Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 925) to designate Mt. Andrea Lawrence.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

S. 925 will designate an unnamed mountain near Yosemite National Park in California as Mt. Andrea Lawrence in honor of the late Olympic skier and local community leader in that area.

Similar legislation passed the House by voice vote in the last Congress, legislation which was not taken up in the other body. I, once again, urge my colleagues to support this simple bill. Its companion measure in the House, I might add, is authored by our colleague from California (Mr. McKeon).

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 6364 would authorize the World War I Memorial Foundation to create a commemorative work on federal land in the District of Columbia. From 1914 to 1918, World War I took 116,516 American lives. However, despite the existence of memorials to the fallen of World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War on the National Mall, a national WWI memorial has never been authorized.

The author of this legislation, Mr. Poe, has worked for many years to construct a proposal that adequately recognizes Americans who served in the Great War and addresses the concerns of a multitude of stakeholders.

This proposal is modest, will have a minimal footprint, and expressly prohibits federal funds. The memorial needs a specific exemption from current law to be permitted on the National Mall. This is not something this Congress should take lightly. The Natural Resources Committee held two hearings on this specific memorial and another hearing on the overall future of the National Mall to better understand the short-term and long-term implications of granting this authorization.

As with other commemorative works, the World War I Memorial will pass through a rigorous, public approval process which may place it on the National Mall. However, it is not the intention to undermine the current prohibition under the Commemorative Works Act, but instead close the book on the collection of war memorials and proceed with a careful examination of what the future holds for the mall.

To reiterate, approval of this legislation is not a signal that the Mall should be opened up for construction. The existing prohibition has served us well for the last decade and will serve us in the future. With this authorization we will raise the bar higher, even beyond the standard of the Great War.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And let me be the first here in this post session of Congress to say that this is the last session that our senior colleague from Washington (Mr. Dicks) will be serving, and he will be certainly missed. And I want to be the first to say that we will miss you here in this body.

But when somebody leaves, somebody new comes in, albeit not the same district. Suzan, I want to welcome you to the Washington caucus. While we're a diverse State, as you well know, we have found that on issues we agree on, we work very, very well together, and we look forward to working with you.

And I know that this is not your first run here, so I'll congratulate you more on the second run than the first run. Welcome to the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2013 National Principal of the Year, Principal Trevor Greene, from Toppenish High School in my Congressional District. Principal Greene is an outstanding school administrator and I am grateful for his leadership and dedication to the students and faculty at Toppenish High School.

Four years ago, Principal Greene returned to the Yakima Indian Reservation, where he grew up, to serve as principal at Toppenish High. Once an underperforming school, Toppenish High has become a top performing institution whose successful model is followed by other schools in the region, thanks to the hard work of the staff under his leadership.

Principal Greene energized Toppenish students and helped them gain the confidence needed to work harder and dream bigger. By implementing a rigorous science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, education program and expanding academic opportunities to his students, test scores have improved by 67 percent and graduation rates are over 90 percent.

At a time when the United States is falling behind in science and math, the Toppenish High STEM program continues to increase in popularity among students, with enrollment jumping by more than 100 students in just one school year. Students are receiving a high quality education and graduating with the resources and tools they need to succeed in college and beyond.

Each year, MetLife Resources along with the National Association of Secondary School Principals Association, NASSP, selects one highly deserving principal from a pool of more than 100 middle and high school principals nationwide. These individuals, who have been nominated by their state, are highly successful at providing top-quality learning opportunities for students and have demonstrated commendable contributions to the profession.

I am pleased that as a result of Principal Greene's selection as National Principal of the Year, Toppenish High School will receive a $5,000 school improvement grant from the Metlife Resources/NASSP National Principal of the Year program.

We need more people like Principal Greene working to make a difference in our schools. I applaud his dedication to the students and faculty at Toppenish High School.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3409.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, in his 2008 campaign, President Obama plainly declared the policies he supports would bankrupt American coal production. Since taking office, the Obama administration has waged a multi-front war on coal, on coal jobs, on the small businesses in the mining supply chain, and on the low cost energy that millions of Americans rely on.

Mr. Chairman, amazingly the Obama administration has repeatedly tried to deny that they've launched a war on coal, yet the facts are stubborn things. Just this week, Alpha Natural Resources announced the closure of 8 coal mines that will cost over 1,200 good-paying jobs. Aggressive regulations were specifically cited by the company for the closure of these mines.

New regulations opposed by the Obama EPA threaten to shut down the Navajo Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant in Arizona. This would cost hundreds of jobs and eliminate millions of dollars in revenue for Navajo tribal economic development, education, and basic services.

These lost jobs aren't random events. They are the direct result of the policies and actions of the Obama administration. These are the outcomes of their regulatory war on coal.

For more than a year and a half, the Natural Resources Committee has been aggressively investigating one of the Obama administration's most covert but outrageous fronts in this war--a decision by the Interior Department to rapidly rewrite a regulation governing coal mining near streams.

Within days of taking office, the Obama administration simply threw out the Stream Buffer Zone Rule that had undergone 5 years of environmental analysis and public review. They used a short-circuited process to hire a contractor to write this new regulation. When the news media revealed the official analysis of this rewrite and of the new Obama regulation showing that it would cost 7,000 jobs and cause economic harm in 22 States, the administration fired the contractor and continued to charged ahead.

To date, the committee's investigation has exposed gross mismanagement of the rulemaking process, potential political interference, and the widespread economic harm this regulation would cause. The Interior Department refuses to comply with congressional subpoenas to produce documents and information that would fully reveal how and why this regulation was being rewritten. An interim report by the committee was issued today that details the specific findings and information uncovered in this investigation. The report is available at the committee's Web site at naturalresources .house.gov.

Mr. Chairman, it's not a matter of if the new Obama regulation will be imposed, but when. Television cameras overheard President Obama whispering to the Russian Prime Minister that he will have more flexibility after the election. It doesn't take a canary in the coal mine--no pun intended--to figure out the Interior Department's new Stream Buffer Zone regulation on coal is being held back and concealed until after the November election, which is when this President would have more flexibility to unleash its job-destroying impacts.

That's why Congress must act now to stop this. This new regulation must be halted. Title I of today's bill, the Stop the War on Coal Act, is authored by our colleague from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), and it prohibits the Obama administration from issuing this new regulation. It allows time to responsibly undertake an open, transparent rulemaking that fairly accounts for job and economic impacts.

President Obama's war on coal is real. The lost jobs are already happening, and thousands more are at risk. Americans' energy costs are already too high, and the war on coal will drive them even higher. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and from all regions in the country to support this bill and to stop these red tape attacks on American jobs and on American-made energy.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

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

I would be more than happy to yield 3 minutes to the author of the legislation that is encompassed in title I of this bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield myself the balance of my time, and I will do my best to capsulize.

Mr. Chairman, it was the President, when he was a candidate, that said that his policies, if enacted, would cost coal jobs.

