Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, July 17, 2006, at 12:30 p.m., for morning hour debate.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and thank you for working with Members of Florida's Congressional delegation to try and address our concerns. The residents of Florida and much of the Nation are facing significant increases in energy costs--gas to electricity bills--due to the increases in global demand and our Nation's increasing reliance on foreign sources of energy. Yet for Florida, our beaches are important for tourism and it is important that we offer some protections along our coast. I believe the bill before us reaches a good balance. It offers good protections while enabling responsible exploration for natural gas and oil.

Mr. Chairman, if we in this body and as a Nation are really serious about energy independence and its related national security implications, we must allow greater drilling for natural gas and oil in our Outer Continental Shelf. To do otherwise is to deny reality and live in a dream world. This bill takes a significant step to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and natural gas.

Some have made baseless claims that allowing natural gas wells or oil wells within the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) will do little to address the energy costs in the United States. This claim simply is not based on sound economics. Over the past decade both in the state of Florida and across the Nation, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of natural gas for electric power generation. This switch was a quick and cost-effective way for power companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to a 2005 report from the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC), in 2003, 26 percent of Florida's electric power was generated using natural gas. By 2013, just 7 years from now, the FPSC projects that over 50 percent of Florida's electric power will be generated using natural gas. The U.S. already pays the highest price in the world for natural gas, and it will only rise further if we fail to tap our own natural gas resources along the OCS.

Yet today we are increasingly importing natural gas from not only Canada and Mexico, but Trinidad, Qatar, Nigeria, Oman, Egypt, and Algeria. This increasing reliance on natural gas from Middle Eastern or unstable countries will further threaten our Nation's economic vitality and energy independence. This is the wrong path, particularly when we have untapped natural gas along our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf.

The U.S. Department of Energy reports that the cost of natural gas for electric power generation increased 300 percent between 2000 and 2005. Absent a new, larger and reliable supply of reasonably priced natural gas, Florida residents--many of them senior citizens on fixed incomes--will face dramatic increases in monthly power bills over the next 7 years. Passage of the bill before, us will enable Florida to secure a long-term supply of natural gas and help keep power bills in check.

The bill before us allows drilling for oil and natural gas 100 miles or more offshore. Between 50 and 100 miles the state legislature is given 1 year to withdraw this area from natural gas wells and 3 years to withdraw this area from oil wells. The coastal areas between the shoreline out 50 miles are presumed to be under moratorium unless the state legislature specifically authorizes either natural gas wells or oil drilling within that area. The bill also provides for some revenue sharing with the states

that permit natural gas and oil recovery, allowing billions of dollars to be shared with the states to meet participating states' needs.

I trust the state legislature and the Governor of Florida to make the right decisions about our coastlines and potential natural gas and oil exploration. That is what this bill does. It ensures that the state elected officials . . .

Finally, to those, particularly in Florida who would say we should reject this legislation, I think it is important to consider the sizable shift in recent votes the House and Senate have had on the issue of off-shore drilling. When one considers the shift of 76 votes between the vote we held on this issue last year and the vote held last month, this bill before us today is likely the best deal Florida is going to get. A year ago, Senators Nelson and Martinez could muster only 44 votes in their attempt to strip off-shore drilling out of the energy bill. I'm sure that, as in the House, there is a growing consensus in the Senate to allow drilling in our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, including Florida's coast.

It is also important to note that there are currently areas off of Florida's East coast that have less protection than what is offered in this bill. Those areas will receive greater protection under this bill that they have under current law.

Finally, I would say that Cuba and China are proposing a joint venture to drill for gas of the northern coast of Cuba--45 miles from the Florida shoreline. To stand idly by and watch the Communist Cuban government and China drill within 45 miles of Florida's coast--perhaps extracting gas that is in U.S. territorial waters--is absurd.

Given the realities of our needs, the national security concerns associated with continued reliance on Middle Eastern oil and legislative realities, I believe it is important that we move forward with this bill today.

Let's vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the Bilirakis amendment. He is a good friend of mine. I do not agree with him on this issue.

