Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge the 125th anniversary of the Garfield Masonic Lodge in Dubois, Pennsylvania. Established in 1882, the Garfield Lodge has selflessly served the DuBois community with high distinction for 125 years.

I commend the Freemasons for their work and for instilling in its members the virtues of charity, benevolence, brotherly love, and practicing the moral principles of life. Again, I extend my best wishes to the Garfield Lodge and to all of the individuals that continue its good work, as they celebrate 125 years of service in my district on May 4, 2007.

Madam Speaker, the situation we are facing in Iraq right now is serious. The resolution we are debating here tonight, unfortunately, is not.

Everyone agrees the situation on the ground is unacceptable. To make it right, we need leadership, resources, and resolve. What we don't need is 36 hours of time trading speeches on a nonbinding measure, a measure that imparts no new policy, offers no new alternatives, and commands no real effect.

Most of the speeches I have heard this week are about the war. On that subject, there is plenty of room for disagreement. But the resolution before us isn't about the war, it is about a specific tactical question: the number of troops we need to deploy to finish the job.

I can't think of a group that is less qualified to make strategic and tactical decisions on the ground than 535 Members of Congress, sitting 6,000 miles away on Capitol Hill. Congress shouldn't be in the business of micromanaging war tactics.

Should we debate the war in Iraq? Certainly. Can we disagree about its goals and purpose? Absolutely. But decisions on the ground need to be determined by our military commanders on the scene, and not public opinion polls.

Of course, the other responsibility of Congress is, when it comes to wars, the power to fund them. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I take that responsibility seriously. But if my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and in the full House think the war is a lost cause, if they think that sending more troops to help secure Iraq is the wrong strategy, they shouldn't hesitate to cut off the funding for the operation. I wouldn't support that measure, but at least it would be a measure of genuine intent, not a two-paragraph statement on military tactics we have on the floor this week.

Mistakes have been made. But this is a mission that is consistent with our vital interest and worthy of our support. I don't believe President Bush has prosecuted this war flawlessly, and, frankly, I don't believe he has always particularly been well advised. But this strategy of reinforcement is not always supported by the President, it is supported by the military and the political leadership of Iraq.

People have to understand something. We are facing an enemy like no other we have faced before, an ideological enemy driven by hate, not reason; an enemy for whom there can be no rest until the freedoms and values that define our civilization are destroyed.

Victory is the only outcome that can be accepted. But the resolution we are debating on the floor this week was not written with ultimate victory in mind; it was written in expectation of defeat. And, unlike some of my colleagues, I am not willing to concede to defeat.

So many families have sacrificed so that we can be successful in Iraq, and they are willing to sacrifice even more. To cut support for them now would be unforgiveable.

You know, Mr. Speaker, watching the debate on the floor this week, my thoughts keep going back to the Loudon family who live in my district.

Their son Christopher, a member of his college ROTC program, was deployed to Iraq after graduation and came home this fall in a flag- draped coffin.

Their son Nicholas is a West Point graduate I nominated to the Academy, who served with his brother in Iraq, and he is heading back to Iraq this weekend for another tour of duty.

Their son Jonathan, their youngest, and another one of my Academy nominees, is going to West Point this fall. The Loudon family had great concern over whether to send their third and youngest son to West Point. In the end, they were swayed by their son's commitment to serve his country and their shared belief that his mission is one worth fighting for.

If the Loudons can remain strong and committed in the face of the most difficult circumstances any family can endure, why can't Congress?

I have gotten other calls from families in my district. One mother called this week to tell me that her son, a young man named Nathan Stone whom I nominated to West Point in 2001, is currently serving in south Baghdad, sweeping the city, going door to door, risking his life so the Iraqis can live their lives with a basic security. And do you know what he told his mother to relate to me? He told her that they are making a difference, they are seeing progress. They need help, they need these troops, and they will be excited when they get them.

If First Lieutenant Stone believes that these additional troops are vital to him completing his mission in Baghdad, that tells me a lot. And if the Loudons can send their youngest son to West Point knowing that he may some day be called into service himself, that tells me all I need to know.

Mr. Speaker, no one likes war. No one wants our troops to be in Iraq one minute longer than they have to be to ensure the mission is accomplished. Reasonable people may disagree on strategy, but this resolution is not about alternative viewpoints. There are no different courses offered, no suggestions, and no responsibility taken.