For nearly 4 years we have seen evidence of that, and the latest example of that was when Alpha Coal Company laid off 1,200 people, citing the regulations that the President said he would promulgate. This is a good bill. I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of title I of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I'd advise my friend from Massachusetts that we're prepared to close if he is prepared to close on his side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the author of title I, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I think it adds a great deal to this legislation. Too often, we overlook common sense, and that's precisely what the gentleman's amendment does, so I support his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5987) to establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5987 is a bipartisan bill authored by me that will establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. Mr. Speaker, there is a like bill, a bipartisan bill, also pending in the Senate.

The park will encompass three locations that were integral to the tremendous engineering and human achievements of the Manhattan Project. The three locations are the Hanford site in my home State of Washington, Los Alamos in New Mexico, and Oak Ridge in Tennessee.

The vast majority of the facilities that are eligible to be included in this park are already owned by the Federal Government, and they are located on lands owned and controlled by the Department of Energy.

Our Nation already possesses these pieces of history, and the real purpose of this bill is to officially declare the importance of preserving the history, providing access to the public, and include the unique abilities of the Park Service to help tell this story.

Currently, some of these facilities slated for inclusion in this park are scheduled to be destroyed at considerable taxpayer expense. A great many local community leaders in all three States and interested citizens have worked to coordinate a commitment to preserving this piece of our history. Additionally, the government will save millions of dollars from foregone destruction, as opposed to the minimal cost of providing public access and park administration.

In recognition of the important contributions to the Manhattan Project by the men and women at sites across the country, the bill contains a provision allowing communities like Dayton, Ohio, for example, outside the historical park, to receive technical assistance and support from the Department of the Interior as they seek to preserve and manage their own Manhattan Project park resources.

This is a good piece of legislation, and it is part of our history, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Ohio I have no more requests for time, and I am prepared to yield back if he is prepared to yield back.

I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield back his time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is really not as complicated as my good friend from Ohio tries to make it appear to be.

Now, I recognize, and we've had conversations on this when the bill was introduced, and I respect his opinion, but I respectfully disagree with his opinion and his arguments. There is nothing wrong with that. After all, we're Americans, and we can do that in America.

But I want to, and with the gentleman, what I heard him saying was dealing in what if and what would be an ideal world. Well, we'd all like to have an ideal world. But let's talk about reality at that time.

We were forced into the Second World War. Germany, of course, had started, some can say, started that war with their blitzkrieg on September 1, 1939, into Poland. You could say it may have started when Japan started expanding where they were going in the Pacific, and certainly when they attacked us on December 7, 1941.

Whether we liked it or not, we were in a war for survival. There is no question about that. That is simply the facts.

In the process of carrying out that war, and by the way, Mr. Speaker, let me say that war is absolutely unpredictable, but because if you're logically thinking about war, if it were predictable, it wouldn't have happened in the first place. But the very nature of war is unpredictable.

So we didn't know where we were, but we had heard that Nazi Germany was developing an atomic weapon. Now, they had been building a military machine long before because we were caught a bit off guard in the Second World War. We were not a warring Nation. So we had to use whatever technology we had in order to defend our freedoms. One way that was decided was to build an atomic weapon if we had to use that atomic weapon.

What this bill purports to do is nothing more than to talk about the ingenuity of the American people to develop this weapon when the nuclear industry was relatively in its infancy, and did it in such a short time frame. That is something that we ought to put into our history books because we do put past battles in our history books.

Just earlier this week was the 150th anniversary of Antietam, right up the road here in Sharpsburg, Maryland--the largest single-day casualty in American history at that time. Yet we memorialize the battlefield because it helped preserve our Union and get our Union back together.

So I think it's right that we look at these from that perspective.

Now, I can only imagine how difficult a decision it was for President Truman shortly after President Roosevelt had died to make this decision; but he made it because in his judgment, given the information he had, it would probably save more lives than it would cost by dropping a bomb. That was the judgment he made.

Let me speak just a little bit about, again, the ingenuity and the technology of what happened, and I can only speak about my area, Hanford, and about, specifically, about the B Reactor.

This is the first nuclear reactor that was built in this country; and from start to finish, it was built in less than a year. The technology at that point wasn't even proven. Yet when they started the B Reactor and went ``hot,'' as they said, it obviously did what it was supposed to do. It was a tremendous scientific achievement.

To open this up to the public and open this up to school children to see what we can do and what we did in this country to protect the freedoms and liberty we have, I think is worth preserving.

Again, all this does is take those three main sites that largely are already owned by the government, transfer them to the National Park Service, and show them to the public so we can learn and remember what happened during that time.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I've been down on this floor many times criticizing the Obama administration. But the Obama administration, through Secretary Salazar and the Department of the Interior, is in favor of legislation establishing precisely what this bill and the Senate bill hope to do.

So while I have differences with them, I certainly congratulate them for recognizing how important this legislation is.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5544.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act.

This bill will rectify a decades-old injustice that was imposed by Congress during the Carter administration to ensure that funding for schools and education in Minnesota is carried on.

When Minnesota became a State, it received certain parcels of land from the Federal Government set aside to help fund education. These lands, known as school trust lands, were specifically established to provide funding for Minnesota public schools. Responsible timber management, mineral development, and other economic uses of these lands would generate the revenue that would benefit every child in the State.

However, in 1978, Congress designated the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and a portion of these trust lands became trapped inside the wilderness area and inaccessible, therefore, for economic development. This caused a decline in funding, then, for local schools.

H.R. 5544 would implement a bipartisan plan that was passed by the Minnesota State Legislature and signed by Democrat Governor Dayton to authorize a no-cost land exchange. It would allow Minnesota school trust lands, locked away within the Federal wilderness area, to be exchanged for Federal land from the multiple-use Superior National Forest. State forest lands would be fairly exchanged for Federal forest lands.

But typical of the attitude held by many Democrats that spending more of taxpayers' money will solve the problem, the critics of this bill have suggested that the Federal Government should simply buy these inaccessible trust lands at a potential cost of tens of millions of dollars. This is at the same time when the Federal Government has had more than a $1 trillion budget deficit for the last 4 years under this President.

However, the much-needed solution in this bill would consolidate State-held lands within the wilderness area and allow the State of Minnesota to access and develop new trust lands from the Superior National Forest. This will benefit State schools at no cost to the Federal taxpayers, with the additional benefit of job creation and economic development.

Let me elaborate on that, Mr. Chairman. It has been shown time and again that States are far more effective managing lands for sustainable use and revenue generation than the Federal Government. For example, in my home State of Washington, they have been able to produce more than a thousand times the revenue for education on 2.2 million acres of State trust land, as opposed to the U.S. Forest Service, which is able to generate only four times that amount, 9 million acres. In other words, regenerate a thousand-percent revenue on one-fourth of the land because it's administered by the State. I think the same principle can apply to Minnesota.

Putting these State lands back to productive use for education will increase funding for schools across the State, while at the same time creating new opportunities for job creation and economic growth.

