high gas prices. She refused. But now we can act.

We can increase our own energy supply, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, create good, high-paying American jobs. We can do this. Many of these energy jobs are going overseas, but we can keep them right here in America. By harnessing all of America's vast resources, we can help Americans in the short term and into the future.

Let's do the responsible thing. Let's open up parts of our deepwater coasts for energy exploration, and let's begin to reduce the price at the pump. We can take control of our energy future, which is our economic future. We can lower families' anxiety, but Congress must act to increase American energy production across the board now.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Texas for yielding time to me.

You know, the collective wisdom of the American people is a force to be reckoned with. And the American people are speaking very, very loudly today about what we need. They are speaking about the need for a comprehensive energy policy; an energy policy that looks at all the possibilities that we have. And that is just, in fact, what House Republicans are offering, and I would venture to say a fair number of Democrats on the other side of the aisle want this. But this approach is being blocked by the Democratic leadership, unfortunately.

Madam Speaker, I would urge that the Democratic leadership listen to the collective wisdom of the American public.

Now this idea about drawing down out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is incredibly irresponsible. We are on the verge of a new hurricane season where we may need that oil. We have geopolitical unrest around the world where we may need that oil. The current volume held in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is just over 700 million barrels, and at current usage of 20 million barrels a day in this country, that is 35 days. 35 days. That reserve, that Strategic Reserve was put in place for real, dire emergencies.

Now, some would argue, yes, the price at the pump is really hurting American families, and I fully agree. I have spoken to many of my constituents who are feeling the pain at the pump today. But that is no excuse, that is no excuse for this Congress to shirk its responsibility to come forward with a comprehensive energy policy that focuses on production in an environmentally responsible way by opening the Outer Continental Shelf in Alaska, by investing in alternative and renewables, by looking into clean coal technology, shale oil, building out refining capacity to meet our needs, investing in nuclear energy. All of these things, all of the above is what this country demands and is what is necessary.

So I would suggest it is time to quit this irresponsible posturing in this body, and let's move forward with a comprehensive energy policy.

This is a national security issue. It is clearly a national security issue. Speak to any of our generals and our troops who are fighting in the Middle East. This is a national security issue. And I urge my colleagues to get serious about this issue. The American people have gotten serious about it. So why are we delaying? What is the reason for procrastination?

We can come to a reasonable compromise in this body to deal with all of it. And I would point out that exploration and production today can be done in a very environmentally sound way. My district in southwest Louisiana has been doing this. If you look at the oil and gas industry, in the aftermath of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina when 80 percent of it was out, we didn't have spillages in the Gulf of Mexico. Everything was done in a very sound and responsible way. The evacuation was carried out well, and this oil and gas production came back on line very quickly in the interest of the American people.

And finally, I would add that by increasing responsible, environmentally sound American exploration and production, we're creating good, high-paying American jobs, also a very important stimulus to this economy.

Clearly, what we need today is a comprehensive energy policy coupled with strengthening of the dollar, and I think we will work our way out of this economic crisis.

Mr. Speaker, this week the President took a small but important step to lowering the price at the pump for American families. Lifting his ban on Outer Continental Shelf energy exploration was the right thing to do, and I applaud him for it. Now, Congress must act.

We can help increase American supply, lower the price at the pump, and create good American jobs. The ball's in our court. Will Congress listen to our constituents who are struggling with tough decisions about where and when they can drive? Or will congressional leadership remain beholden to environmental extremists?

In Louisiana, energy production is done in a responsible way. After two devastating hurricanes, employees of our energy industry worked hard to get rigs back up and running knowing they were a very important part of our recovery efforts. OCS does not represent a magic bullet. However, it's one piece of a responsible comprehensive energy plan to lower the price at the pump. Innovative technology, better conservation, and new fuels are critical, too. So let's start all of them. What is holding us up? By harnessing all of America's vast resources and genius, we can give Americans, in the short term and long term, a good energy policy.

Let's do the responsible thing. Let's have a comprehensive energy policy.

Would the majority leader yield?

I would like to ask the gentleman: How can we accurately know what those reserves are if we can't even have seismic, modern seismic activity done? So, that's the reason to open the Outer Continental Shelf, to at least get the process started. If the seismic shows nothing, these companies lose the lease. That's current law. So I don't understand the majority's opposition to opening the Outer Continental Shelf.

But if the majority leader would yield.

I thank the majority leader.

The point is, if we have tight supply and demand, then we should be opening up all these areas for seismic analysis to get accurate information about these reserves, and if the seismic shows nothing, there's no activity; you lose the lease. The companies lose the money. That is the current law, and I think the American people want an explanation as to why we're not doing that. We should be looking at all of our potential resources.

We, in Louisiana, have known for a long time how this works. In fact, Louisiana delegations for 35 years have fought to open up additional Outer Continental Shelf and let the States share in the revenue.

I think the gentleman is in error. There actually has been a new LNG facility that just went online in Louisiana, and two more that will open in a few months.

