Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dear friend and colleague, Congressman Ray LaHood. Ray has been a faithful servant to the people of the 18th District of Illinois since first being elected in 1994 to the 104th Congress. Before that he was a schoolteacher, a longtime community leader, member of the Illinois General Assembly and Chief of Staff for former U.S. House Minority Leader Robert Michel. Each of these opportunities furthered his dedication to serving the American people and eventually led him to serve as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Ray and I have worked closely together over the years on a number of issues, but one that has always been near to our hearts because of its importance to the United States, has been our work with the nation of Lebanon, the land of our ancestors. As Members of Congress who are deeply interested in Lebanon, the people of Lebanon, and the ability of Lebanon to rise above the turmoil and conflicts which have overtaken the country, we are able to view the recent election of the new Lebanese President as a strong signal to the world that progress and forward movement continues to be made in the Middle East.

Ray has always had a deep respect for the institution of Congress, a trait which can be attested to by any and all who have served with him over the years. While Ray has left many lasting legacies during his time here in the House of Representatives, for me his friendship will be one I continue to treasure the most as he, his wife Kathy and their family move on to this new chapter in their lives.

Although it seems that we as a Congress can't find ourselves in agreement on many things, one thing that is beyond dispute is that Ray has embodied the ideal of the civil servant who tirelessly has served the interests of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the American people want us to solve the energy problems facing our country in a bipartisan way. They're looking to the Congress for answers, but they realize that the Congress cannot provide the only answers.

No less than T. Boone Pickens has said that we cannot drill our way out of this mess. The plan that we bring to the floor today is a comprehensive energy plan that does do all of the above. It's a compromise between the drill nowhere crowd and the drill everywhere crowd. And let's face it, there are some on the minority side in this body that would drill everywhere and they're not going to settle for anything less, including under the National Mall if they could. They would want to drill every inch of this land, and that is not a responsible way.

Our plan provides for reliance upon domestically produced energy sources, all of the above. It requires oil companies to be responsible and transparent in the collection of royalties. It provides for a new ethics code for the people at the Minerals Management Service to operate under so that the American taxpayer can receive a fair return for the disposition of their resources. These are public resources deserving public accountability.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1433, I call up the bill (H.R. 6899) to advance the national security interests of the United States by reducing its dependency on oil through renewable and clean, alternative fuel technologies while building a bridge to the future through expanded access to Federal oil and natural gas resources, revising the relationship between the oil and gas industry and the consumers who own those resources and deserve a fair return from the development of publicly owned oil and gas, ending tax subsidies for large oil and gas companies, and facilitating energy efficiencies in the building, housing, and transportation sectors, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 H.R. 6899.

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

Mr. Speaker, the pending legislation, H.R. 6899, has as its additional cosponsors the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from Michigan, the dean of the House, Mr. John Dingell.

My colleagues, today we stand at a crossroads, and the two paths before us are crystal clear. Those of us supporting the pending legislation bring with us the new-age conviction that in order for this Nation to be truly secure, we must bridge the gap between our addiction to oil, to a future empowered by more secure, safe, and reliable sources of power, that we must shatter the shackles of the past and remove the bonds that have placed such a burden on the American people and on our security as a Nation.

The other path is less enlightened. It carries with it the belief that a subservience to the policies of the past can sustain the country in the years and decades ahead. It would sacrifice America's energy security on the altar of Big Oil's profits and its profiteering. The choice is quite clear.

Before us today is landmark legislation that would, for the first time since 1982, sweep away moratoria precluding oil and gas leasing in much of the Federal waters off America's coastlines.

As a result of the pending measure, roughly 85 percent of all oil on the Outer Continental Shelf will be available for production. We are opening up to 400 million acres off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts to drilling. We are expanding the availability of oil by at least 2 billion barrels of oil, enough to power 1 million cars for 60 years.

But in doing so, we have built in safeguards. I repeat that: we have built in safeguards. We do not undermine the defense posture of this country and the Defense Department's need to engage in military operations in America's waters.

We protect national marine monuments and sanctuaries, and we provide for the consideration of the interests of the coastal marine and human environment. And importantly, we are cracking down on the incredible failure of the Interior Department to ensure that Americans are getting paid a fair rate of return for the production of their, and I emphasize their, Federal oil and gas reserves and resources. These reserves are not owned by Chevron or Shell or by Exxon; they are owned by all Americans. They are owned by all Americans by birthright.

Yesterday, another former Interior Department official who was in charge of collecting Federal oil and gas royalties pleaded guilty to rigging bids. Last week reports were released by the Interior Department's Inspector General which found ``a culture of ethical failure'' in a division of the Minerals Management Service as part of what I believe to be a burgeoning scandal. This is an agency that is supposed to safeguard one of the largest non-IRS streams of revenue to the Treasury. It is almost like Teapot Dome all over again.

At the same time, Government Accountability Office reports were released that found that the United States receives one of the smallest shares of oil and gas revenue in the world. Think about that. We receive one of the smallest shares of oil and gas revenues of any country in the world.

The reports also found that Federal oil and gas leases are not being diligently developed. We on this side of the aisle have been saying that for months. Production is only occurring on 12 percent of offshore leases and 5 percent of onshore leases. And as I have been bringing to light through a number of hearings held by the Natural Resources Committee, the Interior Department is unable to provide certainty that companies are paying the royalties owed to the American people, a culture of ethical failure, indeed.

The legislation before us contains bold initiatives to crack down on this legacy of abuse. It would require the diligent development of Federal oil and gas leases, require that prompt, transparent and accurate royalty payments are made, and would tackle the ethical failures occurring at the Interior Department. Leading the vanguard in our march to a more energy self-reliant and secure future is this legislation's establishment of a strategic energy efficiency and renewable reserve.

This initiative would finance the development of renewable and alternative energy technologies, provide increased assistance for low- income

home energy and weatherization programs, and advance carbon capture and storage, among other items. And we are dedicating over $6 billion to this fund over the next 10 years.

All of the above. All of the above. How often have we heard that in this debate? All of the above. It is here my friends: oil, natural gas, oil shale, wind, solar, coal energy efficiencies and energy conservation.

As I noted earlier, today we are at a crossroads. The difference is clear between those of us supporting this measure and some of those on the other side of the aisle who have been trumpeting their bumper sticker ``drill here, drill now'' approach to our serious energy situation.

They would open up everything to Big Oil. Perhaps some of them would even open up the National Mall if they could to drilling rigs. They would give away the store, no accountability, no safeguards, no expectation of a return in terms of energy or revenue.

We, on this side, instead, seek to protect America's interests in American resources. Make more Federal oil and gas available to drilling? Yes. That's what we're doing in this bill. But we're doing so in a manner that safeguards our environment, ensures the diligent development of those energy resources, and demands that the American taxpayer gets a fair return. Royalties due, royalties paid.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would note to the gentleman that just spoke, the minority, when they

were in power, tried very hard writing bills late at night, so nothing should surprise them as far as the timing of this bill.

I yield, Mr. Speaker, 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a very important champion of this bill and cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

It's interesting to note that the gentleman from Texas has just spoken about that we should have a straight up-or-down--or, I'm sorry, that we should have amendments, that he's complaining about the closed rule as other Members on that side have. Yet their mantra over the last several months has been, Let's have a straight up-or-down vote; let's have a straight up-or-down vote. I would say that's what we're getting to before this evening is over with.