I stand with the Loudon family and Lieutenant Stone, and vote opposed to this resolution.

To those that propose this bill, I want to tell you I support a large fund for renewables. I am for all renewables. But why did you choose to tax American-produced oil and gas and not tax foreign oil and gas? When you tax our production, you will have less of it, when you tax their production, you would have less foreign. You have stacked the deck. It is already cheaper to produce foreign energy than it is American energy. We have locked up so many of our fields, and where in old tired fields the cost of producing has increased, the incentive to go in deep water because it cost so much companies wouldn't go there, and we couldn't even get there.

In 10 years since I have been here, we have increased foreign oil from 46 percent to 66 percent. Why is foreign energy taking over? Ninety percent of the land in this country available for oil production is government land, and this Congress has been locking so much of it up.

I totally agree with a large renewable energy fund, but instead of increasing the cost of producing energy in America, open up new fields. The Outer Continental Shelf is our greatest untouched area. We are the only civilized country in the world that doesn't produce there. Everybody produces there. It makes no sense for us not to be there. We haven't even allowed seismic testing to find out what is there because we might produce it.

Locking up supply by this Congress in the past, by Congress and by those proposing this bill, is why four of the oil companies are making huge profits. When energy usage is increasing more than renewables can increase, you need more oil and gas. And when you need more oil and gas and you lock it up, you give those who have purchased the rights to it all over the world, their $30 oil becomes $60 oil becomes $70 oil, that is where their huge profits are. It is the Congress of the United States that has rewarded Big Oil with increased profits.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask again: Why did we start the new energy independence with taxing domestic production but not taxing foreign oil? We are going to lead us in the wrong direction.

In your anger against Big Oil, I understand that, but you are penalizing everybody. Eighty-two percent of natural gas is produced by independents; 68 percent of oil is produced by independents; 50 percent of refined products is from independents. My little refinery in Warren, Pennsylvania, will get taxed harder because of your new bill. And I have watched them struggle to fund clean diesel; I watched them struggle to fund clean gasoline units, very expensive.

The use of foreign oil under your bill will continue at the same rate of increase, and I predict in 5 years will be 76 percent dependent. I am for all your renewables, I want to fund them all. But if we produce the energy, took the royalties from the new energy that keeps us alive in this country, we could fund them adequately. If we don't open new fields, we will not have a fertilizer industry, a petrochemical industry, a polymers and plastics industry, and we will make bricks and glass in South America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and knowledge that he has brought to this committee. It will be missed.

The most important part of this bill was just discussed, the energy portion of this bill. This starts, for the first time, opening up some energy for America.

It is interesting, Mr. Markey has talked about $170 billion thievery of our resources; 12.5 percent, or $55 million will go into the land and water conservation fund, if we produce it; and $225 billion will go into the treasury, if we produce the energy.

America, for the last 5 years, has had the highest energy prices in the world. And our homeowners are paying more to heat their homes than Canada, South America, Europe.

Our small businesses are paying the highest energy prices in the world, and our corporations are leaving this country. Petrochemical is moving. The best jobs we have left. Why? They use huge amounts of energy.

Fertilizer. Fifty percent of the fertilizer industry has left in the last 2 years, and our farmers will be buying Russian fertilizer to grow corn to make ethanol. Does that make sense?

Energy is the linchpin of the future of America's economy and the working people of this country having jobs. And the reason oil companies make excessive profits, when you shorten the supply of energy, the price goes up. And Congress is the reason we don't have adequate energy in this country. And many that we have heard today are the main speakers. And when you shorten the supply, the price goes up. And the oil companies who already own the inventories all over the world, the cheapest place to produce energy is in other countries, but when you produce it here, you create wealth in America for Americans and make it affordable for businesses to stay here and grow.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 484 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill and the rule.

The gentleman from Florida a few moments ago asked a fair question. He said, what is the emergency? I believe it is an emergency. We talk about gasoline prices. We don't often talk about natural gas prices.

Natural gas prices historically were $2 per thousand in this country up until 5 years ago. Last year, that average price was $9.50. You have already heard it is threatening the absolute viability of aluminum, steel, petrochemical, polymers, plastics, fertilizer, bricks, glass, who use huge amounts of natural gas not only in making them but as an ingredient.