I represent about 75 miles of coastline. We had no spills from Katrina and Rita. You cannot see an oil derrick beyond about 40 miles, and I think the language in the bill the chairman has put in there is very good. You have got 50 miles of protection, and then the State, if it wants to allow drilling 50 to 100 miles, it can.

Let us face it, gas is at $3 a gallon. Renewable energy resources are not there yet. I think we need to explore that.

Jeepers, I drive a hybrid vehicle. I drove up here just now in a hybrid vehicle. But we need fuel, and I think this is a very, very good bill, and I think the Bilirakis amendment goes too far. I would encourage all my colleagues, as somebody from Florida, vote ``no'' on the Bilirakis amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I, too, want to commend my good friend from Maryland for his standing up for this important issue. I represent a coastal area, and certainly I would be willing to work with him as we move forward through the conference process.

This is obviously a very devastating amendment to NASA. I think this amendment would seriously jeopardize the plan to complete the International Space Station and jeopardize our obligations to the international partners.

We have entered into agreements with the Japanese and the Europeans to pursue completion of the space station. Obviously, it would also seriously jeopardize our plan to phase out the space shuttle and replace it with a crew exploration vehicle.

We are going to be getting into a phase in the early part of the next decade where we will not have a man-rated vehicle, where the Chinese will, and they plan to put people on the Moon. NASA is clearly a priority for this administration. It has been a priority for this Congress for years.

This amendment would cause personnel reductions. It would cause slippages in schedule.

I would strongly encourage all of my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the gentleman from West Virginia would still seek to be recognized on this issue, but I would be very happy to yield time to my good friend from West Virginia on this very important topic.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to give you some specifics. This is a tight budget year, as we all know. And just to cite one of the accounts that this amendment would obviously devastate, we have already reduced the lunar precursor robotics program by $20 million. There is a $16 million reduction in the constellation systems, $115 million reduction in the exploration systems research technology.

Total reduction already in this bill, $151 million from the President's request; and, obviously, a huge cut like this would devastate it further. So I would recommend a ``no'' vote on the Gilchrest amendment. But I applaud the gentleman for his passion on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment increases and decreases the amount for the Department of Commerce's Departmental Management Account. There is no net effect on the funding level of the account.

I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. The committee accepts the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York to speak on this issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I actually want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for offering this amendment, because I think it is a good amendment for us to discuss.

There is actually very little in this bill that is devoted to the subject he is talking about. The vast majority of the funds go to the continued operation of the space station, the shuttle, and the development of a replacement vehicle, a safer, more reliable, less expensive vehicle for the shuttle.

There is some early money for exploration devoted to returning to the Moon sometime in the next 10 to 15 years, and there is a very small amount of money devoted to the subject of can we put men and women on Mars someday and hopefully do that in a fashion with other countries to help reduce the cost.

I think we should overwhelmingly vote ``no'' on this, and I will tell you why. This is the United States of America. We are a Nation of pioneers and explorers. When we left the Moon the last time for Apollo 17, I thought we would be on Mars in 10 years. I never would have imagined that 30 or 40 years later we are still debating the subject.

I believe we are destined to explore not just Mars but go on to other stars. It is in our nature as human beings. And for us to say, no, we don't want to do that; we can't afford it; we have too many other problems, I think would be a very unfortunate thing. It would be unfortunate for our kids, who we want to study math and science. And the teachers all tell me the same thing, there is nothing you can do to motivate them more to study math and science than to talk to them about manned space and exploring other planets.

So I have a tremendous amount of respect for the gentleman, but I think he is wrong on this one. I recognize there are costs associated with it, and we are fighting a war, and we have a deficit, but this is a small amount of money, and I think we do need to proceed.

So I would encourage a ``no'' vote on the Frank amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and it is not exactly correct to say this is just going to cut money from the Moon and Mars. We have a program underway to develop a safer, less expensive, more reliable vehicle than the space shuttle, and that is called the crew exploration vehicle. If this amendment goes through, it is going to delay that program; it is going to run up the costs, and it is going to create a situation where we are going to have no way to get men and women into space.