I would note also the lack of hearings to which we've been charged. This energy debate has gone on ad infinitum on numerous pieces of legislation, often bills having nothing to do with energy, during 1- minutes, during Special Orders. Even when the House was not in session, the other side had their energy debate.

So I would say there are various parts of this bill that have passed the House before, have been debated on ad infinitum in committees and/ or on this floor. So there is really nothing new in this piece of legislation, and it's a piece of legislation that has been debated over and over.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of our Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and also a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, an individual who's helped us a great deal in the drafting of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to yield 1 minute to the distinguished dean of the House and cosponsor of the pending legislation and chairman of our Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I'm glad the gentleman from Alaska has returned to the floor and reclaimed managing on his part. I hope he's been back in the cloakroom speaking to his Governor, Sarah Palin, and urging her to speak with his Presidential nominee, John McCain, in regard to opening up ANWR, since the gentleman is so anxious to open up ANWR. I would note that his Presidential nominee is opposed opening ANWR as well.

This legislation, however, increases domestic oil production in Alaska by mandating annual lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve which has more than 10 billion barrels of oil, more oil than the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to yield 4 minutes to a very distinguished member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Pennsylvania, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Ms. Schwartz.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Shelley Berkley.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. Anna Eshoo.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, a valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. Speaker, just to remind the previous gentleman, he ought to read the bill because there is a State opt-in for oil shale leasing, including in his own State.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) who has been a real stalwart in helping us develop this comprehensive energy bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman from Louisiana has just described the revenue program as ``typical'' and that we are doing away with the ``typical revenue sharing.'' I would remind my colleagues, that is not an accurate statement.

The OCS Lands Lease Act passed in 1954 had zero revenue sharing in it. Zero revenue sharing. It was only in 2006 when this Congress passed revenue sharing to allow four States to share in that money, due to hurricane relief, those four States being Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Revenue sharing was a one-shot deal.

So for the gentleman from Louisiana to describe it as typical, and many on that side have attacked this bill because there is no revenue sharing, a bribe to the States, if you will, to opt in, is just not an accurate description of this legislation. Revenue sharing has never been typical of leasing and the Outer Continental Shelf.

I will yield.

Reclaiming my time, it was a one-shot correction due to hurricane relief, Katrina.

Onshore, yes. We are talking about the Outer Continental Shelf here. You said OCS.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, God forbid, that this bill be known as a drill here, drill now, drill everywhere, drill irresponsibly piece of legislation.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, a gentleman who has done yeoman's work in bringing this together as a caucus on this legislation, and I salute his knowledge and expertise in developing this legislation, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); and while she is taking the mike, I remind her that our thoughts and prayers are certainly with all of her constituents and all those who have suffered from the recent Hurricane Ike.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

I yield the gentleman 30 more seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

I yield the gentleman 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield to the lady that leads this body. I certainly commend her for the tremendous efforts that she's made meeting after meeting after meeting to bring us together as a caucus, often at much political sacrifice, including to her own desires.

I yield 1 minute to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, reading the legislation will show that the strategic energy efficiency renewable reserve fund that we've set up--we explained the funding mechanism and how much earlier--would go toward accelerating the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels. And an understanding of what alternative fuels is would lead one to know that that includes coal-to-liquid and clean coal technologies.

In addition, we have a separate section that increases research, development, and demonstration of carbon capture and sequestration techniques, also clearly spelled out in the legislation.

Furthermore, when we're talking about carbon capture and sequestration in this legislation, we do have language that specifically sets aside how the process is, that these grants will be made from this fund to go toward carbon capture and sequestration.

We provide $1.1 billion of tax credits for the creation of advanced coal electricity projects and certain coal classification projects and we explain how that will be awarded.

In addition, we ensure the solvency of the black lung disability trust fund, not a laughing matter to West Virginians.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) who's been very instrumental in helping us develop this piece of legislation, especially in regards to the oil shale.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The previous gentleman has once again referred to the so-called ``5- week vacation'' during the month of August--a time period that we all have enjoyed with our families and working in our districts--without mentioning the fact that for the 90 days prior to that August district work period, Republicans called for 18 motions to adjourn this House, and they called for two motions today to adjourn this House without consideration of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a valued member of our Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Hinchey.

Could I have a time check, please, Mr. Speaker?

I have the right to close, I assume?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and want to salute him not only as an extremely knowledgeable person on our Committee on Natural Resources, but one who has worked with us throughout this process, has been involved every step of the way and has contributed magnificently.

I just want to salute Mr. Abercrombie for his tremendous efforts on behalf of this compromise bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, may we have a time check. I am prepared to close on this side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Florida and his concern for the area off his coast, and I appreciate the minority leader's comments in response that he would be protected in the motion to recommit. We do protect him in this bill.

We met with the Florida delegation. We are perfectly aware of the concern of the Department of Defense to this particular area, the military training and equipment training that takes place therein. We are preserving existing law in our bill, which holds that area off- limits to drilling unless there is a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Interior. That is the current law that was enacted in 2006.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this has been a good debate that we've conducted today. It's been a debate that as we've heard for several months over the last time period in this body, we've had extensive debates in the House over the energy issue. We've had it on the House floor during consideration of various energy bills. We've had the debate during 1-minutes. We've had it during Special Orders. We've had it on bills that we've considered that have had nothing to do with energy, and we've even had a debate when the House was not in session.

We've heard repeatedly that the Republican Members want a straight up-or-down vote. That's what we're giving them by this rule today, and we're about to near that point.

It's regrettable that oftentimes the debate today has used the words hoax, sham, bait and switch, not serious, political gains, and I could go on and on about the venom that has been spewed from the other side. When it comes to political games and the bait and switch tactics that we've been alleged to be employing, I would say what is wrong when we're trying to represent the crying need and the desperate need of the American people.

We are politicians in this body. We know what the art of compromise is all about, or at least we should know what the art of compromise is all about. We know the diversity that exists within both sides, both caucuses in this body, and the diversity that exists among the American people. But we all are united. We all are united in trying to resolve the crying need that the American people are telling us today needs to be addressed.

This bill has worked with both sides of the aisle. In working with Representatives Abercrombie and Peterson, that has been working with the other side of the aisle.

We have also taken a lot of this language, not a lot of it, but elements of this proposal come from the so-called Senate Gang of 10 or 15, however many it is from the other body. Those that say this is dead on arrival over there, I think, are a little premature in their predictions.

In working with my colleagues that are cosponsors, Representative Gene Green, Representative George Miller and Representative John Dingell, we have certainly reached out. Speaker Pelosi has been tremendous in her of efforts, and as well as the leadership of Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn, Chris Van Hollen and Rahm Emanuel, and I certainly want to thank each and every one of them.

Charges have been made today that this bill does nothing to increase energy production. Indeed, the minority leader just said that. And I want to quote, by the way, in an August 2005 debate on this floor, when Minority Leader John Boehner said that the GOP energy bill, remember that bill, the GOP energy bill of 2005 would bring down prices, writing, and I quote from Minority Leader Boehner at that time. ``So what is being done to bring gas prices down? The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is a balanced bipartisan bill that will ultimately lower energy prices for consumers and spur our economy.'' End quote from Minority Leader John Boehner addressing our energy concerns on August 19 of 2005.