This country cannot compete in the global marketplace without affordable natural gas. We can't drill our way out of the oil crisis, and we shouldn't try. Natural gas is a commodity this country is rich in. Our Outer Continental Shelf is loaded. It could supply us for decades and could make our seniors able to heat their homes, our companies able to be profitable and compete.

Yes, natural gas is the resource we need to focus on. It should be our bridge to the future. It will keep us competitive until the renewables become a much bigger part of our energy portfolio.

I ask the colleagues that oppose this bill, show me a natural gas well that has ever polluted a beach. Natural gas is America's cleanest, almost-perfect fuel, no NOx, almost no SOx, a fourth of the Co2.

Folks, natural gas is the milk of America's future, the milk of our industry, the baby, mother's milk. We need to produce energy. We need to have affordable energy for people to heat their homes, and we need to have energy so our industries can stay alive and not be sending us goods from foreign countries.

I thank the gentleman. I want to thank him for all of his work, and I want to thank all involved in the staff, because this is not an easy process, but it is one that I think has brought us to this position.

Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about today is helping America compete for the first time in the history of this country. We are not the only big dog in the world. We must compete with the Chinas, the Taiwans, Indias, who have a plan to take every business that manufactures and produces away from us.

Our steel companies have the highest energy prices in the world because we have the highest gas prices. Our wood and paper product companies have the highest energy costs in the world because of our natural gas prices. Polymers and plastics not only use a lot of energy, but a lot of energy is consumed in the making of it. Petrochemicals, 55 percent of their cost is natural gas, and in America they pay the highest price in the world. Why? Because we locked it up.

We don't want to drill for it. That is the only way you produce natural gas, is to drill a hole in the ground, put a steel pipe in, and let a harmless gas out that is one of the most valuable commodities in the world.

Fifty percent of our fertilizer companies are now on foreign shores. We will soon have none, and our farmers will rely on Russian fertilizer, if they can get it and they can afford it, to grow the corn to make the ethanol.

I talked to a big glass company in Pittsburgh, PPG. He said, I want to stay here, I want to be in Pittsburgh, but I can't compete.

Last year's natural gas prices averaged $9.50. Five years ago, they were $2. That is a five-fold increase. Those are wholesale prices. This is not about oil companies. This is about America competing. This is about homeowners being able to heat their homes. It is about small businesses who consume a lot of energy to stay in business and make a profit. It is about the blue collar workers that we ought to be protecting and representing in this country, the blue collar workers that want to raise their families and have a decent vehicle and send their kids to college.

Someone said this is a budget breaker. For every $10 billion that comes in, $5.8 billion will stay in the Treasury. How is that a budget breaker? Every $10 billion, $5.8 billion, they are talking about that because the environmental argument doesn't wash. If our shores are threatened, I wouldn't support this bill.

I have enjoyed the Florida beaches and the North Carolina and South Carolina beaches as much as anyone. Folks, they have been producing on the Outer Continental Shelf in Canada forever. They have drilled in Lake Erie, gas only, since 1916. Twenty-some hundred wells they drill every summer.

Ireland has good beaches; Norway, an environmental country; UK, Netherlands, Scotland, New Zealand, Australia. Folks, we are the only society that has said we are going to lock up our resources. We are going to buy them from foreign countries. We are going to buy them from countries that don't support us. We are going to pay high prices. We are going to enrich them so that they can own us. That is the path we are on.

I am for renewables. Natural gas is the bridge to renewables. Natural gas is a forerunner to hydrogen. The hydrogen cars will have a natural gas tank. One-third of our auto fleet could be on natural gas at these prices, and we could move almost 3 million barrels a day.

Folks, this is about America competing. For the first time, we have countries who can clean our clock economically, and they are trying to. Are we going to give them an energy advantage? Are we going to give our jobs to China and Taiwan, hand it to them, because energy is a third there of what it is here, Russia a fraction, South America, 1.5? We will be buying our bricks and glass from Trinidad.

Folks, this is about workers in America who want to have a good job, and affordable energy is the best thing we can do for them.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

This is a very important amendment that should not pass. We have worked very hard. There has been a lot of compromise in this bill. We have given a lot of shoreline protection, 50 miles locked up, total State control. They have to opt out. The next 50-miles is rich with gas up and down our coast, and this country needs natural gas to fuel the industries that employ the blue collar workers of this country.