I thank my colleague from Washington State for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and this underlying bill, because I believe, first of all, this is an abuse of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It's further demonstrating the party here, the opposite party position that we have to have an either/or policy. It's either the environment or energy.

Whereas I believe on our side of the aisle, we are advocating that the two can march hand-in-hand. I believe this is also a way of blocking sensible energy policy going forward. Clearly, I think, the American public understands it, as well as we do, that we need a comprehensive energy policy.

I want to make a few points. First of all, we have seen LNG development down in my district. I have got one facility that is expanding on a river. It's in the midst of a very densely populated area. That river is used not only for industrial purposes, but also recreational purposes. There has been a record of safety, in fact, an unprecedented record of safety.

We have a new LNG facility that came online, I guess, a couple of months ago. Secretary Bodman was down there with me. This is creating new American high-paying jobs. Furthermore, there are two other LNG facilities under construction. Finally, I would say these are all small companies. They are not large, big oil companies.

One of the companies, the one that does have the one, the facility that's new and up and running and building a second one, not only that, what they have done is participated in coastal restoration projects and marsh preservation. So we know down in Louisiana that our beautiful marsh and wetlands can also be a working wetlands.

We also know that this creates great jobs. We also know there is a record of safety with the facility that's in the midst of a densely populated area.

I would ask my colleague, what's he going to say to his constituents in Massachusetts and the Northeast when heating oil prices are going to be exorbitant in this next winter? What is he going to do? What is he going to say?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

If I may reclaim my time. Why are they intent on abusing the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as a backdoor approach to block LNG? I don't understand that.

Clearly, these companies have been good corporate citizens, and they have worked to be good stewards of the environment. I will point out that one company, in addition to marsh restoration and preservation, also prepaid taxes in the State of Louisiana to build schools after Hurricane Rita.

This company also built the new health clinic in a small town that never had a health clinic before. These companies are good stewards. They show that environmental policy and energy policy can march hand- in-hand.

I don't understand the argument that the other side is making. They are just intent on blocking comprehensive energy policy, and I oppose the bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you.

I just want to point out that the gentleman has made an argument about population centers precluding the building of these facilities. That should not be a preclusion to building because there is a safety record, and these facilities can be done safely.

Will the gentleman yield?

That picture you just showed us is actually a very nice

site for an LNG facility, but I would point out that I think the Coast Guard considerations were about specifically a bridge. That's fine. If that's the problem, I understand that. Also, why abuse the act? Why abuse the act?

Madam Speaker, after 34 devoted years as president of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Dr. Ray Authement retired this month. A legend in higher education, he stood as the longest serving university president in the country. The significant changes to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and for the city of Lafayette demonstrate his invaluable service to the school and the greater community.

As the university's chief, Dr. Authement is credited with producing nationally recognized programs for computer science, Francophone studies, and environmental and biological research at UL Lafayette during his tenure. He supervised the construction of a significant portion of the campus, including Lafayette's Cajundome and convention center. And, most notably, he is responsible for raising the university's stature academically, spearheading higher enrollment requirements and recruiting highly qualified faculty and staff.

His vision and commitment for the school shaped lifetimes for the thousands of alumni, like myself, for which we are forever grateful.

Dr. Authement's vision for UL Lafayette first manifested itself as he pushed to develop a computer science program during the new technology's infancy. His leadership drove the university to create the first Master's program in the United States for computer science, defining a cutting-edge path for the university's future growth. The nationally recognized computer science program continues to maintain this distinction since the 1980s.

When Authement began his tenure in Lafayette, the school was officially known as the University of Southwestern Louisiana. Dr. Authement recognized the misperception by many of the institution as simply a regional school. Perspective students, potential employers and many across the State failed to consider the school as a top-tier university, and as a result, the school was unable to flourish fully.

After a protracted fight with the State legislature and other State leaders, Authement successfully changed the school's name to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette in 1999. Most importantly, the new name conveys the prominence of the university. In bonding the university to the city in the title, Authement highlighted the connection between Lafayette and the school.

Dr. Authement leaves the university a much better place. One of his final projects, the Capital Outlay program, which outlines construction and renovation for 5 years, enables UL Lafayette the opportunity to continue its growth. The plan increases the university's foundation endowment from $600,000 to $140 million. A chief component of the project's success was Authement's famed fiscal responsibility, which inspired enormous confidence that donations would be used wisely.

Enabling the success and achievements of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Dr. Authement developed and maintained an impressive reputation for the school. His dedication to improving Lafayette encouraged the city to greater heights. The legacy Dr. Authement leaves behind at UL Lafayette and in the community is everlasting as the students who carry the university's banner are attributable to his good work.

I wish he and his wife Barbara all the best as they begin a new chapter in their lives together, and I thank both of them for their commitment to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

My constituents in southwest Louisiana want solutions to the energy crisis.

On Monday, the Lake Charles American Press summed up what is needed in their editorial, something I have advocated for a long time.