The results speak for themselves. This legislation will increase domestic production of oil and gas. The offshore drilling provisions opened up from 63 to 80 percent. That's 309 up to 404 million acres of land off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts that are currently off limits to drilling. It depends, of course, on what the States decide. It goes beyond the bipartisan compromise proposal in the Senate, opening up the West Coast and the Northeast to drilling.

The offshore drilling provisions expands oil available by at least 2 billion barrels of oil, nearly 4 years worth of oil produced offshore in America and enough to power 1 million cars for 60 years. It also makes available enough natural gas to heat 6 million homes for over 42 years.

Now am I going to sit here and say that passage of this legislation is going to bring down the price of gas tomorrow or next month or next year? No, I'm not going to say that; just as the other side cannot say, no matter what is in their recommittal motion, that is not going to bring down the price of gas tomorrow, next month or next year either.

We need a comprehensive energy plan. This bipartisan effort, this, as we will see by the final vote on this bill, shows that we are making efforts to begin the road toward a comprehensive energy package. We have provisions in here for carbon mitigation, for carbon capture and sequestration for those who say there's no coal.

We provide $1.1 billion of tax credits for the creation of advanced coal electricity projects and certain coal gasification projects that demonstrate the greatest potential for carbon capture and sequestration. Of these $1.1 billion of incentives, $950 million would be awarded to advance electricity projects and $150 million would be awarded to

certain coal gasification projects. Coming from a coal State, as I do, this provision is important.

We also provide for the solvency for the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund in this legislation, something that is not inconsequential to those from coal States as well.

On the revenue sharing point, we have not provided for revenue sharing in this bill because these are the people's resources. These are the resources that belong to the American people by birthright and, therefore, the money gained through royalties should be shared with the American people, and revenue sharing is not a commonly accepted method of providing the revenues from royalty collection. I refer to the OCS legislation passed in 1954 which provided for no revenue sharing.

The only time Congress has provided for revenue sharing from these royalty leases is, as I said earlier, during Hurricane Katrina when the four States involved were in dire need of help to get back on their feet. So revenue sharing is not provided in this bill because we do not think a bribe is necessary for the States to opt in. The offer of new jobs, a new economy and all the related businesses thereto should be enough for a State if they want to opt in to this program to provide them incentives to opt in.

In regard to the fiasco that's recently been revealed to the American people, what has taken place in the Office of the Minerals Management Service in their Denver office, these are public servants entrusted with fiduciary responsibilities of ensuring that the American people receive a just return for the use of their resources.

This legislation sets up ethical codes of conduct. It prohibits acceptance of gifts and ski vacations and other extravaganzas that were being heaped upon these royalty collectors by big oil companies. This Committee on Natural Resources will have a hearing next Thursday and delve further into these hearings to see how much the American taxpayers were, once again, ripped off by the big oil companies.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me comment generally about this bill and the need to pass it this evening. It is a real comprehensive effort based on the need to move toward a comprehensive energy bill. Are we all happy with this? No.

As I said earlier, we are legislators. We know what the art of compromise is, and we know that this is a compromise between the ``no drillers anywhere'' and the ``drill everywherers.'' That's what this bill is all about.

We cannot have opening all lands, all of our national monuments and other areas in this country to drilling and be fair with the American people. We must assure accountability. That's what we're doing with this legislation. As with all compromises, it does require both sides to give. And in return for a responsible opening of more of our offshore areas for drilling, our bill requires oil companies to pay their fair share so that we can make a historic commitment to renewable energy future and alternative fuels and jobs for our people.

This bill puts us on the path toward energy independence. It protects our consumers. It provides transparency and accountability for the big oil companies. It strengthens our national security, it helps reduce global warming, the goals and the key ingredients that are needed for a comprehensive national strategy.

And I say to my colleagues, let's look forward of where this bill can go provided that there is that spirit of compromise from the other side, from the other body and from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. And I think, when all is said at the end of the day, rather than shut the government down, we will see that those in the middle, those who truly feel compromise is part of the legislative process, that compromise is what the American people are yearning for these days, in order to meet their high energy costs, that that is where we will be when all is said and done on the pending bill.

Again, I want to salute all of my colleagues that have worked so hard on this legislation on both sides of the aisle. I do not ignore the fact that there are certainly good-minded and fair-minded and compromise-minded individuals on the other side of the aisle. If only they were allowed to work their will as well.

So this is a good bill. I again salute everybody that has been involved, and I ask for its passage and a defeat of the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I claim my 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania's partner in this effort, the gentleman from Hawaii.

I'm sorry?

Fine. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Regular order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it should be noted that the recommittal motion, in taking the Abercrombie and Peterson language as it has word for word, does repeal the military mission law protection that we worked so hard to keep in for the Florida delegation.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) raised that issue on the floor. He had the map, and I would say to him that because of the importance of this to our military training, our aviation training, our national security defenses, we protect this area in our bill.

The Abercrombie-Peterson measure, as read by the Clerk of the House just now, repeals the section 104 that provides for the protection of this Florida area.

So I would urge my colleagues from the State of Florida to particularly take this into recognition, as well as all of my colleagues, because this is a national security area. The Air Force uses the eastern gulf for training maneuvers. It has become crucial for maintaining our military readiness, especially after the closure of Vieques, and our compromise bill does protect this area for important defense training and exercises.

So I would hope Members would note that, and I do, of course, rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Well, I do know where it came from, and as I said, I respect the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for working with Mr. Abercrombie, and he has stated his reasons for opposing this language as well.

So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, I rise with all Americans, and indeed with most of the civilized world, in marking the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and in doing so, remember the thousands of innocent Americans who lost their lives that day, and extend the Nation's highest prayers to their families, friends, and loved ones. I thank God for the freedom which Americans enjoy, a freedom for which American lives were lost.

Like so many of my colleagues, I attended a dedication ceremony this morning of the 9/11 Memorial at the Pentagon, where I joined Huntington, West Virginia, residents Dr. Ken and Sharon Ambrose, whose son, Dr. Paul Ambrose, was one of the 184 lives lost in the Pentagon on that American Airlines Flight 77 during that fateful day of September 11, 2001.

Indeed, Dr. Paul Ambrose was the first name called this morning when the bells were rung for each of the victims at the Pentagon. The viewing of his memorial, so beautifully etched in the grounds of the Pentagon, will truly bless his memory eternally.

This ceremony and countless others around the Nation today continue to remind us that freedom does not come free. Thousands of Americans-- first responders, military service, and Guard members, law enforcement personnel, medical personnel, volunteers--continue this very day to devote themselves day in and day out to protecting the innocent in times of disaster and tragedy, risking their own lives to do so.

Over the last 7 years, thousands of Americans, both in and out of government, have worked tirelessly to improve the security of our Nation. Much progress has been made, but more work remains to be done. Our number one duties as Members of Congress, of course, are to protect the people of this country and to ensure that such a terrible tragedy never happens again. As we move forward, we all will work hard to continue to keep our homeland secure and to seek out and defeat terrorist organizations around the world.

I thank the gentleman again for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mr. Grijalva, for bringing this bill forward, and the ranking member, Mr. Bishop. Also I want to thank Mr. Peter Welch for the tremendous leadership he has provided.

Certainly I am in support of the legislation. I recognize that much of the debate that has occurred thus far has not really been on the legislation itself, but rather has surrounded the energy issue. As all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know, we are working toward bringing an energy bill to the floor of the House of Representatives in the very near future.