If we wait for Houses and Senates and governors to agree, I served in one for 20 years. It takes a long time. We cannot add years to the process. We need to open up our coastlines. We need to allow the States to have to opt out.

There will be a debate in every coastline State, and I am confident that in many States the vote will be to open up for natural gas specifically because of the need and because of the volume, that it is there to preserve the jobs in this country and keep this country competitive.

Mr. Chairman, I would begin by stating that if the gentleman from Arizona represented the Fifth District in Pennsylvania and the oil region alliance area, he wouldn't be offering this amendment. He represents an area where the average income is 40- some-thousand a year, where the region I represent that we are talking about today is 20-some-thousand, half, an area that used to be the home of Quaker State, just a decade ago, the home of Pennzoil, the home of Wolf's Head, Universal Cyclops. One of the finest steel mills in this country was in that region. I could list you the ex-corporations that used to employ my citizens.

He represents a district that has grown 40 percent in population in the last decade, where I have lost close to 20 percent in this region of population because of the loss of these industries.

Now, you can ignore them. You can let those areas, like he said, let the market work. When you lose the number of jobs that this region has lost, that is not a normal marketplace. And when you reach out and invest a few Federal or State dollars to help communities pull their way back up and build an economic base that will pay taxes into the State treasury, taxes in the Federal Treasury, now, if you let the marketplace work, you will fund unemployment benefits, you will fund welfare benefits and all the social programs, LIHEAP and all of those things to help people who don't have a decent job.

Folks, when we don't invest in areas that have lost major employers to restabilize their base, we are making a mistake as a country. We are making a mistake.

This marketplace is not exactly as he describes it. Let's see what his district is asking for. The Mesa area, on their Web page, they want $42 million for bus fleets this year, $54 million for light rail, $10 million for an airport, $18.6 for another airport, and $1 million for a community college, which we don't have, $30 million for a river restoration project, and $3.5 million for planning new projects.

A measly $200,000 investment in the area that had the greatest economic decline in Pennsylvania in the last decade and is struggling from the loss of not only oil but steel and glass and all other types of manufacturing. This little grant helps an organization not only in one county but four counties, helps local government leaders deal with these losses, help them better manage, train people to write for Federal and State grants, because little governments don't have grant writers.

I want to tell you, folks. This hard, calloused approach of not helping those who have been destroyed by corporate mergers and companies moving away is a mistake when we don't invest. This is

not pork. This is food for survival so people can regrow their economies and pay taxes back into this Treasury. It is about reinvesting in America and a part of America that was the stalwart of this country.

That area furnished us with the transportation system that we have today. When they discovered every oil company in the world has roots in the Oil City, Titusville, Franklin region, that is where they all started.

Folks, to abandon that area is not what America should be about. This is not pork. This is food to help an area survive and fend for themselves and grow and pay taxes into the Treasury.

It is easy for those who represent affluence, growing areas with great prosperity, who really don't need us. But those who are struggling need us, and we should be there to help them.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. For 20 years, in State government, I worked on health issues. I chaired the health committee for a decade. I asked leaders and major medical groups; I asked leaders in the medical societies; and since I have been here I have asked leaders at NIH, do we need to legalize marijuana? And I have never had a positive answer.

They said, we have more drugs than we need. We have more things that are out there for people that will perform better than marijuana. But what I tell you what I do not want to do, I do not want to support the belief that too many of our young people already have that marijuana is a harmless drug. I know better. I had young people work for me in my supermarket who I knew were using marijuana.

And they used it for a period of years, folks. And they are not as sharp after years of marijuana use as they would have been. It dulls the brain. It holds back the growth. Brains are not mature until they are 25. And marijuana use has been proven to deter brain growth. A close friend of mine in Harrisburg who was a prominent State legislator was having dinner with me 25 years ago, and he was talking about Johnnie, who was attending Penn State, the brightest of three children.

And all of a sudden, Johnnie in his junior year in college was not doing well. He could not figure out why. He visited him two or three weekends in a month, 3 months in a row, to try to figure out what was wrong with Johnnie. In his senior year of high school, Johnnie had started using marijuana.