Now, this program, I agree, sounds like a worthwhile program, but frankly, when it got established, I had serious misgivings in the 1990s because I thought we were going to have a real serious problem finding the funding for it on into the future. It was originally sold as just a short-term thing, but as you would expect, people are going to come back.

This is really the Federal Government getting involved in a local issue, and I would say the decline in the crime rate in the United States was because of locking up repeat offenders and not because of the COPS program.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I want to join with others in commending him and the ranking member on producing a very good bill. There are a lot of important priorities in this legislation. We are funding critical agencies involved in the war on terror, the Department of Justice, the Department of State, as well as our critical problems with methamphetamine abuse and gangs.

But I want to particularly commend the chairman on his work in the NASA account. NASA continues to be a very, very important component of the fabric of our society. We are a Nation of explorers. It has become part of our culture. The heroics of the efforts of people involved in programs like Mercury and Gemini continue on to this day.

We are now in a critical phase where we are developing a new manned vehicle to replace our aging, venerable space shuttle fleet with the Crew Exploration Vehicle, with its planned

agenda to support operations of someday going back to the Moon and possibly on to Mars.

So I commend the chairman. This is a very important component in the account.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the H.R. 4890 legislation giving the President Line Item Veto authority.

As a cosponsor of H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, I believe it will provide more transparency and scrutiny in the funding process while reining in Federal spending. Currently, when Congress considers appropriations legislation we have the authority to closely scrutinize funding earmarks recommended by the President before deciding whether or not to fund them. The Line Item Veto legislation gives the President an opportunity to closely examine Congressional spending priorities and submit a proposal to Congress that would defund those items the President finds objectionable. The proposals by the President would be unamendable and would be subject to a simple up or down vote in the House and Senate.

While we have been working to restrain Federal spending, including voting to terminate over 95 Federal programs this year alone, this will be one more tool in the arsenal of fiscal discipline. It has the added benefit of keeping objectionable spending out of these bills in the first place as all Members of Congress would know that last minute items added to these bills will be subject to individual scrutiny through the Line Item Veto.

In 1996, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. This law allowed the President to veto specific spending provisions. However, on April 10, 1997, a Federal court ruled that this legislation was unconstitutional, arguing that the power of the purse must be under the control of Congress, not the President. I voted for this law because it granted the President the authority to strike funding while ensuring that Congress could override the President's line item veto with a \2/ 3\ vote. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that this did not leave spending decisions ultimately in the hands of Congress and struck down the law. Today's bill addresses this concern while ensuring Congress has the final say on the President's line item veto recommendations by means of a simple majority vote in the House and Senate.

It is my understanding that many Democrats are going to play politics this year, and not vote for passage of the Line Item Veto. What is particularly noteworthy is that in the 103rd Congress over 170 House Democrats voted for the line item veto.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

This is, I think, a very important debate, and I am glad we are having it. I think this is an absolutely terrible amendment. The question is really do you believe we are at war or not. The President has made it very clear. You have a known al Qaeda operative.

Let us go back to World War II. You have got a German or a Japanese agent, in Germany, in the south Pacific, speaking to various people, and we are listening in. Now, would the American people in World War II, if they began speaking to somebody in the United States or a known American citizen, want the listening device put down and go to a judge? That is what we are talking about.

He is in a cave, he is in Afghanistan, he is in Baghdad, he is talking. Let us talk about Israel, okay? Do you think the Mossad, if somebody is speaking from Jordan, and there are known terrorists operatives, and they are speaking to somebody in Israel, they want to put down the listening device and go in front of a judge? That is what we are talking about. Are we at war, or are we not at war? It is a known al Qaeda operative.

They are overseas, and suddenly they are talking to an American citizen, be it in the United States or elsewhere, and it is time to put down and stop listening and go find a judge and put together a brief and get a judge to review it? I believe we are at war, and they want to kill us. They want to kill our wives. They want to kill our children.