This bill is more than a land exchange. It's about keeping a promise when Minnesota became a State. It's about correcting the 34-year consequences of Federal action that restricted access to this vital asset. It's about ensuring that children and schools have the funding that they deserve and were promised. So I urge support of this bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 8 minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, somebody who has worked extremely hard on behalf of his constituents to correct the injustice that was imposed in 1978, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this legislation, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I'd advise my friend that I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, I'll just advise my friend that I am prepared to close if he will yield back.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am sitting here absolutely amazed by the debate on this issue. This is really very, very simple.

In 1978, there was no Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, so there were trust lands in that part of Minnesota that were generating revenue for public schools in Minnesota. So in 1978, Congress passed the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and they took that land out of trust. So that means there is a deficiency in trust lands for Minnesota schools. This legislation simply seeks to correct that, nothing more than that. Nothing more than that.

So, in fact, here's another way to put it, Mr. Chairman. If the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness had not been passed, we wouldn't be here today because you would have those trust lands generating revenue. But because it included that area, we are here today.

Now, I heard my good friend from St. Paul talking about the transparency and everybody should be involved in decisionmaking. What happened in 1978 when this 86,000 acres was taken out of trust?

Where was the transparency?

Where was the goodwill that was coming from the Federal Government to the citizens of Minnesota at that time? It apparently wasn't there.

Now, I know the Forest Service can make those adjustments. They don't need an act of Congress to do it; but, Mr. Chairman, it's been 34 years. Don't you think, after 34 years, if the ability were there that it would be done if there was a will on both sides to do so?

Apparently, there might have been a will on both sides, but there are others that were involved that said, no, let's slow the process down. So the Minnesota Legislature said, let's get this thing going, and they passed the legislation, and this simply carries out the act of the legislature that was signed by the Governor. And it's really nothing more than that.

I'm absolutely amazed by the detail that goes on because what comes out of all of this debate, from my point of view which, ironically, comes from Members that represent Minnesota, is they don't trust Minnesotans to make the right decisions as to what part of that national forest would be used for trust lands. I find that mind- boggling.

I think the gentleman from northern Minnesota is doing right by his constituents with this legislation to correct what has happened 34 years ago.

So this is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman. I urge it's adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentlelady's concern for Native Americans. As a matter of fact, I will simply say that's one of the reasons when I became chairman of Natural Resources Committee that we had a subcommittee dealing with their issues because I think they were being neglected in the past, and so I share that concern.

But this amendment, honestly, is really not necessary. And I have to say this, Mr. Chairman. At this very last minute here, as we're debating this on the floor, it raises an issue that has not previously been raised.

Let me just go back to the history of this legislation. This issue was not raised at any point during the subcommittee hearing or the full committee markup of this legislation, nor was this issue mentioned in the dissenting views that were filed by the minority in their bill report, nor was this issue raised by the gentlelady from Minnesota's detailed letter opposing this bill that was dated on July 24. So I don't know why it's coming up now when it was not previously raised in the legislative process.

But, Mr. Chairman, I can state very clearly that the Federal Government has a duty to uphold treaty obligations and trust responsibilities to Indian tribes. These will be upheld, and they are not changed by this bill.

There are inherent obligations that the Federal Government has to Indian tribes, and they need to be respected.

This amendment is not necessary and, as written, may potentially raise complex questions about whether the amendment itself would alter the treaty obligations of the Chippewa. The original treaty with the Chippewa of 1854 referred specifically to fishing and hunting rights. This amendment would add the phrase ``gathering'' to those rights, without any definition of scope of what that means.

Lastly, I will credit the Members, the gentlelady who's sponsoring this legislation, she said last night in the Rules Committee and here just a moment ago that, notwithstanding whether this amendment would pass or not, she would be opposing the bill. I take her at her word on that. But this is a last-minute issue that had not been raised.

It's not necessary for us to respect and uphold the rights of tribes, and I think it's being offered by somebody, as was stated, who is just simply opposed to the bill.

So for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I understand the gentlelady has yielded back. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would undermine the purposes of the bill by allowing a Cabinet Secretary or even a low-level Federal bureaucrat the authority to override an act of Congress and delay this land exchange.

Let's be specific. This bill directs a land exchange of State lands for Federal forest lands. The simple result of the exchange will be that the boundaries would be State rather than Federal. The management of the lands exchanged in Minnesota will continue to be responsibly managed under State law.

Now, Mr. Chairman, under the U.S. Constitution, it is the legislative branch of government that writes our Nation's laws. It is the responsibility of the executive branch to execute the laws written by Congress. This amendment would result in giving the executive branch the ability to undermine or ignore written law. This land exchange would be subjected to years of costly red tape and bureaucratic foot- dragging. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, that has been going on for 34 years. That's why we are here today.

The priority of the gentleman from Minnesota's bill is the schoolchildren of Minnesota, but it seems the priority of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey is more Federal red tape to protect Federal bureaucracy and more lawsuits. So I urge the defeat of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I hear the crocodile tears for no NEPA in this process. I just remind my colleagues that when this area was designated wilderness, NEPA was not involved.

Once the land trade is made, it is subject to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. There is a process in which this will be carried out.

I don't support the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary, and it would allow the Federal bureaucracy an automatic excuse to stop implementation of this bill when it becomes law. It would provide the Forest Service with vague authorities to simply delay or outright block an act of Congress.

Does that sound familiar?

While presented as property rights protection, the plain fact is that this bill only involves the exchange of lands between State lands and State forestlands. So I want to be very clear that not one square inch of private property is included in this exchange. Again, this is only State and Federal lands.

I have to say, Mr. Chairman, on my committee, a lot of our discussion on a variety of issues talks about private property rights. When we have debate on that and when we have votes on amendments on those issues, I find it rather ironic that the party of the gentleman that is offering this amendment always tends to vote against those amendments that protect private property rights.

Once again, the net result of this amendment would be to give the Federal bureaucracy the ability to slow down carrying out this act.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I only have one other speaker and we have the right to close, if the gentleman wants to use his time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield the balance of my time to the author of this legislation, Mr. Cravaack of Minnesota.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to ensure a fair exchange of lands on States in Federal areas, and there are protections that were put specifically in the bill. Of course, the big protection is that the Secretary of Agriculture, who is a Federal representative in this process, has to agree. So, I mean, you have got one party, two parties that have to agree, and one of them is Federal. Now what could be more protection than that.

Now, let me go back just a minute. We seem to have to talk about the history of this.

The valuation of the land in 1978, when this wilderness area was developed--I wasn't here, nobody here on the floor that's debating this was here at that time; but I doubt if there was a valuation given to Minnesota at that time, and now they want to come back and say, okay, we have to have a precise valuation on the Federal level.

Come on. This corrects something that was not done in 1978. This amendment simply slows down the process, which I might add, Mr. Chairman, that seems to be what the process is with all four amendments that were taken up to date, slow down the process. Thirty-four years, isn't that long enough?

This is not a good amendment. I urge rejection of it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Do I understand the time on the other side has expired?

Does the gentleman from Arizona still have time?

That is what I was trying to get to.

I am very pleased to yield the balance of my time, again, to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, apparently the author of the motion to recommit did not read the underlying bill because what he seeks to do is say you can't exchange land that is open to essentially multiple use, recreational activities. On section 2 of page 5, very specifically in the bill, it says that these activities shall be allowed.