I have heard a lot of finger pointing. We all have been doing that, are guilty of that, for the last several months on this issue. Each side is trying to blame the other for the high price of gas today, ignoring the fact that the price of gas when President Bush took office was $1.47, both houses of Congress were

in Republican hands, and the price of gas is where it is today.

But that is the past. We must look forward. Now we are all talking about using all of our domestic sources of energy in order to free ourselves from that dangerous reliance upon foreign oil. And certainly I am one of those in the category, if not 99.9 percent of my colleagues, that want to see all of our domestic sources of energy used. I dare say that in the not-too-distant future, when we do address the energy bill, if not in the next several days on the floor of this body, that we will see the most broad-ranging, most comprehensive energy bill come to this floor that we have had in several years. It will be an all-of-the-above. It will be a start toward progressive, comprehensive energy legislation.

In that, it will be a pro-drilling bill as well, although it will not be all-drilling. It will not be all my-way-or-the-highway, as some on the other side continually preach, but rather it will be a bill that will show the sacrifices that will be necessary, the compromises that are always necessary in the legislative process if we are going to address the common good of this country. So that is what we are going to see.

One important factor of that bill that we have not seen in previous energy bills is accountability and transparency. After all, these are the American people's resources, our public resources we are talking about on the OCS or with Federal leasing on on-shore Federal lands. That means the American people have the right to receive a fair dispensation for the use of their resources, as well as an accountability of royalties and fees collected thereupon.

One of the areas in which we will seek to provide much-needed reform and more oversight is in the area of royalty collection and the royalty-in-kind program specifically.

Thank you. And I say we will provide that additional oversight, because the Interior Department's own Inspector General, Mr. Devaney, is today coming out with a report of his investigation of the royalty-in-kind program in which he says we have also discovered a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity in the RIK program, both within the program, including the supervisor, who engaged in illegal drug use, had sexual relations with subordinates, and is in consort with industry. Internally, several staff admitted to illegal drug use as well as elicit sexual encounters, and it goes on and on about what has been happening with this oversight program. We will strengthen this program and make the reforms necessary.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for yielding. I want to thank you for the very accommodating and congenial manner in which you have accommodated the interests and the jurisdiction of the House of Natural Resources Committee on this issue.

I would like to ask the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Michigan, a question about the provision of the bill that requires the FDA, to the extent feasible, to enter into contracts with States for the inspection of tobacco retailers within their borders. It is my understanding that this contracting provision applies to Indian tribes in the same way as the provision applies to States.

I would yield to the distinguished chairman to clarify.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6515) to amend the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an expeditious environmentally responsible program of competitive leasing of oil and gas in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that time for debate on the pending measure be expanded to 60 minutes.

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 resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our freshmen Democratic members and in concert with the Democratic leadership, I am pleased to bring to the floor today the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act, the DRILL bill.

Let there be no mistake about it. As Democrats, we are pro drilling. I repeat that for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We are pro drilling. We are for drilling now. And we are for drilling in areas that bring near-term relief to the American public.

As others put forth bumper-sticker energy policies, today, House Democrats are bringing forth prudent legislation aimed at unleashing the vast potential of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, this section to the far right on the map behind me. That is to be distinguished very clearly and separately from the ANWR, over on my far left.

Where better to drill than in the National Petroleum Reserve? That is what it's for. The National Petroleum Reserve. That is why it was set aside. The National Petroleum Reserve.

Now, my colleagues, the National Petroleum Reserve, situated on the North Slope of Alaska--this reserve is no pipe dream like ANWR way over here, which is a bumper sticker approach to our energy woes--the National Petroleum Reserve is open for leasing. It has been. It will be. Twenty-three million acres. The National Petroleum Reserve is open for leasing, open for business, now, today, 23 million acres containing an estimated 6.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil. There is more than over here in ANWR, which is not even open for leasing at this point in time. It is a pipe dream over here in ANWR.

Far more than ANWR, the National Petroleum Reserve, as I said, has much more recoverable oil than ANWR. And if ANWR were fully open, we still would be 20 years before we could have any oil in production. The Energy Information estimates show that the only effect on the price at the pump would be 1.8 cents 20 years from now.

As opposed to that, we have the National Petroleum Reserve set aside for drilling. In Alaska, 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas has been stranded. Think about that: 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas stranded over in the National Petroleum Reserve because there is no pipeline available to bring it to market over here being the major pipeline. For oil only, I might add.

Elsewhere, there are 68 million acres of land onshore and offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf in the lower 48 under oil and gas leases that are not producing. They may be subject to speculation. They may be purely being warehoused. We don't know.

I say here today, drill. Drill. Drill. Drill here in America. Drill now. Let's drill.

The DRILL Act, Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act, would unleash the vast potential of the National Petroleum Reserve by requiring annual Federal oil and gas lease sales and by facilitating the construction of pipelines to connect the NPR-A with the existing central North Slope arteries that will bring it on down to the American consumers in the lower 48. That includes Prudhoe Bay, connecting it over here to Prudhoe Bay, the transportation infrastructure and trans- Alaska Pipeline that comes down here, we do need still a gas pipeline. There is, of course, already existing an oil pipeline.

But it makes as a matter of Presidential priority, the DRILL Act makes the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline a priority so that stranded gas, that stranded gas in the National Petroleum Reserve, can be transported to the lower 48.

It requires project labor agreements be entered into for construction of these pipelines so they would be good-paying American jobs. It requires that the trans-Alaska Pipeline, the NPR pipeline that connects, that is right here, a 5-mile segment connecting NPR over to the existing oil and gas leasing being done in the Prudhoe Bay area, that they be maintained and operated in an efficient manner to ensure an uninterrupted flow of oil and natural gas. And the DRILL Act reinstitutes the ban of the exportation of Alaskan oil to other countries so that this Alaskan oil, American oil, can be used by Americans for their relief.

It is a commonsense approach to our near-term energy woes. We know very clearly we must transition ourselves from oil dependency. We must wean ourselves from oil addiction. Alternative fuels, coal-to-liquids, carbon sequestration, other noncorn-based alternatives, renewables, all of the above should be on the table. It is the only way to secure America's energy independence from foreign crude.

But in the near term, we need to drill. We are saying in this bill today drill, drill, drill. Drill it now. Drill it here. Drill it where the oil is and where it is already available, not wait 20 years from now, as the President proposes to lift some moratorium on the OCS and up here in the ANWR that, as I have already said, won't affect any near-term relief at the pump for American consumers.

Let me observe that there are those who display a fundamental misunderstanding of parts of this legislation. We do of course incorporate the use it or lose it that has already been passed by a majority in this body which requires the diligent development of Federal oil and gas leases during their primary term, which is normally 10 years. What that means is during that period, we are requesting that the oil companies do something with these leases to explore for energy. If a discovery is made, and we hope that it will be, apply for the permit.

Now, I understand drilling. I think most of my colleagues know I am from the State of West Virginia, by golly, the great State of West Virginia. We know something about energy woes in that State. We are not a NIMBY State by any stretch of the imagination. We do not shirk from our responsibility to contribute to the Nation's need for energy. We have mining. We have drilling.