This is a good debate because this debate has been going on for months and months, and this is a horrible, horrible amendment because it ties one hand behind our back, and it should be defeated, and we should vote it soon and vote it down.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I understand that I want them to keep listening. I want the information, and this is what the debate is about. You want to stop. You want go to a judge. I do not think we should.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I understand it, what you all have laid out is not that easy to do basically; that you have to make a case in front of a judge, and if it is a known al Qaeda operative, I think we should be listening to all of their conversations.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think they should be able to do that. If you have a known al Qaeda operative, we should be listening to all their conversations. We should be listening to all conversations from all al Qaeda operatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, the President's plan, and our troops.

In recent days U.S. and Iraqi forces have dealt terrorists in Iraq a decisive blow. The brutal leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu al Zarqawi, responsible for untold deaths and inciting widespread unrest has met his end, and none too soon, thanks, mainly to our troops, courageous men and women in the field who got the job done.

And let us not forget, Ramzi Yousef, the man who plotted and attempted the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center that could have led then to tens of thousands of deaths, was an Iraqi intelligence agent.

And let us remember the great accomplishments of our troops in the field. For too long U.S. news media has focused only on the negative and has chosen only to report bad stories, stories of terrorist attacks. Indeed, for every story that reports heroism and accomplishment of our troops in the field, our American news media focuses 9 or 10 stories on terrorist attacks and the failings of our military. Where our military can accomplish great things over and over again, the American news media ignores it and instead looks for a negative story to report.

Well, I want to report on one good story, a great story that shows that we are getting the job done and the Iraqi people are with us. And indeed, this

was reported by our news media. 60 Minutes in March reported about our efforts in a town called Tal Afar. In 2005, al Qaeda ran the town of Tal Afar in Iraq. It is a great example of how our U.S. troops can get the job done. Prior to the U.S. victory there, al Qaeda had unleashed a reign of terror on Iraqis that defies adequate description. Decapitated heads were left in the streets to intimidate residents. Decapitated children were often left in the streets by terrorists to bait their parents to come in so they could kill them. Terrorists roamed the streets, kidnapping and publicly executing people.

For 3 days in 2005, U.S. troops led the successful assault on Tal Afar to liberate innocent men, women and children from their terrorist captors. Thanks to our brave soldiers, schools in Tal Afar are now open. And once terrified Iraqi citizens are now able to shop, travel the streets openly, go outside their homes.

And as 60 Minutes noted, some of our American soldiers involved in the liberation of that town now have throngs of Iraqi children follow them admiringly in the streets.

Mr. Speaker, Tal Afar is just one example of the great job we are doing there. There are many, many more. We need to stay the course, not cut and run.

I support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the life and service of Jason Keith Burnett, a lance corporal with the United States Marine Corps--who lost his life in Iraq while conducting combat operations on May 11, 2006 in the Al Anbar Province.

Burnett drowned with three other Marines when their tank plunged off a bridge during a combat patrol. The others killed in the accident were Lance Corporal David J. Grames Sanchez of Fort Wayne, Indiana, 2nd Lt. Michael L. Licaizi of Garden City, New York and Corporal Steve Vahaviolos of Airmont, New York.

At the time of his death, Lance Corporal Burnett was a member of Company A, 2nd Tank Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

His parents, Ronald and Michele Burnett and his brother, Ryan, a Marine stationed in Hawaii, survive him. Several hundred people attended the funeral at First Baptist Church of Poinciana on May 25, 2006 to honor our fallen hero.

He served his country honorably--with courage, inspiring initiative and distinction.

A devoted Marine and true patriot, it has been said of Lance Corporal Burnett that he knew how to make people laugh and he knew when it was time to be serious--either by helping the poor through his church or playing soccer.

He will be long remembered for his love of outdoors, his successful mission trips with his church and his ultimate sacrifice for his country. We've lost another great American. We will all miss him. Jason Burnett is a true hero. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Brigadier General Mark H. Owen, Commander of the 45th Space Wing in Florida and Deputy Department of Defense Manager for Manned Space Flight Support to NASA. I congratulate him on his new assignment as Deputy Director, Strategic Security, Deputy Chief of Staff, Air, Space and Information Operations, Plans and Requirements, Headquarters United States Air Force, Pentagon, Washington, DC.

For the past 2 years, Brigadier General Owen has served as the Director of the Eastern Range, responsible for the safe and secure access to space of America's manned and unmanned space vehicles.