I don't know exactly what point the gentleman is trying to make by offering this motion to recommit, unless it is a political statement of some sort. Even if it's a political statement, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it falls short in that regard.

Why do I say that? Because last spring, specifically on April 17, we had a bill that this body considered on the floor, H.R. 4089, authored by our colleague from Michigan, Mr. Benishek, called the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012. The essence of that bill was to allow hunting and recreation on Federal lands, and yet the author of the motion to recommit is coming down here saying we should have multiple use on this forest, but he voted against the bill, H.R. 4089, this spring.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the crocodile tears I hear or see from the other side is overwhelming to me. This motion to recommit ought to be defeated. The land exchange that is authored by our colleague from Minnesota rights a wrong that was wrongly made 34 years ago.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3397) to modify the Forest Service Recreation Residence Program by implementing a simple, equitable, and predictable procedure for determining cabin user fees, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Cabin Fee Act, which I have sponsored for several Congresses, sets a new fee schedule for the 14,000 privately owned cabins in our national forests. It creates a simple, straightforward, and predictable fee schedule that is fair to cabin owners, the Forest Service, and the American taxpayer.

H.R. 3397 would replace the current complex and unfair payment system by assigning cabin fees to tiers based on the cabin lot's appraised value. The fees would rise with inflation, but otherwise would be a fixed fee. This means that families would no longer face sudden, unexpected jumps to unaffordable levels, and the maximum fees are kept from going above $5,000 a year.

As considered on the House floor today, the Cabin Fee Act is revenue neutral. The CBO score is zero.

Many of the private cabins on Forest Service land are simple, rustic structures hand-built by the grandparents of current owners early in the last century and passed down from generation to generation. The overwhelming majority of these cabins are modest family retreats.

The purpose of this bill is to keep the fees affordable for people such as teachers, factory workers, and retirees, and not just millionaires, which is what would result if we do not make the change in the law.

The cabin owners affected by this bill are charged an annual fee for the use of their land on which their cabin sits. They do not get any ownership rights to the land. They have only a temporary and highly restricted use permit for basically the footprint of their cabin.

Because a limited use permit is not comparable to the rights acquired when somebody owns property in fee simple, it has proven impossible under current law to establish a fair basis for setting the fees charged to the cabin owners. The current system has resulted in unrealistic, arbitrary fee hikes that are completely unaffordable for average families.

For example, in the Northwest, the Seattle Times published a report that cabin owners in Lake Wenatchee, which is in my district, received notice that their fees would increase by more than 1,000 percent, from $1,400 a year to $17,000 a year. Skyrocketing fees also make these seasonal cabins unmarketable, leaving families who are unable to pay the high fees also unable to sell their cabins.

Unless Congress acts to bring about a course correction, thousands of cabin owners will be forced to abandon family heirloom cabins as the currently planned hike in fees goes into effect. This bill is strongly supported by the Forest Service because it preserves this cherished century-old program while greatly reducing and simplifying the Service's administrative burden.

The need to fix this problem has bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. So I urge support of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2706) to prohibit the sale of billfish, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2706, the Billfish Conservation Act, authored by our colleague from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Under current law, it is illegal to import or sell Atlantic billfish. Despite this, the U.S. is one of the major importers of billfish in the world. While Pacific billfish populations in general are in better shape than Atlantic billfish, threats to both oceans' billfish from foreign fishing fleets remain.

As long as the U.S. allows a market for these fish, their population levels are likely to worsen. To add more protection for both the Atlantic and Pacific billfish, the legislation would make it illegal to sell specific billfish species or possess those billfish for sale, whether they are Atlantic or Pacific.

Now, I note, Mr. Speaker, that concern had been raised at the June hearing that U.S. fishermen in Hawaii and the Pacific insular areas might be disadvantaged by these new rules and that the local consumption of billfish products might be made illegal. The bill was amended during committee consideration to address this concern; and the legislation, as amended, now protects these U.S. fishermen and the existing limited, traditional local consumption of billfish products while still providing additional and increased protection for billfish populations in the United States.

This is good legislation. I support it. And I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the author of this legislation.

I have no more requests for time. If the gentleman yields back, I'm prepared to yield back.

I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6007) to exempt from the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers by the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Chairman Ralph Hall's bill to provide relief to 1.6 million people living in the Dallas/Fort Worth area necessitated because of a bizarre set of circumstances.

In 1989, the North Texas Municipal Water District constructed a pumping station in Lake Texoma, providing up to 125 million gallons per day of safe drinking water to one of the most rapidly growing regions in the country, the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Sometime later, the enactment of a boundary adjustment resulted in a small portion of the pumping station being shifted from Texas to Oklahoma. In 2009, zebra mussels were discovered in the lake. This has caused a significant problem because it is in violation of the Lacey Act to transport zebra mussels across State lines.

So, to resolve this, the Water District has proposed to construct a $300 million, 46-mile closed pipeline that will transport Lake Texoma water to its treatment facility in Wylie, Texas. All zebra mussels will then be destroyed there, and the entire effort will be accomplished without any cost to Federal taxpayers.

This project was issued a section 404 Clean Water Act permit in May, and it was supported by the U.S. Wildlife Service district office in Arlington, Texas. However, as happens so many times, the Washington, D.C., headquarters of Fish and Wildlife is not so supportive and has suggested what it describes as a nonlegislative solution: an agreement with the Justice Department not to prosecute North Texas Municipal Water District for transporting zebra mussels.

Now, just think about this, Mr. Speaker. As someone who believes that we are a Nation of law, I am deeply troubled by the notion that a Federal agency would suggest that it would not seek to prosecute, under the law, those who may violate the law. I just think that's the wrong approach, and this approach is the right approach.

So I urge adoption of H.R. 6007, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the author of this legislation, our distinguished colleague from Texas, Chairman Ralph Hall.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2489) to authorize the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 under the American Battlefield Protection Program, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

The American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 addressed the preservation and protection of Civil War battlefields through conservation easements or through the purchase of land from willing sellers through Federal grants. H.R. 2489 renews this effort, which will soon expire, and it adds the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 battlefields to those eligible for protection.

The Natural Resources Committee made several improvements to the legislation as introduced, including a reduction of the authorization from 10 years to 5 years. Also, the authorization was cut in half to save up to $50 million over the course of the program. It is important to note that we have not raised the authorization one cent over current levels; therefore, there is no increase in spending.

Finally, the committee added language to prohibit these funds from being used for lobbying activities or from being distributed to organizations that participate in lobbying. With so many existing needs within the National Park Service, we want to ensure that these funds go specifically for battlefield protection and not to outside advocacy groups. These battlefields are part of our history, and we should do everything we can to ensure that future generations understand what our forefathers went through to ensure our freedoms.

So, with that, I support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation, and I urge its adoption.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6168) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program (2012-2017) in accordance with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and other applicable law.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

The bill we are now considering, H.R. 6168, is a very simple bill. It would implement President Obama's proposed offshore drilling lease plan for the years 2012 to 2017.