Johnnie lost his thrust for life. Johnnie lost the keen mind that God had given him. Marijuana stole him from the potential he had. Folks, if I thought the American public needed legal marijuana for pain and suffering, I would support it. We have more drugs than we need on the marketplace.

Marijuana destroys young people's chances to have good lives. I have close friends and even relatives who are living less of a life than they would have if they had not spent years abusing marijuana. Marijuana is a dangerous drug that is not adequately respected by the young people of this country because they have been seduced by leaders in this country advocating that it is a perfect, wonderful drug.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 273, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to support the rule. I would like to commend the committee and staff for good work in tough times.

Mr. Speaker, I think this House better get used to tough budgets if we are going to get a handle on the Federal deficit. We are not going to have a lot of surpluses, we are going to have to pass budgets and appropriations bills that leave us all a little painful because it is important that we get a handle on the fiscal affairs of this country.

In this bill there is a provision that was mentioned by the gentleman from Florida that removes the congressional moratorium for producing energy on the outer continental shelf. Now, why would I propose that in the committee? I am pleased to tell you why.

The industries of this country that provide the very best jobs we have left in America are being made noncompetitive and have been noncompetitive for several years because of high natural gas prices. Five years ago, the price of natural gas in America averaged $2. Last year, the average price was $9.50. You don't have to be very good in math to know that was a huge, huge increase. If it was gasoline at the pump, it would be $7 gasoline to fill our cars.

This is preventing Americans from being warm in their homes, it is preventing Americans from being warm in their businesses. I was at a lot of businesses where it was 60 degrees and they were wearing jackets running their retail businesses. America cannot afford to be warm with energy prices increasing that fast.

Businesses, the petro-chemical industry, 55 percent of their cost is natural gas both as an ingredient and a fuel. Fertilizer, as high as 70 percent to make nitrogen fertilizer, the cost of natural gas. The steel industry, the aluminum industry, the glass industry, the brick industry will not remain in America unless we provide affordable natural gas.

Now, here is the tragedy. What people don't realize, when we pay $75 for oil, the whole world does. When we paid

$9.50 for gas last year and for 4 months it was $14 and $15, Europe was at $6, China and Taiwan was at $3.50, South America at $1.80, Russia and North Africa at 90 cents.

Folks, we are driving the best blue collar working people jobs out of this country because they cannot afford to stay here. We have lost between three and five paper mills since the first of the year because of energy costs, and some of them put in new units within the last 1\1/ 2\ years.

Energy can make a company noncompetitive overnight because of the use of energy. This government is the reason we are in trouble. We expanded the use of natural gas 10 or 12 years ago before I got here to make electricity.

Now a huge amount of our natural gas makes electricity, close to 20 percent. We did not open up supply. We are the only country in the world that has locked up the Outer Continental Shelf. I had a visitor from the U.K. yesterday. He said, Why do you people not produce in the OCS? Everybody does. Canada does right off the coast of Maine, right off the coast of Washington. Canada has been drilling for gas in Lake Erie since 1913 and selling the gas to us currently because we buy 17 percent of our gas this year from Canada.

Natural gas we are rich with. We have chosen to lock it up, and caused our homeowners to pay double and triple heating costs, our small businesses to become nonprofitable, and our large corporations to literally move away. We have lost several million jobs already because of energy costs, and we are going to lose millions more.

What I am going to tell you is it will not be the America we grew up in with lots of opportunity. The America we are going to leave is an America that decided to starve itself on the cleanest fuel known to man, the cleanest fossil fuel. Natural gas is the least polluting fuel, and those who today were talking about CO2 and global warming, it produces much less CO2 than all the other fossil fuels.

So, if we had the price down, it can become a major player in our transportation system. Not 5 years down the road, tomorrow. Every gasoline engine can run on natural gas. Our buses, our short-haul trucks, our construction vehicles could all be on natural gas with a modest change.

Natural gas can be the bridge to all the alternatives that are slowly moving forward. It can quadruple the savings that we can do with CAFE, and I am probably going to support that this time, but it is an immediate thing. Natural gas is what can keep America competitive until we get a handle on the other energies that can replace oil.

I urge you to not remove the moratorium. It does not threaten our coastline. We still have a presidential moratorium. We still have a 5- year plan that takes 2 years to implement and it is not the end of that. It is the first step in saying we are going to deal with natural gas and energy in this country.