They said, ``The energy campaign should include more exploration, more refining capacity, more alternative energy sources, more renewable energy, retirement of society's dependency on the internal combustion engine, and an increase in conservation.

``It should not be demagogued, for this is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It is a national issue that will require solutions, not insults hurled across the aisles of Congress and back and forth from Capitol Hill to the White House.

Those that feel the pain of higher energy prices and accompanying higher prices throughout the marketplace--the poor, those on fixed income, even the middle class--are being squeezed.''

Increasing responsible energy production is one part of the solution. We must accompany that with conservation, with greater refining capacity and, most importantly, with unleashing individual American genius.

A magic bullet will not lower the price at the pump for American families, but increasing American energy production responsibly will help, and it will create jobs here at home.

I thank my colleague for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, but I want to restate that it's a redundancy. It's a restatement of CFTC's authority, and it does urge them to

move forward with haste, which I believe that they are doing. We heard testimony just yesterday, and the chairman of the CFTC pointed out a couple things: One, they're taking the lead in creating this interagency process working with all of the other agencies, the Department of Treasury, the SEC and others to really take a hard look at this issue of speculation.

Secondly, they've moved forward with haste to come up with a mutual recognition agreement with London and other jurisdictions to broaden their reach so that they can find out and get more transparency and more information as to what is really happening in these markets. The energy markets are a very complicated issue. And the danger is that Congress will take steps before we have adequate information that could truly be detrimental.

I fear that this debate today is taking valuable floor time away from bills that would really make a difference in working on our energy issues. We need a long-term strategy, a mid-term, and a short-term strategy clearly. And dealing with the issue of speculation is part of a short-term strategy.

But we cannot get away from the fact that we have very tight supply and demand. It is about evenly matched. And when you have a million barrels a day offline because of terrorist activity in Nigeria, when you have Venezuela's production declining because of aged technology and mismanagement, when you have Mexican production declining because of mismanagement and contract problems, these are all issues that are further putting stress on supply.

Finally, I would point out on the supply side that we have a shortage of rig materials around the world, actually. China is dealing with pulling in all kinds of commodities and it is adding costs to this. We have a workforce shortage in this oil and gas industry. There are major factors all coming into the supply side of this that are a problem.

I think it's important to recognize these factors. What is driving uncertainty is clearly the lack of a confidence of energy policy, and this House can take action. There are bills ready. This House could clearly take action. We've got a number of bills, as my colleague, the ranking member of this committee, outlined earlier.

Furthermore, the London loophole, CFTC has taken steps with their mutual recognition agreement. The farm bill provisions take substantive steps to close the Enron loophole.

And finally, if we move prematurely to impose artificial standards and limits to trading, we could definitely hurt our transportation companies, our truckers, our farmers who hedge on these high energy prices.

Furthermore, we may drive transactions into less transparent markets such as Dubai and other markets. This also denies a threat that the low value of the dollar, and there is a threat globally that we could be seeing a move in energy transaction, too. A different currency, the euro. And this is a further issue.

So we need to move forward and not delay any further.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend, the ranking member, and I thank the committee.

I think this is a good bill. I rise in support of it, but I want to emphasize that this is really just a short-term relief in what we need to do. We have to do a whole lot more, and we could do a whole lot more.

This will provide short-term relief in public transit for those who use it, but short of a comprehensive policy that involves short-term solutions, mid-term and long-term, this isn't going to get us anywhere near to what we need to do to solve our energy problems.

I want to focus on one issue. I mean, clearly, we have to increase supply, and it can be done in an environmentally responsible way. We've shown that in my State of Louisiana.

We should lift this moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf, and that's one way that we can really move things forward quickly.

I would emphasize that, in the cumulative debate that's gone on today, there's been some misinformation because Louisiana delegations, in a bipartisan way over the years, over the last decade-and-a-half, have fought to open the Outer Continental Shelf and provide Outer Continental Shelf revenue-sharing so that the States could also get some of this revenue to rebuild their infrastructure. This is a sensible way. We have fought for this, and we've been blocked by the other side consistently in this.

I also want to point out with regard to the use-it-or-lose-it issue, it's very expensive, and companies cannot even get the permitting to assess with seismic what we know to be these reserves or what we think are reserves. We don't have definite information. A lot of that information is 10, 20, 30 years old, if we even have information.

I would say that it costs somewhere between $1 and $5 million just to get the permit to do seismic. Then you have to get the lease. That's another anywhere from $11 to over $200 million to secure these leases. Then you go into seismic, and that can be very expensive. And those cumulative costs continue to add. By the time you actually get to a point where you can drill

a well where you have known reserves, you're talking years down the line, and typically, it is not unusual for the costs to be up in billions, $1.5 billion.

That's why it's important to lift this moratorium. Let's move forward. Let's have a comprehensive energy policy that's not only focused on supply and increasing exploration and production in an environmentally sensitive way, but also focuses on renewables and alternatives, nuclear and the others.