I understand that complications can take place while trying to develop a lease, environmental challenges, bureaucratic delays, but this constitutes due diligence. This constitutes the development of a lease. This constitutes moving toward meeting our energy woes. Diligent development does not mean the lease is producing, I understand that. It means that a company is doing something with the lease to determine whether it can be brought into production or not. That is a good thing. That is diligent development.

I understand it is a lengthy process, but I am saying to Mr. Big Oil, please do something on these leases. Do something. If you have to go out and buy a Black & Decker drill to drill it to move forward, do that.

Vote for this legislation. A vote for this legislation will mean that we are trying to bring energy immediately to the American people, that we are voting for American good-paying jobs, and that we are voting to prevent American energy from being exported to foreign markets.

As I conclude, I say, drill, drill, drill. Drill here. Drill now. Drill so we can meet our energy supply-side demands here with American resources.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am shocked that the gentleman would even start down the road of campaign contributions in this debate, but I am not going to proceed any further down that road.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall) who has been very active on this issue and very involved in our debate we had the other night.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman from New Mexico.

If he was listening to my opening statement and my earlier comments on this issue, I fully understand it's a lengthy process. The regulatory framework was put into place in this and many other laws of this land for a very specific reason, to protect the public health and safety and the environment.

It's a lengthy process to go through this leasing. I must tell the gentleman, and he knows it, once you obtain that lease you have overcome most of the hard obstacle of achieving production. The lands we are talking about are mostly lands already under lease. Therefore, a lot of that burden has already been overcome.

Yes.

Reclaiming my time. And under lease. And if they are in that process, that is called due diligence. We don't penalize them. We don't take it away at all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded by my colleague from Mississippi, Mr. Gene Taylor, and in thinking back over history, when this moratoria was first passed by a Democratic Congress in the early eighties, there was one Ronald Reagan that occupied the White House and signed it into law. My colleagues are attacking Ronald Reagan, His Holiness? I am rather shocked.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from New Mexico, when he brings up all these bureaucratic delays and environmental lawsuits and that big long chart of his, I was here when we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, when I believe that side of the aisle was in control, as well as their party in control of the White House. I thought one of the purposes of EPAC, as passed by the Republican Congress, was to speed up this whole mess.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Carol Shea-Porter.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, could you give us the time remaining on both sides.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Would the gentleman yield?

Of course I was being facetious in case you didn't understand my southern drawl.

But in regard to the issue of litigation lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits to which you refer, if I might respond. In regard to the NPRA, the National Petroleum Reserve, ConocoPhillips currently holds 183 leases up there making them one of the largest leaseholders. As of July 16, 2008, I believe that's yesterday, ConocoPhillips has told my staff, ``There are no lawsuits, litigation, on any ConocoPhillips leases in the NPRA nor have there been.''

According to several other sources, there are no lawsuits pending to stop lease sales, exploration, or development of the NPRA, the National Petroleum Reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored and proud to yield at this time 1 minute to our superb majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I would say to the gentleman from New Mexico, again, we realize this is a lengthy process, leasing and permitting and getting into actual production. But again, a lot of the regulatory framework that's in place is in place for a darn good reason, to protect the public, to protect their health, to protect their safety, and to protect our environment, regulatory framework of which I happen to be proud to have supported over the years and I think should be there for that public protection.

I'd be glad to yield the gentleman from Illinois 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman 30 more seconds.

We're prepared to wrap up, Mr. Speaker. I object.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude our debate on this side, and in order to promote the passage of this DRILL Act, which will bring American energy to American consumers in a responsible way, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentlelady from California, Nancy Pelosi.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, which reported the pending legislation sponsored by the gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman Barney Frank, in support of this measure.

The 106th Congress authorized a study of the river to determine whether it is eligible for such designation. The National Park Service released a report in June of last year, finding that the river is eligible and identifying designation of the entire 40-mile segment as the environmentally preferred alternative.

H.R. 415 implements the study's findings by amending the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to add the Taunton River.

Some apparently feel that, in their opinion, the lower portion of the Taunton River is not deserving of designation. I would first point out that the bill designates this portion of the river as a recreational river--not as a wild or scenic river. This is a designation intended for river segments just like the lower Taunton.

More important, the experts at the National Park Service, the entire Massachusetts congressional delegation, and the 10 local communities along the banks, all think the river does qualify for designation and, with all due respect, their opinions are more informed. Opponents of this river designation have attempted to Iink this legislation to the apparent demise of a liquefied natural gas facility that had once been proposed along the banks of the Taunton.

Approval for the LNG facility was denied--twice--by the United States Coast Guard for reasons having nothing to do with the wild and scenic designation. In fact, the designation was proposed long before the LNG facility was announced.

This is a good piece of legislation, the river is worthy of designation, and I urge the adoption of this measure.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.

I certainly want to commend him as well as our full committee chairman, Mr. Oberstar from Minnesota, for their invaluable work over the years that I have been in this body on the Appalachian Regional Commission. Their full committee chairman, Mr. Oberstar, is strongly in support of the Appalachian Regional Commission. He has been to our State of West Virginia and seen how important it is. And this bill certainly would not only extend the work of the Appalachian Regional Commission, but it would enhance that work.

Throughout my career as a Member of this body, I have supported the work of ARC. West Virginia is the only State that has its entire borders within the jurisdiction of the Appalachian Regional Commission. We have seen firsthand how it has enabled struggling communities throughout West Virginia and the Appalachian region to provide economic opportunity and a renewed sense of hope to our citizens.

I would like to point out specific provisions in this bill aimed at increasing American-made energy for America. We have spent weeks on this floor hearing about the need to increase domestic energy supplies by becoming even more beholden to Big Oil. But we have at our fingertips the chance to help forge a better solution.

We possess the technological know-how to convert coal to environmentally advanced transportation fuels and electric power. This bill recognizes that and provides for an infusion of investment to help make that happen. A provision in this legislation, for example, would enable the ARC to make grants, provide technical assistance, enter into contracts and otherwise provide for projects that would increase the use of renewable energy, particularly biomass, in the Appalachian Region to produce alternative transportation fuels.

This is extremely important in helping make a commercial coal-to- liquids industry a reality in this country. The use of biomass with coal in the conversion process can sharply cut carbon emissions of coal-to-liquid fuels.

A study provided by Princeton University found that by combining 30 percent biomass with coal in the conversion process and capturing and sequestering the carbon dioxide, CTL fuel can be made cleaner than other conventional liquid fuels in use today. A second provision in the bill would provide support for the development of conventional energy resources, such as coal, to provide electricity using advanced greenhouse gas reduction technologies. More plainly, it would help to advance projects which would capture and store carbon emissions, a necessity to our continued use of coal and other fossil fuels throughout the foreseeable future.

In this age of increasing energy need and growing carbon awareness, it makes sense that such an initiative would find a home in Appalachia, a region in which much of the economy is intertwined with coal. The development of CTL and the success of carbon capture and storage is vital to the Nation's quest for greater energy independence. CTL fuels will assure us of a

readily usable, environmentally advanced alternative to current high- cost transportation fuels.

And they are strategically beneficial to our Defense Department, which is vigorously pursuing the growth of a domestic alternative fuels industry to make the fuels it needs to keep America secure.

So I conclude with proud support of this bill to get our Nation beyond our reliance on foreign fuels and to get our people out from under the heavy hand of Big Oil.