Late yesterday, the House debated H.R. 6082, the Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan. These bills contain two distinctly different offshore drilling plans, and the House will have an opportunity to choose which one allows for more American energy production and more American job creation, and which one continues to lock up America's resources.

This debate is occurring during the 60-day mandatory review period provided for under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which requires a President to submit his proposed plan to Congress for review. He must submit it to Congress before it can take effect. This 60-day clock started ticking on June 28 when President Obama's plan was submitted to the House and to the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I am the official sponsor of this bill to implement President Obama's plan. I introduced this bill with the specific purpose of allowing the people's House to officially go on record as either endorsing the President's plan or registering its opposition to it.

Now, while I'm the bill's sponsor, I am going to vote against this bill. I oppose the President's plan. It's a giant step backwards for American energy production and for job creation.

Madam Speaker, President Obama likes to give speeches claiming support for offshore drilling; however, I have observed his actions while in office are 180 degrees different than his rhetoric.

When President Obama was sworn into office in January 2009, nearly all of our offshore areas were newly open to American energy production. This was the result of the public outrage in the summer of 2008 over $4 gasoline prices that resulted in the Federal Government lifting the two moratoria that blocked energy production off both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. The will of the American people was clear: For the sake of family budgets, for small businesses, and for our economy, we must produce more American energy in America to lessen our dependence on hostile foreign sources.

So when President Obama took office, there was an offshore energy plan to conduct lease sales in new areas that were no longer under the moratoria. Instead of seizing this opportunity to vastly increase American energy production, the President tossed that plan aside and delayed and canceled these sales, including a sale scheduled for 2011 that would open a section offshore of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Obama administration has spent the last 3\1/2\ years slowly writing a plan that takes our country backwards, a plan that effectively reimposes the drilling moratoria that were lifted in 2008. The President's proposed plan keeps 85 percent of our offshore areas off-limits to energy production. The Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast, and parts of the Arctic are all kept under lock and key under his plan.

His plan absolutely opens no new areas for drilling. As an example, after delaying the Virginia lease sale in 2011, the President doesn't even include it in his proposed plan. Under President Obama, then, the absolute earliest that the Virginia lease sale could happen is 2017. That's 6 years after it was scheduled to take place.

In total, the President's proposed plan only includes 15 lease sales. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, this means that this President has the distinction of offering the lowest number of lease sales over a 5-year plan since this program began, since this legislation establishing the review. Madam Speaker, that's worse than even Jimmy Carter's record.

During the several hours of debate yesterday, there was little defense of the President's limited and weak offshore plan. In fact, a great deal of time was expended by the other side trying to change the subject, rather than endorse or defend the President's offshore plan. I think that shows just how out of touch and unacceptable this plan really is.

Today we will hear the deliberately misleading claim that the President's proposed plan opens 75 percent of the known offshore resources. That is simply not true, Madam Speaker. It was meant to provide political cover for a failed record on offshore drilling. The cold hard facts are the President is effectively reimposing a moratorium on 85 percent of our potential resources offshore of America's coasts.

An attempt might be made to claim that the bill doesn't represent the President's plan. Madam Speaker, it couldn't be more black-and-white. This bill exactly replicates the offshore lease sales scheduled in the President's proposed plan, both by location and by the sale year. H.R. 6168 is the President's plan.

Now, just last week, Secretary of the Interior Salazar wrote that President Obama's offshore plan is what the ``American people have asked for.'' In reality, the American people want increased American energy production and new and more American jobs. The President's proposed plan fails to deliver on both, American energy production and American jobs.

So by voting against this bill--which I will do, even though I am the sponsor of it--Members of Congress can stand up for the American people and reject the President's no-new-drilling, no-new-jobs plan.

We can and we must do better. And that is precisely why we had the debate, and we will have a vote later on today on H.R. 6082, the House plan.

So with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the Natural Resources Committee and a subcommittee chairman.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry), a Representative of a coastal State and a very important member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

First of all, I want to tell my good friend from Massachusetts that I was hoping he would thank me for introducing the bill because now he has an opportunity to vote for the President's plan. I already mentioned that I was going to vote against it. I was very forthright. But now the gentleman does have an opportunity to vote for the President's plan, so I wish that he had thanked me for that.

But I want to say this, Madam Speaker: We already know that Americans want to be less dependent on foreign energy. The Republican plan obviously does that. Americans also want to have parts of the economy start growing. Energy production is a way to jump-start our economy with good American jobs. So those are all givens.

But the rhetoric sometimes coming from the other side is: Why are some areas emphasized and some areas are not? Because we use a very, very novel approach to where we should sell leases and explore for oil, and that is, very simply, where we think the resources are, and then people will bid on that and take a chance and see if there are resources. If there are, they will drill, and the Federal Treasury and the American people benefit.

A good case of that, by the way, Madam Speaker, is in southern California, because reference has been made several times to southern California, and specifically to Santa Barbara, California, the Santa Barbara Channel.

Now, the State Lands Commission says that there are 1,200 natural occurring seeps in the Santa Barbara Channel, and it's estimated that coming out of these naturally occurring seeps in the Santa Barbara Channel is 55,000 barrels a year--each year. Experts have concluded that that amount of seep could be translated into enough fuel to fuel the energy for Santa Barbara County for 7\1/2\ years. Now, that is a lot of oil.

We believe the opportunity ought to be to go--again, with the novel approach--where the oil is. So that's why our approach says, okay, let's open up all these areas. Let's allow the private sector to ascertain if they want to pay somebody for a lease to develop those resources.

That is in essence what this debate is about.

And finally, let me conclude this way, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that the President's plan reinstates the moratorium that existed going up to 2008. The American people demanded that be lifted with $4 gasoline, but this essentially reinstates that.

I think that's the wrong policy. So we'll have an opportunity today to vote on two proposals: one that does increase American energy and creates American jobs, or one that maintains the status quo. In fact, it doesn't even do that. It goes back and reestablishes the moratorium and locks up 85 percent of our resources.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on this suspension bill, and a ``yes'' vote on the subsequent bill that we debated yesterday, H.R. 6082.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on H.R. 6082.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, this is not a foreign policy bill. This is a bill about American jobs and American energy. And these subjects that are brought up in this motion to recommit are covered in other areas, as they should be. For example, the Iranian issue is covered in standalone bills, as it properly should be. But this continues to be an attempt of the other side to change the subject away from American energy and American jobs.

The President is talking about American energy, and I have said on a number of occasions that the President likes to give speeches, but virtually every time when he does on offshore energy, his actions are 180 degrees from his rhetoric. So this bill that we have under consideration today, H.R. 6082, challenges the President to live up to his rhetoric.

In his speeches, the President says, ``Yes, we can,'' ``hope and change,'' ``move forward,'' ``believe in America.'' Well, to those who say that the House and the Senate should not act on a 60-day review of the President's plan, I say, ``Yes, we can.''

Let's just not hope for better, let's move the country forward. Let's change President Obama's plan to a real pro-energy, pro-jobs offshore plan that truly believes in America. Oppose this motion to recommit, vote for the bill, and vote against the suspension.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 6082.