During this time, he was responsible for the processing and launch of U.S. Government and commercial satellites from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

The Eastern Range encompasses a 15 million square mile area, that includes a network of radar, telemetry tracking and telecommunication hardware operating at sites up the East Coast and in the Atlantic Ocean including detachments at Antigua Air Station and Ascension Island.

General Owen earned his commission upon graduation from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1979. To date, he has received seven promotions and served in a variety of space and missile assignments involving missile combat crew operations, satellite command and control, space lift and test range operations and major space systems acquisitions.

During the early years of his service, his assignments included the Phillips Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico; the Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles Air Force Base, California; the National Reconnaissance Office and the Office for the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition in Washington, D.C.

General Owen has also served in staff positions at Headquarters Air Force Space Command and in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space, as well as the Office of Secretary of the Air Force.

His command experience includes leading a squadron in Colorado and California, and serving as commander of the 91st Space Wing, Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota and the 45th Space Wing, Florida.

Brigadier General Owen's education accomplishments include two undergraduate degrees, one in biology/pre-med from the U.S. Air Force Academy and the other in electrical engineering from the University of New Mexico. He earned two Master degrees, one in systems management from the University of Southern California and the other in national security strategy from the National Defense University, National War College. Other education accomplishments include Squadron Officer School, Marine Corps Command and Staff from the Marine Corps Institute, Defense Systems Management College, Program Management, distinguished graduate from Air Command and Staff College and National Security Management Fellow from Syracuse University.

Brigadier General Owen's awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, Meritorious Service Medal with three oak clusters, Air Force Commendation Medal, Air Force Achievement Medal with oak leaf cluster, Combat Readiness Medal, and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.

I am honored to rise in support of General Owen's service to our Nation and I am proud of his commitment to the cause of liberty and freedom. I wish him every success as he continues to serve this great Nation in the United States Air Force.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act, H.R. 5429. When Congress put a similar bill on then-President Clinton's desk in 1996, he vetoed that bill arguing it wasn't needed because if we opened up ANWR for oil and gas development, it would take 10 years for oil and gas to start flowing to Americans from ANWR. Today it is 2006--10 years after President Clinton's veto and 10 years of Senate filibusters. American consumers could certainly benefit today from the 1 million barrels per day that would be flowing from ANWR had we moved forward with oil and gas development in ANWR in 1996.

Oil and gas prices continue to rise and our dependence upon foreign sources of oil is at an all time high. If we are really serious and realistic about economic and national security, we must approve this bill and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.

Contrary to the many myths that have clouded this debate over the years, we have the technology and know-how to safely produce energy in ANWR with minimal intrusion into the surrounding environment. Safe and successful oil drilling on wildlife refuges is not idle speculation. We know it's possible because we have done it time and time again. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Government Accountability Office, over 30 refuges currently have oil and gas wells on them without incident. Since the 1970s, for instance, there's been drilling in Prudhoe Bay--just 80 miles east of ANWR. Porcupine Caribou herds and other wildlife still roam freely there and in numbers greater than before there was drilling in the area. And it's important to note that the technology involved in ANWR drilling will far surpass what has been successfully used in the past.

Since oil and gas can be safely produced in ANWR, we must ask ourselves why we continue to ignore an easily accessible source of energy even as the price for oil hovers near $60 a barrel, American consumers are paying $3 a gallon for gasoline, and the increasing costs of natural gas is driving electric utility bills significantly higher each year.

This is particularly concerning given our growing dependence upon foreign sources of oil from countries and regions that are increasingly volatile. In 1982, the U.S. imported 32 percent of its oil. Today, that figure has grown to 56 percent. Unless we expand domestic production, estimates indicate that by 2020 upwards of 65 percent of U.S. oil will come from foreign countries. It is irresponsible to stand idly by and allow the next generation of Americans be so subjected to the whims of foreign governments.