Again, I commend the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership on this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Barton. I appreciate your yielding, and I certainly want to commend you and Jason Altmire, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for putting together this rather unique 2-hour debate, civilized debate, I might add, on our energy situation. It comes at a very appropriate time.

As we all know, President Bush just today by executive order lifted the moratorium that was put into place by his father some 18 years ago, I guess. That moratorium being on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and in ANWR. And by a stroke of the pen, the President has lifted that moratorium, and I assume now that those lands are open for leasing; and I think that's a very important point to stress that they are not under lease at this time but are open for leasing.

And as the gentleman from Texas, I'm sure, is aware, having a lease in hand is not quite the same as starting the process to obtain a lease. The latter being a rather lengthy process that can take quite a few number of years.

I would think at this time an appropriate quote would be that quote from the Energy Information Administration. When commenting on the efforts to lift the moratorium on OCS and ANWR, it stated that lifting the current moratorium, ``would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.''

That's the year 2030, 22 years from now.

This is the Energy Information Administration, a part of Secretary Bodman's Department of Energy.

And I think it's also worthy of note that 79 percent of the oil and 82 percent of the natural gas in Federal waters off America's coasts are already available

for leasing. That is today, now; not 22 years from now.

So I think that old saying that a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush, well, an oil lease in hand is certainly--a lease, the actual lease in hand is certainly more preferable in terms of gaining production today in the near future; that is today, gaining production today, and bringing meaningful relief at the pump today, not 22 years from now, but today, would leave one to believe that opening these some 68 million acres of Federal onshore and OCS lands that are already under lease that can go--the companies can go out and drill on today-- today, not 22 years from now, but today--would, I think, be preferable. And I'm not saying not including what the President has done today, that's fine. He has done what he did.

But also I don't see--and I'm asking the gentleman from Texas this question since it is his time--what is wrong with requiring the oil companies to use this acreage, 68 million, that are already under lease to go out and make some, at least a due diligent effort towards developing those leases?

Now, I recognize that's like a housing development. You're not going to find something on every acre that's under lease. You already know there's nothing under a few of those acres because when you build a housing development, you don't build a house on every inch of that entire development. So there are some acres where there's obviously not going to be anything there and not worth exploring.

But of that 68 million, there's only about 10 million now that is actively under production. And if you extrapolate out the same Energy Administration Department figures I just quoted, if you extrapolate out what is being produced from that 10 million acres, then you come up with roughly about a 14-year supply of natural gas by extrapolating out those figures.

So why can we not give some push to the industry to go out and make an effort to find out if there's anything in these 68 million acres or not? They will say, I'm sure there's not. But how do they know that there's not? How do we know what exists in the OCS that is now open by today's action of the President in lifting the moratorium? How do we know--I mean, the word ``potential'' is always used. The potential for this large find or this potential. But I just don't--I'm asking that question

I believe it's your time.

Well, this gentleman is certainly no stranger to efforts to reform Federal onshore oil and gas leasing program. I've been involved in that for 20 years, I guess, through first my subcommittee chairman on what was then called the Interior Committee, I guess, and now certainly as chairman of the full Committee on Natural Resources. I'm not even adverse to reforming that process to make it more expeditious.

But I still haven't heard, and I'm still unclear, as to the fact that leasing is the more difficult portion of going out and drilling on these lands. Is that not accurate? Obtaining a lease, it seems to me, is a much more difficult--and you know, even before the land is available for leasing, for example, the land manager has to develop a plan to determine whether or not an area is appropriate for oil and gas drilling. Then once the Interior Department has made the land available to leasing, then the oil and gas companies need to secure the permits and do some preliminary exploration.

That was the next step I was getting to. They have to collect, analyze the data. Then the government has to put together an auction for the competitive bidding process and then award the leases.

Okay. Now, the 68 million already has gone through that process. The 68 million acres we keep referring to as use-it-or-lose- it, that has already gone through that process we both have described.

In any case, years ahead of the lands made available today by lifting the moratorium.

But were they under lease?

Okay. I'm not clear on that whether they were.

Sure. Sure.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that it could take years and years to obtain a lease, which these lands opened up today are just starting on that process. The 68 million under our use-it-or-lose-it legislation has already gone through that process.

And in our use-it-or-lose-it legislation, we're simply saying current leases are generally 10 years. They vary somewhat depending on depth of water or where they're located. But generally, 10 years is the current leasing term. And if a company is holding that lease for 10 years and not producing on it or not even making an effort, showing some type of good faith, due diligent effort, as I'm sure the gentleman knows our Federal coal is required to do, other minerals on Federal lands that's owned by the taxpayers are required to do, we say in our use-it-or-lose-it, if that due diligent effort is not made, then you lose the lease and it's open again to competitive bidding. Another company can come in and make their bid for it.

I think the major point I want to make is in our use-it- or-lose-it legislation, it's not an anti-drilling piece of legislation. It's a probe drilling.

I thank the gentleman.

We have that on a map on where these lands are located. I'm not sure I have it here or not. But it has been made a part of the packet of information that our Committee on Natural Resources did send to all Members at one point, and now as far as naming a specific company, I can get that information. I don't have it readily on me, but it's a matter of the public record because, as the gentleman from Texas has already said, when they go through the competitive bidding process to obtain the leases on the 68 million, of course, that's public knowledge, and these are public lands.

If they are, I cannot name a company that's not in any process at this point, but if they are in the process, that's due diligence.

Oh, I'm sorry. Here, leased land not producing is the red.

Oh, you're saying they're moving toward production?

If they are moving toward production, that's due diligence; they maintain their lease.

Well, I would respond to the gentleman that, again, as I've said, if they are moving toward production, that's due diligence.

And our legislation would not take that lease away from them, and you're right about the 10 years.

Would the gentleman from Georgia not agree, however, that while all of that is I'm sure accurate, that is still on these 68 million acres of land, and that's still I'm not going to say light years but many, many years ahead of where we are on the lands made available today by lifting the moratorium?

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia yielding.

You've mentioned ANWR and how much is available from that pristine environmental area. And again, I'm going to quote from that infamous Energy Information Administration of which I've quoted earlier.

First, this is a quote from President Bush June 9 of this year, ``I've proposed to Congress that they open up ANWR, open up the Continental Shelf and give this country a chance to help us through this difficult period by finding more supplies of crude oil which will take the pressure off the price of gasoline. That was the President's statement on June 9. And his own Energy Information Administration predicts that the savings from drilling in ANWR would equal 1.8 cents per gallon in the year 2025. And that, coupled with what I said earlier--I think you were here--about the fact that these areas that the President has lifted the moratorium on today would not produce any major savings or even produce any oil until 22 years from now, it is not going to give us the relief we need.

And let's not kid ourselves. I think we all know in this body, both sides of this debate--or all sides of this debate I should say--that what we do in this body is not going to bring down the price tomorrow, next month, perhaps not next year. It takes not just increasing the supply side like you want to do, like we want to do in our ``use it or lose it'' legislation--that's a pro-drilling piece of legislation--but it has to be followed with follow-up efforts in developing all, renewable and alternative, fuels, which includes coal to liquid----

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Just very quickly I would say to the gentleman from Georgia about causing the speculation to end and go the other way, all these efforts would help, I don't deny that, but I think the most immediate efforts, what the gentleman from New York is going to get into now, Mr. Hall, and that is releasing from the SPR. We have it, let's use it. This is an emergency. And I think that is going to show the speculators we're serious and that's going to stop the speculation.