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

Mr. Chairman, under the shadow of the Supreme Court's ruling on ObamaCare, the Obama administration on June 28 quietly announced the President's proposed final offshore drilling plan for 2012-2017.

Despite claims of their being proud of their energy record, the Obama administration deliberately chose to announce their plan on a day when it would get buried in the ObamaCare news coverage. This shows that even this administration is not proud of their plan that would place 85 percent of America's offshore areas off-limits to energy production.

Under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act, when any President proposes a new 5-year offshore drilling plan, it must be submitted to Congress for a mandatory 60-day review before it can become final and take effect. That 60-day clock is now ticking. It's now Congress' responsibility to take action and to reject President Obama's no-new-drilling, no-new-jobs plan and to replace it with a robust, responsible plan to safely develop our offshore energy resources.

According to analysis conducted by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Office, the President has proposed fewer leases in his plan than any President since this process began--that goes back to President Jimmy Carter, so it's even worse than President Carter.

President Obama's proposal doesn't open up one new area for leasing and energy production. It would set our Nation's energy production back to the days before 2008 when two moratoria that prohibited drilling of a vast majority of American offshore areas were in place. Both moratoria were lifted after the summer of 2008 due to the outrage of the American people over the cost of $4-per-gallon gasoline, and they demanded that the Federal Government take action. President Obama proposes to effectively reimpose that moratoria.

From nearly the day he took the oath of office, this President has put the brakes on new American energy production and job creation. In the first weeks of this administration, the Interior Department took a nearly complete new offshore lease plan and put it on hold for 6 months, and then they tossed out that draft plan entirely and started over. It took them over 3\1/2\ years to get a new proposed plan in place. And along the way, they delayed and canceled multiple lease sales.

For example, President Obama canceled the Virginia lease sale scheduled for 2011 last year and now refuses to include Virginia in his 2012-2017 plan. He is responsible for closing an entire new area of drilling and cheating the Commonwealth out of thousands of jobs and another industry. If President Obama has his way, Virginia will be left out in the cold in until 2017 at the earliest.

The bill being considered today, H.R. 6082, is entitled the Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan. In stark contrast to President Obama's plan, this bill represents a drill-smart plan that includes 29 lease sales and focuses energy production in specific areas containing America's greatest known oil and natural gas resources. What a novel idea: go to where the resources are.

The bill would replace the lease sales scheduled in the President's proposed plan and safely open new areas that were previously under moratoria--such as the Mid-Atlantic, southern Pacific, and the Arctic. It does this while ensuring that necessary and required environmental reviews are conducted.

The congressional replacement plan would generate $600 million in additional revenue and create tens of thousands of new American jobs.

Tomorrow there will be a direct up-or-down vote on the President's proposed plan when we consider, under suspension, H.R. 6168. There will also, obviously, be a direct up-or-down vote on this legislation. So Members can decide if the President's plan meets the standards expected by the American people or if we should replace it with a real plan that creates jobs and grows our economy.

The House has taken action to replace the President's proposed plan,

and I call on the Senate to do the same. If the Senate does nothing and lets the 60-day clock run out, that is an endorsement of the President's plan. It is an endorsement of the plan that reimposes the drilling moratoria, creates no new jobs and no new energy.

I believe that we can do better than this proposed plan, and our Nation deserves better. By passing this bill, we are standing up for American energy and American jobs and moving our country forward.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Before I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, I'll yield myself 30 seconds to simply point out to my good friend from Massachusetts that in response to his answer on how many bills this House has addressed on renewables, the gentleman said zero, and that is incorrect.

There have been multiple bills and parts of bills dealing with the process of putting wind and solar in place, specifically on public lands, so I just wanted to correct the gentleman in that regard.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, a member of the Natural Resources Committee and a subcommittee chairman, Dr. Fleming.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee and a subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from a coastal State, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Mr. Chairman, I would tell my friend from Massachusetts, I have one other request for time and then myself to close.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say why we are here today. We are here today because the President submitted his plan. It was late. His 5-year plan is supposed to go through a 60-day review here in the Congress. We are here to offer an alternative to that plan because that plan locks up 85 percent of the potential resources in this country. We offer this plan because we have heard loud and clear from the American people that it is in our best interest to be less dependent on foreign energy. And in the process of creating American energy, we obviously create American jobs. That, to me, is a win/win situation.

Now, let me respond to some of the arguments that have been made on the other side, and I want to point out specifically the bills.

The charge was made that the Republican-led House has not taken up any bills dealing with renewable energy. In fact, the observation was that there were no bills. In fact, there have been several bills, and there are three bills that have passed the House. Now, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle may not like it, but the fact is that they've passed.

The first one is H.R. 4402. It passed on a bipartisan basis in July. H.R. 3408, it too passed on a bipartisan basis in February. And H.R. 4480, it too passed on a bipartisan basis in June. So Republicans have repeatedly said that we are in favor of an all-of-the-above energy plan, and this, of course, confirms that belief.

Now, I want to make an observation to part of the debate here that we are giving away something. I'm trying to think of an analogy on how to describe that, and the best I can come up with is if one has an asset, the Federal Government has an asset of having control over the Outer Continental Shelf, and somebody wants to use that asset where there may be some opportunity to grow the economy or create jobs, or what have you, that seems to me to be a positive step rather than a giveaway.

In fact, I think about the private landowners in North Dakota or maybe the State of North Dakota, because the same people, Big Oil, that are being beat up here on the floor here in debate went to North Dakota. They talked to the State and they talked to the private landowners. They said, You may have some assets that we would like to see if maybe there is some energy development available, very similar to what's available on the Outer Continental Shelf. So they made an agreement, I'll pay you, the landowner, some money if you let me look. And if there is something there, I'll pay you with what comes out of the ground.

Now, this is exactly the same process we're going through here, except we're dealing with the Outer Continental Shelf. Now, who is the beneficiary of that? Well, the beneficiary, in part, obviously, is the Federal Government because they get money for the leases and they'll get royalty payments. And I might point out, by the way, Mr. Chairman, the second largest source of income to the Federal Government after the income tax comes from leases and royalties. So there clearly is a benefit to the American people in that regard.

So when this is characterized as a giveaway when supposedly what is being given away is paid for, it does not, in my mind, pass the straight-face test.

Lastly, we hear the arguments, specifically from my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran) saying this bill is going nowhere in the other body. Well, I would remind my good friend that the two Senators from his home State of Virginia are Democrats, and they are in support of drilling off the coast of Virginia, which, of course, this bill embodies. So if maybe they could whisper into the majority leader's ear and get some action on it, then this bill, indeed, could move through the Senate, as I suspect it will move through the House, on a bipartisan basis in the same light.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is a very good bill. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will just take a few seconds here.

This amendment is very simple. It makes two small technical corrections to the way the plan is referred to in the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

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

The amendment prioritizes bureaucracy over responsibly increasing energy production and job creation. This amendment would strike the section of the bill requiring that an environmental impact statement be conducted prior to any leasing in lease sale areas.