I thank the chairman. We are beginning the most important debate this country has had on energy in a long time, and I am glad to see we have finally moved forward.

My good friend, Bill Young, 25 years ago started the moratorium. Back then, the cost of natural gas was a dollar something a thousand. Oil was less than $10. It didn't matter that we locked up our resources. Last year, the average price of natural gas was $9.50. At times it was 14 and 15, and the rest of the world was a fraction of that. We are putting our industries and businesses out of business in this country.

We have witnessed today serious fear from coastline people, and I respect that. This is not ``us against you.'' This is about America. Fear is only in our hearts when we don't have the facts, and I feel convinced in my heart that when we have the facts, and we debate this issue, we will do the right thing and we will figure out how to produce natural gas off our shorelines at the right distance so that we have wonderful tourism, we have affordable energy, our people can stay in their homes in the north and keep warm, and our businesses can stay in this country and prosper and build our economy.

Now, this bill, if it passes, only removes the legislative moratorium. The Presidential moratorium still remains. I could not remove that because that is legislating on an appropriations bill. We still have the 5-year plan, which is a 2- or 3-year process that we all react to before any drilling is done anywhere. We have to change language that we can have gas-only leases. You all know that I have a bill that gives 20 miles of shoreline protection and gives the States control over that and only allows for natural gas production.

Folks, States like Florida, that use 235 times more gas than they produce, could be self-sufficient and could bring in a lot of money to the State of Florida. California likewise, huge energy users, could bring in huge amounts of money and could produce natural gas only.

And those who say we can't produce natural gas only just don't understand how you drill. I grew up in this. I have never been in the oil business, but I grew up around it. You drill through the layers of the surface. You drill through oil sands, coal sands, and gas sands; and you put a steel casing down, you cement the top and the bottom, and you go back and open that casing up where you want to produce. It doesn't all just come gushing out.

We have been drilling for oil for hundreds of years. It is a sound science today. I am not promoting oil, but the last major oil spill was Santa Barbara in 1969. How long do they have to do it right? There has never been a gas well that has polluted a beach and made it a place we wouldn't want to be.

I have spent dozens of vacations on Florida beaches. I just spent a week at Duck. Do you think I don't appreciate the value of that, folks? But I also want my kids and my grandchildren to have a job and to have economies, and polymers, plastics, petrochemicals, bricks, and all of the industries, steel and aluminum, which use huge amounts of natural gas.

The President of U.S. Steel told me his cost went up $600 million; and if we don't get gas below $8 consistently, he cannot compete in America. Every glass company will be in South America where gas is $1.87, and every brick company. We won't even make bricks in America. We will bring them in from South America. The petrochemical business has 120 plants being built, with one in America. The rest will move jobs out of this country when they are completed, folks.

We don't have a lot of time. We need to provide affordable energy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the chairman in opposition to this amendment. I have 8 years of local government experience, 30 years of small-town business experience, and 19 years of State government experience before I came here; and I can't tell you the time I have spent bringing reason to wetland designation in my district.

The problem we have had, and what I believe the creep here is, we are going

to bring EPA and put them in charge of wetlands in small-town USA neighborhoods that are not real wetlands; they are wet spots. They are spots where someone has put dirt in an appropriate place and water no longer drains, and we now have a few cattails and certain grass is growing, and it is determined a wetland.

I can't tell you the cases where companies who build a new building, when they did their soil movement afterwards, didn't get good drainage, had a wet spot, and when they went to expand their building, they couldn't because it was declared a wetland. It took a year or two for them to litigate it.

I have farmers who have had to stop farming fields because they were cleaning out the ditches and the corps came by and said you can't clean that ditch, a ditch your father put in with Federal support to drain so you could farm those fields.

I have one near Titusville, Pennsylvania where they stopped the construction of a new building. Do you know what the site was? It was wet. There was grasses and cattails growing there. There were three railroad tracks there where there used to be a factory. It was on top of a landfill. It was the old city dump.

Folks, it was not a wetland, but it was declared a wetland because it was wet on top. Drainage was no longer available. Water was standing there. Folks, our local soil conservation people are diligent in our rural areas in dealing with these issues. We do not need EPA officials and Corps officials boring down the backs and stopping what little growth and prosperity we have in rural America by regulating every wet spot and drainage ditch that has a cattail or certain grasses growing.