I'd vote for that.

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 material on H.R. 1286.

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

Today, we are considering H.R. 1286, legislation introduced by our colleague, Representative Maurice Hinchey of New York. I might also add that it was some 9 years ago that the initial study on this legislation was initiated by our colleague from Connecticut, Mr. John Larson, and I wish to commend his leadership, as well as Mr. Hinchey's leadership on the pending bill.

The pending legislation will designate a National Historic Trail, tracing the routes taken in 1781 by the armies of General George Washington and French Count Rochambeau on their march from New England to face the British Army at Yorktown, Virginia.

The story of this trail is a fascinating piece of our history. The French Army, after wintering in Newport, Rhode Island, marched southwest in early July to join General Washington and his troops at Phillipsburg, New York. On August 18, the soldiers, and their provisions and armaments, started to slip away from Philipsburg.

The troops and their supplies traveled 600 miles over a network of strategic roads and waterways through New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the future District of Columbia, and Virginia. They reached Williamsburg in late September, 1781.

With a French fleet in the Chesapeake, blocking British reinforcements from New York or a sea escape for Cornwallis' troops, Washington and Rochambeau laid siege to Cornwallis' army at Yorktown. Three weeks later, on October 19, 1781, the British troops laid down their arms.

I would note that when we bring forth legislation of this nature, concerns have been raised in some corridors regarding any potential impacts on private property rights. I can assure this Committee that most of this trail follows public roads or crosses public lands. While the historic route does cross some private lands, the National Park Service does not propose or anticipate any acquisition of private lands.

I would also point out that nothing in the National Trails System circumvents the authority of the States over hunting and fishing. However, to make this matter crystal clear, the rule governing debate over the pending measure adopted an amendment which reads as follows. Again, the rule governing debate over the pending measure adopted an amendment which reads as follows:

``Nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping, and recreational shooting. Nothing in this act shall be construed as limiting access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting.''

I would say this language covers all the bases. Nothing in the pending measure in any way, shape, or form supercedes the authority of the States over hunting, fishing, trapping, and shooting.

This is essentially the same language this body adopted last April by a vote of 416-5 during consideration of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, per an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

I would close by noting that the trail designated by this bill follows the recommendations of a National Park Service study, and the Bush administration supports this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

For some time now, the Democrats on this side have been watching our colleagues on the other side of the aisle time after time on bill after bill come to the floor and defend multinational oil conglomerates, and now they claim to be the friends of coal as well.

My colleague from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) gave us a great presentation on coal-to-liquids, as has been done a number of times, and there is not much I can disagree with in his presentation about the coal-to- liquids. But it is, and the fact of the matter is, that it is pure and simple that it is the oil industry and their defenders here in the Congress that have time and time again undermined the viability of a true alternative fuels industry in this country. And let me back that up by example.

In the 1940s, the Synthetic Liquids Fuels Act passed the Congress and appropriated over $80 million for research and production. By the 1950s, America was producing thousands of gallons of synthetic gasoline a day at a test plant in Missouri. But the discovery of cheap oil combined with a lobbying effort by the oil industry caused the government to abandon its synthetic fuel research.

Let's hark back to the 1970s and that oil crisis that we all faced and the long gasoline lines. The Federal Government briefly pursued synthetic fuel production. But once again, when the price of oil receded, interest in coal-derived fuels faded. And here we are again, with oil prices and talk of synthetic fuels both on the rise.

The Congress has a duty, a responsibility to the American people to do much more than simply coddle the oil industry and let history repeat itself. We also need to do more to discourage foreign oil cartels from temporarily manipulating oil prices for the sole purpose of destroying a competitive domestic fuel source.

And if my friends on the other side of the aisle were serious about coal, they would be pressuring this White House to back away, the two oil men in charge, to back away from its cozy relationship with those cartels. Instead, they want to roll over and give Big Oil everything it wants, no strings attached.

Furthermore, the Republican-led Congress had 6 years under the Bush administration to go about making meaningful contributions to clean coal and coal-to-liquids fuels. If Republicans in Congress were truly serious about producing the next generation of these technologies, then we would already be seeing these technologies coming to light today and the capabilities thereof.

I would remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that in 2000, President Bush while running for office pledged to spend $2 billion over 10 years for a clean coal technology program, a program that the Democrats initiated in the 1980s. He never made good on that promise and allowed in only about half of the promised money while claiming credit for the full pledge.

During its tenure in leadership of the Congress, the Republican Party did nothing to buck the President's low balling for clean coal programs. Again and again, the President's party voted for his budgets to cut funds for clean coal research.

Now, if the other side were truly serious about supporting coal, they would have added funding to clean coal budgets and they would have done more to put coal on a more even footing with oil and gas. They did not, and now we are seeing the consequences of high energy prices that Americans are experiencing.

So the fact of the matter is that the energy challenges that our Nation faces demand more than rhetorical battles on the floor of this body. Certainly our constituents would agree, and they are feeling the energy pinch and deserve much better.

We need to put our energies into finding common ground to achieve real workable solutions to our energy problems. And towards that end, we need to be working on our energy challenge from two ends at the same time: The environmental end and the supply end. If we take that approach, then we can build a viable coal-to-liquids industry.

Unfortunately, too much of the talk in this body in recent weeks has been focused only on supply, and not enough of it has considered the environmental hurdles that we face.

As worldwide pressure mounts to address carbon emissions, the coal- to-liquids industry recognizes that to be economically successful, it must also be environmentally successful. But this administration has done nothing to help the coal industry address the environmental side of this energy challenge. So we need to invest more in environmental research and development, something that Democrats have been arguing for, but that our Republican colleagues during their 12 years in control of Congress have continually relegated to the back burners.

By failing to lay the environmental foundations for coal's future, this administration has opened the opportunity for foreign nations, most notably China, to bolster their coal fuels industry, putting our own Nation's future fuel production and economy at a disadvantage. This administration has failed to invest in new emissions technologies, technologies that we can use here and we can sell overseas; and, as a result, we risk watching worldwide emissions grow unchecked as we become more and more beholden to yet another set of foreign producers for our fuel, with China at the very lead.

So, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues on the other side who keep coming to the floor on bill after bill and speaking about the energy crunch, which is indeed on the uppermost of every American's mind today and the high price of gas, that we do need to address this in a bipartisan way and in a way that uses all of our domestic sources of energy and in a way that does not coddle one domestic energy fuel over all others, especially when that energy fuel is trying for its own competitive advantages to put other domestic sources of energy at a disadvantage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses a concern that is truly far beyond the likely impact of this bill. The bill expressly limits Federal condemnation of land for the trail which is all that should concern us here and the National Park Service. This amendment seems to be based on the assumption that the Federal Government in some smoke-filled back

room conspiracy-type of mind-set is going to conspire with State or local governments to have them condemn land and then turn it over to the Federal government.

First of all, I don't believe this happens often, if ever. We have really reached an extreme level of detail here where we have to legislate out to the far corners of what anybody might imagine might some day happen. But for the sake of argument, let's say that a State does decide to condemn land and pay the owner for his property. Such a decision will be up to the State or local government acting in what that unit of government believes to be the best interest of its citizens. Whether the State or local government subsequently conveys the land to the Federal Government is irrelevant.