The gentleman takes issue with the manner in which the environmental impact statement is required to be conducted. However, what he fails to mention is that the administration is required to do yet another environmental review prior to each lease sale and additional reviews on each lease block as a part of the leasing process, and then each exploration plan has additional environmental work. So, in effect, all of the areas in the underlying bill will be studied and then restudied for the effect that any activity will have on the environment.

Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but all of these lease sales will still be subject to the many different laws that still impact the offshore leasing process, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Fishing Enhancement Act, to name a few.

The truth of the matter is that this bill doesn't harm the environment. It goes an extra mile in requiring a multiple-sale EIS on all of the lease areas, while also ensuring that leasing does occur, although that leasing is still subject to all the environmental protection laws that are on the books.

Support for offshore energy development does not mean that you cannot also respect the range of different environmental needs based on lease area.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody in the country does not want to drill safely and responsibly. I know I certainly don't, and I know Members on my side of the aisle don't. So I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman has yielded back his time. I will yield back my time and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I want to congratulate her on her amendment because I think this is a responsible approach that we are trying to take.

One of the reasons why California is so important, I think as the gentlelady knows, is that there are geologists that say that there are over 1.5 million potential barrels of oil off the shore. That should be important to Californians because not too long ago you were producing 50 percent of your oil production, now it's down to 38 percent. What we say, obviously, in this legislation is that it should be done from platforms on land.

So I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. I think it's a responsible approach, and I think it adds to this legislation. And I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very happy to see that the gentleman understands that America needs oil and natural gas. That was a very good statement on his part. We would prefer to see more domestic production of this necessary commodity rather than importing it from foreign countries. I think we're making progress in that regard, Mr. Chairman.

The good news is this is already law, what the gentleman is trying to address. Title 43, chapter 29, section 1534 of the U.S. Code specifically prevents the export of both oil or gas produced from the Outer Continental Shelf unless the President finds that it is, one, in the national interest; two, will not increase our reliance on natural gas; and, three, that it is in accordance with the Export Administration Act, which puts further regulations on exports.

Now, the House has said repeatedly that increased energy production on Federal lands is in the national interest. So I suppose the gentleman could say there is some wiggle room there.

But, nevertheless, this amendment had failed in committee last week, it has failed on the House floor on many occasions because of this protection that's already in law. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no more requests for time, and I understand I have the right to close, so I will reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this law has been on the books since 1940. Now, in 1940, there was a whole lot of unrest in the world just prior to the Second World War, and in the wisdom, apparently, of the Congress of that time, they said that energy production from the Outer Continental Shelf, which I might add, was probably not as robust as it is today, there are only certain conditions that you would export what comes off. And as I listed those things before, I think they're important.

That law was a good law then. It's a good law now. This amendment adds absolutely nothing to that whatsoever.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let's be very frank about this. This amendment won't increase safety, but it will add red tape to the leasing process and open new avenues for lawsuits to interfere with the process of creating American energy and creating American jobs.

The types of safety measures identified in the amendment are already in place, and they are already enforceable. On multiple occasions, the Obama administration has testified that offshore drilling operations are being conducted safely.

With this amendment, the minority continues to try to divert attention away from the real issue of increasing energy production, American energy production, creating jobs, American jobs, lowering energy costs, and improving our national security, all doing that because, potentially, we lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

So it seems that my friends on the other side of the aisle simply do not want to face the fact that this bill says we can move forward with a robust and responsible program of oil and gas development, while, at the same time, ensuring that increased safety measures are undertaken. These are not, nor should they be mutually exclusive goals.

Right now, we have two choices before us. Tomorrow, when we vote on this, and the suspension that will be before us, we can choose to endorse the President's energy plan to hold 15 sales in five areas in the OCS, or we can support this bill before us, which will have nearly double, 29 sales, in over double the areas, 11 areas.

Both options will ensure that the drilling is done safely. Both options will ensure that our environment is protected. But only one option follows through on the promise made to the American people when the moratoria was lifted.

The American people clearly want our Nation to harness our energy resources. But the President's energy plan takes 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf and makes it off-limits.

This amendment, I should add, has failed when it was offered on this floor last February, and it also failed when it was offered in committee last week. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman is prepared to yield back, I will do the same.

I am the last speaker on my side, so you do what you have to do, and I will respond accordingly.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Okay. Let's say it again: The gentleman's remarks would imply that, because there is increased oil production in this country, it's due to the actions of this administration.

Nothing, Mr. Chairman, could be further from the truth, because it takes a while to go through the process of leasing and developing potential resources before you drill, and even then you don't know until you drill.

All of that process started prior to this administration's taking office. It happened in the Bush administration, and as a matter of fact, it happened in the Clinton administration. That's where the increased production, in large part, came from. Even that isn't entirely true, because the increased production of American oil is really coming from State and private lands, not from Federal lands. In fact, over the last 2 years, Federal lands production has been down under this administration. It is principally because of North Dakota and West Texas that we are finding more production of American energy.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, I think that's good--but why should we ignore the potential resources that we have on Federal lands and not allow that to produce our American energy?

This amendment really does not help that process. All it does is add red tape to the process, so I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is yet another attempt to legislate a decision that was made during the Clinton administration. The constant attempt to renegotiate contracts that were signed, sealed, and delivered under the Clinton administration is in violation of contract law. That should be very, very basic, it would seem to me, if, indeed, we are a Nation of laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Interior Department did not have the authority to go back and insert price thresholds on these leases. The Department lost this issue in district court, in the appellate court, and they lost it in the Supreme Court. If this amendment were to pass, the issue would most certainly be challenged in court where, undoubtedly, the Department would again lose after having spent taxpayer dollars to defend the indefensible.

Ultimately, this amendment seeks to force U.S. companies to break a contract negotiated under government law. Now, some would say it's a bad contract. Maybe it was. I'm not going to second-guess what the Clinton administration did--but, in fact, they signed that contract law. This amendment has repeatedly failed on the House floor, and I hope it fails again. I urge its opposition.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

If the intent of this amendment, as the gentleman says, is just to say that companies aren't forced to, but could renegotiate their contracts, I would say they could do that right now. Anybody that enters into a contract is free--if both parties want to--to renegotiate a contract. Nothing prevents them from doing so. But to have the heavy hand of government say in the future that ``if you don't do this,'' I think is a step too darn far. I think that that is really the wrong way to go. That's the last thing that we need, is saying a condition of leasing or doing business with the government is that you have to retroactively go back and change a contract. That would have a chilling effect, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I don't know why the Clinton administration signed these contracts. Who knows? But to add this, where do you stop then? Where do you stop with all of the Federal contracts that could be not only in energy production, but anything else? This is a very bad amendment. It's a very bad precedent, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

In deference to my good friend from Florida, I really believe that this is a political amendment that would simply require companies seeking to drill offshore to estimate the impact that increased oil and gas production would have on gasoline prices. This bill is about increasing American domestic energy production. It's about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It's about creating American jobs and creating American energy.