Mr. Chairman, we need to not expand their ability.

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

I will take 2 minutes to respond to the opening comments, and then I will share time.

Why are we here tonight on an appropriations bill? Because for 25 years we have had authorizing language placed in the initial draft of an appropriations bill that has nothing to do with appropriating, but has a lot to do with the energy policy of this country.

This country is in an energy crisis, and the crisis in this country is natural gas. But natural gas is readily available in this country onshore and offshore. We are the only country in the world that has locked up its Outer Continental Shelf. That is from 3 miles to 200 miles. We are the only country in the world.

Now, my language that I placed in this bill, because it is all I could do in an appropriating bill; I can move authorizing language. I chose not to remove gas and oil because I think gas is the crisis that we can deal with. I removed the prohibition of natural gas only. I couldn't put my language in there from the bill I have that protects the shorelines for 20 miles. I couldn't do that. But we removed it for natural gas only. Still, we have a Presidential moratorium. Nothing can happen. We have a 5-year plan that anything that is leased, nothing can happen. We have to have authorizing language to allow gas leases only. Nothing can happen.

This is the beginning of a debate, folks, that you have all been avoiding. This debate has been avoided year after year as the gas crisis in this country has continued to skyrocket. We used to have gas for less than $2 about 6 years ago. Last year, the average price was $9.50 a thousand and peaked at 14 and 15 for 4 months. We have the petrochemical business moving away. We have lost half of the fertilizer business in the last 2 years. Polymers and plastics are moving away. Steel, aluminum, bricks, and glass cannot do business in this country with these gas prices.

It is important that we deal with this issue, and we start that debate tonight.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

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

This is the beginning of the debate. This is not the end. The gentleman from Florida knows, no drilling can happen. There is still a presidential moratorium. There is still a 5-year plan. We have to have legislation to allow gas only. Florida is rich in gas. They are not rich in oil. I am not about oil. We need gas in this country. We cannot drill our way out of oil.

We can help ourselves in other places, but natural gas is a richness this country has. It is the clean fuel. It has the least pollutants when you use it. It is the mother's milk of everything we make in this country. From women's face creams to every chemical we buy at the hardware store, the grocery store, polymers, plastic, carpet, drapes, it all is full of natural gas.

There is about 3 million jobs in those industries I have just mentioned, and every one of them are already moving offshore. They do not want to. They have to. We cannot put the disadvantage of $9.50 gas last year, $14 and $15, when South America is $1.80, Russia is about a buck, China and Taiwan 3-something.

This is about the economy of America. Drill only gas? Canadians have drilled 2,200 wells successfully, gas only. I grew up around the oil patch. I have never been in the oil business. I have never made a dollar off the oil business. They drill down through and they choose what they are going to produce. They mark it as they drill through it, and they produce what is there.

Florida is rich in gas. Florida uses 235 times more natural gas than they produce. They could be self-sufficient. They could have huge royalties, and there has never been a gas well that has polluted a beach. I have asked for examples. I was told the Santa Barbara spill. That was an oil well.

A gas well is a steel pipe in the ground. It is cemented at the bottom, and it is cemented at the top. It is open where the gas vein is, and you let gas out. In Lake Erie it runs underground onto shore. Citizens do not even know it is there.

Natural gas is not something to be afraid of. It is something this country needs. I am not for 3 miles offshore. I have legislation that protects us, but I cannot put that on this bill or I would. I can only start this debate tonight.

This debate has been put off. For 3 years I have been talking about this issue. From this day forward, we are going to debate this issue until we do what is right for the future of America.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, let us not confuse medical waste off New Jersey. That was medical waste dumped in the ocean.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

Mr. Chairman, I have been having this debate with the Florida delegation and other delegations for some time, and I really appreciate and like all and respect them very much, but I find recently that poll data show me that Floridians are ahead. Over 60 percent of Floridians in all the recent polls I have seen support production of energy off their shores.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, fear can be overcome with facts. And hopefully down the road here we will get the facts.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

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

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

I want to thank everybody tonight. There has been a good tone of this debate. There has been no personalities. It has been friendly, but I think it has been very informational.