Some have said that the amount of oil we might get from ANWR isn't enough to significantly impact our energy supply. Such assertions are baseless and fly in the face of the facts. ANWR's coastal plain is the single greatest onshore prospect for future oil and could increase our domestic production by 20 percent in years ahead. Moreover, recent estimates indicate that ANWR could safely provide one million barrels of oil per day--that's roughly the daily number of barrels the U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia. To put this in perspective, oil from ANWR could fuel my home state of Florida--the 3rd most populous state--for 29 years. In short, ANWR's potential impact on our future energy supply is not insignificant, and could provide valuable oil supplies even as we continue to move forward developing alternatives sources of energy.

Opening ANWR is at least 10 years over due and it is a common sense approach to help meet our growing energy needs. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns about both the underlying Peterson amendment that was adopted in the committee and the amendment offered by my colleague from Florida. I voted against the Peterson amendment when it was offered in committee because it fails to include the 100-mile buffer along Florida's coast that I believe is important to ensuring that we can adequately protect Florida's shoreline. I am not opposed to the drilling for natural gas, provided we have a 100-mile buffer to protect Florida's coast.

I want it to be very clear what I support and that is: a policy that allows for natural gas wells 100 miles or more off the coast of Florida.

The amendment before us, offered by my Florida colleague, however would ban natural gas wells not only along the Florida coast, but also along southern, central and northern California; Washington; Oregon; and the North Atlantic. It would not permit natural gas wells located 100 miles or more off the coast of Florida, and for that reason I will not support it.

There is some confusion that must be cleared up. No one here today is proposing that we allow natural gas wells within 3 miles of the Florida coast. In the event that the underlying bill before us is approved today the Presidential moratorium remains in place protecting Florida, and President Bush has pledged to ensure that Florida is permitted to maintain at least a 100-mile protective buffer. Moreover should the Presidential moratorium be removed, the Congress must enact legislation directing the Department of Interior on where to permit Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases. This is not a one step process.

Some have suggested that allowing natural gas wells will do little to address the energy costs in the United States. This claim simply is not based on sound economics. As many of my colleagues know, over the past decade there has been a dramatic increase in the use of natural gas to produce electricity. Switching to natural gas for electric power generation has been a very quick and cost effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According a 2005 report from the Florida Public Service Commission, in 2003, 26 percent of Florida's electric power was generated using natural gas. By 2013, just seven years from now, the FPSC projects that over 50 percent of Florida's electric power will be generated using natural gas. Clearly, Florida is increasingly relying on natural gas to meet our everyday energy needs and ensuring a longer-term affordable supply of natural gas will help keep Florida consumer's power bills affordable.

When you consider this growing reliance on clean burning natural gas along with price increases we have seen, it is clear that Florida consumers will continue to pay higher costs for electricity if we don't address natural gas supply concerns. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the costs of natural gas for electric power generation increased 300 percent between 2000 and 2005.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to support ensure that Florida has an adequate protective buffer while looking to meet our long-term clean energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. For several years now, I have been supporting hydrogen research efforts at Kennedy Space Center and at the Florida Institute of Technology. We are making progress, but still have a long way to go if we are to utilize hydrogen as a common source of energy.

The H-Prize Act of 2006, which will advance the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of hydrogen energy technologies, is a critical initiative in our national efforts to make hydrogen a viable energy alternative.

Hydrogen is a very promising source of energy that is both renewable and environmentally friendly. Most importantly, it is also an energy source that can be generated domestically without relying on imported energy products from unstable regions of the world.

I fully support the format for this initiative, which will award prizes based on the technologies developed. The prize format will save American taxpayers money as compared to the standard funding of research and development programs. Also, The cost to the American taxpayer from the H-Prize program is very minimal as compared to the returns that could be realized through a domestically renewable energy source.

By delivering feasible technologies in the areas of hydrogen production, storage, distribution, and utilization, the H-Prize program will solve the most problematic issues in making hydrogen a workable solution. In addition, the H-Prize program will advance the crucial efforts to develop prototypes of hydrogen-powered vehicles and, eventually, production vehicles.

Taken together, the technological advancements born out of the H- Prize program will deliver transformational changes to our energy and transportation sectors. Creative initiatives like the H-Prize will help us move toward energy independence.