And I might add, just for the record, this is not a trail like the Appalachian Trail which cuts across country and private property, it is more a series of signs like those gray historic markers you see along roads all over the country. Most of the route travels along public highways and roads. No private landowner will be forced to let tourists on their land, and the NPS anticipates no Federal acquisition at all.

But nevertheless, in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation and all that I have just said, we are willing to accept this amendment. We think that it is unnecessary, but we are willing to accept it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in evaluating this amendment, I would ask that Members first read section 3 of the underlying bill which states, ``Nothing in this Act shall prohibit or hinder the development, production, conveyance, or transmission of energy.'' So by its own terms, H.R. 1286 will have no impact whatsoever on energy production.

The Pearce amendment would require the Secretary to assess the impact this trail designation will have on energy production. In other words, the Pearce amendment would require the Secretary to study impacts that would never exist. That's similar to a requirement that the secretary study the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. The bill says there will be no impacts, so studying them is impossible. Such a report would read in its entirety, ``We find no impacts on energy production because the bill prohibits them.'' Period. The end.

It is my hope that this amendment is simply a platform, and I think the sponsor of it has already used it for that to restate some of their talking points on energy production. It's my hope that no one could ever seriously suggest assessing the energy resources that might lie under George Washington's front lawn.

The first part of this amendment is completely unnecessary because the underlying language in the bill makes impacts on energy production a non-issue. The second part of this amendment contemplates oil rigs and wind farms in places that we would never allow them to be built.

So once again, as with the previous amendment, this amendment is not necessary. Therefore, I will not object to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motions to suspend the rules relating to the following measures be considered as adopted in the form considered by the House on Wednesday, July 9, 2008:

House Resolution 1313, and House Resolution 1315.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Madam Speaker, I insist on my point of order and raise a point of order that the motion to recommit contains nongermane instructions in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI. The instructions in the motion to recommit address an unrelated matter within the jurisdiction of a committee not represented in the underlying bill.

The second reason, the motion to recommit uses the word ``promptly,'' as we all know, which kills a bill.

And third, the motion to recommit is the exact language already in the bill. That language states ``nothing in the amendment made by section 2 of this act shall prohibit or hinder the development, production, conveyance, or transmission of energy,'' the exact repeat language of the motion to recommit.

Therefore, I insist on my point of order.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, the form of the amendment, which calls on the House to promptly recommit the bill, as I know all Members realize, is a parliamentary tactic that kills the bill. That wording makes it perfectly clear that the motion is not about its subject. It is purely and simply another one of those ``gotcha'' votes.

A vote to recommit is a vote to kill this bill, which has the support of a long and bipartisan list of Members, a large and vocal constituency across eight districts and the District of Columbia, and the support of the Bush administration. Again, the current legislation as written has the support of the Bush administration. It has the support of the National Rifle Association.

To briefly address the substance of this issue, the bill before the House already reaffirms the right of gun owners and hunters by ensuring that current State management of fish and resident wildlife will remain unaffected by the bill. It should not be necessary to include this language because nothing in the bill would affect those State laws or regulations. Nevertheless, we have included this language already in the bill, which renders the motion before us wholly unnecessary.

The Trails Act has been around since 1968, and we have thousands of miles of trails all over the country, and all over the country hunting, fishing, trapping have flourished nonetheless. The bill already contains sufficient protections for gun owners. I repeat. The bill already contains sufficient protections for gun owners.

A vote to recommit is a vote to kill the bill. It's that simple, and I would urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5541) to provide a supplemental funding source for catastrophic emergency wildland fire suppression activities on Department of the Interior and National Forest System lands, to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a cohesive wildland fire management strategy, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this year's fire season in California started in unprecedented fashion, when 1,700 fires erupted in a 48-hour period beginning June 21. Already, just over 3 weeks later, fires have burned more than 960 square miles in California.

And as of yesterday afternoon, 330 fires were still actively burning there, when citizens received the ominous warning that conditions are right for, as the National Weather Service described it, ``explosive fire growth.''

Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Big Sur, Santa Barbara County, and other areas up and down the coast, who are experiencing devastating wildfires as we speak.

Those California fires are only the most recent example of the dramatic and tragic expansion of our Nation's wildland fire season. For the last decade, the United States has experienced a growth in the destructive nature of fire seasons that have taken American lives, eliminated homes and businesses, and scorched thousands of acres of our treasured public lands.

And this is not only occurring in the West. I well recall several years ago when the New River Gorge in my home State of West Virginia was burning. I had the honor to meet with Federal firefighters who flew in from across the country to battle the blazes.

Indeed, the Federal Government has, time and time again, answered the call and mobilized legions of brave firefighters to beat back the flames and protect our lands and our communities.

But as a result, the government has also dramatically shifted spending priorities, rapidly increasing funding for fire fighting, while axing moneys for other necessary programs. And ironically, some of those programs that have been gutted were created to actually prevent fires.

There is little reason to hope that fire seasons for the foreseeable future will be any less catastrophic than those of the last decade. The trend has certainly been working toward more destruction. Knowing that, we must be better prepared.

The FLAME Act, which my colleagues Mr. Raul Grijalva, Mr. Norm Dicks and myself introduced, is an effort to correct course, to get out in front at the start of these fire seasons.

The bill has received broad, bipartisan support from 56 Members of Congress, including the ranking member of our Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Young.

As well, it enjoys the support of the five former Chiefs of the Forest Service, the National Association of State Foresters, the National Association of Counties, the National Federation of Federal Employees, the Western Governors' Association, and nearly 40 other organizations.

Within the Forest Service, wildland fire activities now account for approximately 48 percent of the agency's budget, causing the Service to cut back on other important programs to cover the escalating costs of fire suppression.

The FLAME Act would help to address that funding problem, as well as the funding issues faced by other Federal agencies that are contributing funds from their limited accounts to fight these fires.

The Act would establish a dedicated Federal fund for catastrophic, emergency wildland fire suppression activities, separate from appropriated agency fire fighting funding.

The bill would also require the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to present to Congress a long-overdue, comprehensive strategy for combating wildland fire, a strategy that would address the troubling shortcomings in the agencies' response to fires as identified by the Government Accountability Office and the Agriculture Department's Inspector General.

I cannot overstate the importance of today's action on the FLAME Act. Without a doubt, this is one of the most serious issues facing our Federal land management agencies, and it is one that, if not addressed properly and appropriately, will continue to cost homes, businesses, communities, public lands, and American lives.

The FLAME Act will allow the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to respond to these dangerous fires while also accomplishing other important aspects of their missions, including those that will prevent fires from devastating our communities in the future.

I ask my colleagues to support passage of the FLAME Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, an individual who has some firsthand experience with these fires, Mr. Sam Farr.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to a very valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps), and commend her for her assistance in developing this legislation as well.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the last speaker, this gentleman certainly joins with her in commending our firefighters, especially those who have volunteered across our Nation to fight these fires where they occur. Our firefighters, as they showed us on 9/11, are certainly on the forefront of our Nation's defense and our first responders in this country.

In regard to the price of gas, though, let me remind the gentlewoman that when President George Bush took office, the price of gas, according to his own Energy Information Agency, was $1.47. The last time I left West Virginia yesterday morning, it was $4.14 a gallon.

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to yield now such time as she may consume to the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Pelosi.

I urge support of the bill.

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