Simply put, requiring producers to estimate the impact that each and every well has on global markets is nothing more than a bureaucratic paperwork nightmare that would be put on those that would want to go and drill offshore and a delaying tactic by those that are opposed to offshore development. I don't think this is a good amendment. As I said in deference to my good friend from Florida, I really believe that this is a political amendment.

With that, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding and say that if you run out of time, I will claim the time.

First, I do not deny that, except the figures that you're using aren't quite accurate; I will say that in the sense that the 2 percent you're talking about is known reserves.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

The 2 percent figure that you are using is the known reserves. The potential resources that we have are much, much greater than that. And really, when you are looking at potential future energy production in this country, you look at the potential resources, not the known reserves. There's a big, big difference. Two percent is reserve.

So I will acknowledge that while we have 2 percent right now, our potential resources are much, much larger.

And I will yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, what the gentleman is talking about is lease sales. Somebody has made an investment. They do not know if that area has any oil or natural gas. They don't know. They will go through all the studies. They'll spend millions, and sometimes billions, of dollars finding out if there is something there. Then, if they think there is, they will drill, costing that much more.

Now, I might add, with these lease sales, there is a set time. The Federal

Government gets money from these lease sales. Why would somebody give the money to the Federal Government if they didn't think there was something there? And, by the way, many times these leases come up empty and the company walks away and the only revenue goes to the Federal Government.

But let me speak to one other area of the amendment, because what the gentleman is really saying with this amendment is he is asking somebody that produces a crude product to estimate the price of a finished product. That's like telling an apple grower in my part of the country that, if he or she is to sell apples overseas, what's the price of applesauce going to be down the line? Now, it doesn't make any sense to do that. Now, whether the gentleman purposely did that or not, I don't know. But in any case, I don't believe that the amendment ought to be adopted for other reasons, but certainly for that one.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

In many respects, Mr. Chairman, we just had this debate. And again, with deference to my good friend from Florida, I think this is another political amendment because what it will do is require companies seeking to drill offshore to estimate the potential impact produced by oil and natural gas production, what impact that would have on climate change. Not only that, you would have to do it on a well-by-well basis.

Mr. Chairman, in all honesty, some sort of requirement like that would simply dry up anybody wanting to drill offshore or utilize our resources offshore. Now, if that's what the gentleman wants, then okay, that's a good concession; but, if not, it simply does not make any sense.

But from a practical standpoint--and I think this is very important, Mr. Chairman--if the issue--and there is some debate about this, no question. But if the issue of producing oil and natural gas will affect the climate, and we, as a country, probably have the most stringent environmental laws on our air quality and water quality, why would we put this extra burden on us when it wouldn't happen in other parts of the world?

But the net effect of this, if it were to become law, would be to drive everybody from America.

So the net effect, if the issue--now, if the issue is really to protect the environment and protect the air, why would you drive it to areas that have less stringent environmental laws? Yet that would be the practical effect if this amendment were to become law.

Like I said, we've been over this before. It puts extraordinary burdens on individual wells and individual producers. And as I mentioned, in deference to my friend, I think it is a political amendment.

I urge rejection, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Well, I, too, am shocked; but I'm glad we got that out of the way. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, this bill is a bill that addresses American energy and American jobs and, therefore, has a positive effect--potential positive effect--on our economy.

This amendment adds nothing to that. As a matter of fact, I think it's an impediment to this bill becoming law if it were to be adopted. And if I could think of some sorts of things to say regarding oranges, I would say it; but I'm totally at a loss. So I will simply say that this amendment does not deserve support, I urge its rejection, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, we have had an extensive debate today on the floor centered around American energy and American jobs. It is interesting in how this discussion has unfolded over time. Many times we on this side of the aisle are accused of repeating over and over and over different issues, and I suppose to a certain extent that is true. But one of the reasons why this effort is done on a regular basis is because the genius of our Founding Fathers was such that they created a government where there was a division of powers, and we all know that, the three branches of government. But the genius of our Founding Fathers was even greater than that in the fact that they created the legislative branch, and they divided that power. They divided that power between the House and the Senate.

What that simply means, Mr. Speaker, is that before any legislation can pass, any law that's put on anybody in this country has to pass both Houses of the Congress. Now, I recognize I'm a Member of the people's House. There has been no Member of this House in the history of our country that was not elected to this House.

On the other hand, the Senate is a different body, as we well know. The Senate is made up of only two Members from each of the States regardless of population. Because we come from different constituencies, one a smaller constituency within a State, another from a whole State like the Senate is, you are bound to have different ideas as you approach legislation. But again, the genius of our Founding Fathers was to say, okay, before anything can become law, both Houses have to act on that legislation, and it has to pass both the House and the Senate without a comma being different. Therein, of course, lies the challenge.

So we have been accused here many times of passing the same type of legislation, at least on the same issue, and passing it over to the other body. But what we have found, unfortunately, in this Congress is that the other body has simply not acted on a lot of pieces of legislation. Now, I'm not saying they should pick up, although it would be nice if they took everything that we passed and say it is a wonderful idea, pass it over there, and send it to the President. Well, they don't do that.

But one of the functions that they could do and they haven't done is pass legislation, albeit different than what we have. And then, of course, we have a mechanism to work out the difference. But in many respects, Mr. Speaker, not even that has happened. In other words, they haven't passed legislation where they may have a disagreement with us that we can work out the differences. So that leads to a lot of frustration, obviously, on our side of the rotunda; but we feel it is important as the Republican majority to continue to make the case in what we believe in.

I might mention also that the House is controlled in the majority by the Republicans; and, of course, the Democrats control the Senate. So there is a difference. So that's why we continue to send legislation over to the Senate, and we hold out hope that maybe one time they will take up legislation, maybe on the same issue, and we can go to conference and work out whatever differences. So that's why we continue to bring this legislation to the floor. I look forward to a time when the Senate will, in fact, act.

Now, let me talk then about this piece of legislation that we had on the floor today and why it was brought to the floor and how the process is going to unfold tomorrow. As I mentioned in my opening remarks on debate, the President, any President, by the way, is required to submit a 5-year energy plan on the Outer Continental Shelf, the OCS, and submit it for a 60-day review by Congress.

That clock started ticking in June last. So we felt it was important because I, for one, and a number of my colleagues on the House Natural Resources Committee, in fact, throughout this Congress, felt that the President's plan was inadequate and that there ought to be an alternative to that plan. Thus, we had a markup several weeks ago on the plan that we had before us today. We are debating it tonight now. We've gone through the debate, we've had the amendment process, and we will vote on this bill tomorrow.

But what is missing in all of this equation was simply that there is no effort to defend the President's plan. As a matter of fact, in the debate that I had heard from the other side, rarely did I hear anybody say that the President's energy plan was a good plan. So, tomorrow, there will be on suspension legislation that I reluctantly will offer that is essentially the President's energy plan. We'll have a vote, and tomorrow the House will have an opportunity to say ``yes'' to this job- creating bill that we had on the floor today or the President's plan. There will be a distinct choice that Members of this body will have an opportunity to vote on.

I certainly hope that they'll support this job-creating plan, American-energy-creating plan that we debated today, and I hope that they will reject President Obama's plan.

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