I want to share this letter with you. Mr. Abercrombie was supposed to. ``Supporters of the Putnam-Capps amendment are turning a blind eye to the problem, and they are jeopardizing millions of good-paying union jobs by prohibiting access to new sources of natural gas supply,'' says the Building and Construction Trades and Contractors. In fact, eight unions in the last few days have signed up in support of this legislation.

Folks, this is not about 3 miles offshore. This is not about hearings. Did we have hearings before this authorizing language was placed in this bill 25 times? I was here 5 years before I knew

I was voting to prohibit offshore production of natural gas. I would have been protesting a long time ago.

Folks, this is about our future. America's richest energy source is natural gas. It is the cleanest, it is the mother's milk of all of our industries. American women in the North should not have to keep their thermostats at 55 degrees, and they have in my district. Churches in rural areas should not have to meet in the basement in January and February because they cannot a afford the gas bill, and they have in my district.

Folks, natural gas prices are changing how people live in this country, and they are changing to where companies decide on whether they want to live here. When we lose the industries we have talked about, folks, it is happening. We cannot delay.

They talk about the years it is going to take to get the supply. That is why we need to do it tomorrow. We need to do authorizing language. We need to have the President look at this issue with a bright eye. We have a lot of work to do, folks. But energy is the mother's milk of our country. We will never balance the budget without a growing economy, and our economy will stop growing if we do not have affordable, clean natural gas to fuel it.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 627. I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about an issue I have spoken about many times: the natural gas crisis that faces this country.

Yes, we just passed an energy bill, but it did little to help our homeowners heat their homes. We have had a 500 percent increase in natural gas prices in the last 5 years. A month ago, when we were still facing the impact of Katrina, we had a 700 percent gas increase when it reached $14.50 when it had been $2 just 5 years ago.

These natural gas prices, in my view, threaten homeownership, church ownership, schools, YMCAs, YWCAs, and small businesses.

In my districts, those kinds of organizations are renewing their gas contracts, and they are paying 100 percent more than they paid last year and many times more than they paid a couple of years ago.

Industries like the fertilizer industry are being crushed by these natural gas prices because 70 percent of the cost of producing fertilizer is natural gas. Forty-four percent of our fertilizer companies are now offshore, and our farmers are paying two and three and four times as much for fertilizer as they did just several years ago.

The huge petrochemical industry that is dominated by America will not be for long because there are 20 chemical plants being built in the world and 19 are offshore. Why? Natural gas prices. Petrochemicals use gas not only as a fuel, but they use it as an ingredient for all the chemicals we buy every day. Polymers and plastics involved in everything we market today use natural gas as an ingredient and natural gas as a fuel. Forty to fifty percent of their costs are natural gas.

We have huge reserves in this country of natural gas. We are not poor on natural gas. Congress and Presidents have chosen to lock it up. Our Outer Continental Shelf, that is the first 200 miles offshore, is rich in natural gas.

We have a bill that we introduced today that will open up the Outer Continental Shelf. We increase States' rights from three miles to 20 miles so it will be all out of sight. There has never been a gas production well that has ever in any way soiled a beach. We need to unlock our natural gas supplies.

Canada, Belgium, Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, and Australia produce most of their natural gas offshore, right off of their coastlines. They have beautiful beaches. They are not a threat. There has never been a gas production well that has ever in any way caused beach problems.

I urge Members of this body to deal with this natural gas crisis. We have to open up some supply or we are going to lose major industries. A million or more jobs will be gone in the next 2 or 3 years, some of the best blue collar jobs we have left in this country.

We cannot just subsidize people with natural gas prices. We need to bring prices down by increasing supply because we have lots of it. We have lots of it in the Midwest. But on the Outer Continental Shelf on our coastlines, it is right close to our population centers, it is right close to our plants and our manufacturers.

We will not make steel in this country in the years ahead if we continue. We will not make aluminum in this country. We will not produce anything that uses natural gas to melt it, to bend it, to twist it, to treat it because we cannot afford it. Europe pays half as much for natural gas as we do. China, Taiwan, and Japan are big competitors economically and pay a third of what we pay for natural gas. The rest of the world pays less than $2.

It is time to get our heads out of the sand. It is time to open up our natural gas reserves in this country and pass House bill 4318, which would open up huge reserves on our shorelines to produce natural gas in this country so we can compete and have jobs for our working people.