Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1322) commending the firefighters from California and throughout the United States for their courageous actions and sacrifices in fighting the California wildfires.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, since June 20, 2008, as we have heard the distinguished Speaker tell us, there have been 1,781 wildfires in the State of California, over 600,000 acres of land have burned, and there are 323 fires still burning in the State. Firefighters have been working for weeks on the front lines of these fires, risking their lives and enduring great hardship. These firefighters are making progress in containing California's wildfires. As to date, over 1,400 fires have been contained.

Sadly, several firefighters have been injured and one firefighter has given his life in fighting these devastating wildfires in California.

This resolution commends these firefighters for their courageous actions and sacrifices in fighting the wildfires in California. The resolution also extends heartfelt sympathies to the families of those who have lost their homes, businesses, or loved ones in this tragedy.

I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this resolution commending our firefighters, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6251) to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing new Federal oil and gas leases to holders of existing leases who do not diligently develop the lands subject to such existing leases or relinquish such leases, 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 resolution under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today this body is considering responsible legislation aimed at compelling the oil industry to do what it should do best, drill for oil and bring relief to Americans at the pumps.

That may seem like an odd notion, and certainly we will hear criticism from our Republican colleagues who continue to coddle Big Oil and pander to the industry's political agenda. And there are many in the industry who will not want to hear this side of the aisle say we are for drilling for oil. My approach is slightly different. Big Oil does not need to be coddled, it needs a swift kick in the backside.

While Democrats in Congress know that we cannot drill our way to energy independence and continue to advocate for the development of alternative fuels and increased energy conservation, we also know that we must increase our supply of oil in the interim. I repeat; in this legislation we are not against drilling for oil. That is why today, with this legislation, we are saying ``Drill it or lose it.''

The Federal Government makes vast swaths of public lands, both onshore and underlying the Gulf of Mexico, available for oil and gas development. What we are finding, however, is that the industry is stockpiling these oil and gas leases. At present, 68 million acres of Federal lands are being held by oil and gas companies with no production occurring on these leases. That acreage is equal to the size of Colorado.

Considering today's oil prices, you would think that they would either diligently develop that acreage, bring any oil found into production, or relinquish the leases. The pending legislation would require this diligent development during the term of an oil and gas lease, and if it does not occur, the

leaseholder would not be allowed to lease even more Federal lands. It's simple, ``use it or lose it,'' and allow another company to make a go at that leased land.

Obviously, we have a much better chance to bring relief at the pump by producing oil on Federal lands already held by the oil companies much quicker than having to go through the environmental lawsuits of leasing and permitting required if we were to take the President's method and just open up OCS and ANWR immediately. We have a much better chance, Mr. Speaker, to help Americans grapple with the high cost of fuel by drilling in those Federal lands and waters already open to development.

Over 80 percent of estimated oil and gas resources on Federal lands, both onshore and offshore, are available for development or will be shortly, pending the completion of planning documents. The amount of oil which could be produced from these areas represents 14 years of current domestic oil consumption. Think about that, 14 years; yet President Bush and his Republican allies continue to rally behind the oil industry's political agenda, advocating opening more of America's Federal land, including coastal areas and pristine environmental areas, to drilling.

In response to this scheme I say to Big Oil and its allies, ``You've got 'em. Use 'em.''

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

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, did she say 10 minutes on each side?

I have no objection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, just to remind all of my colleagues, if this administration were not playing politics with oil, why does the President not just by one stroke of the pen sign an executive order lifting these lands that the other side claims should be open? That's all it takes, a stroke of the pen to lift the moratorium on these lands for drilling. Instead, he puts a political pointer at this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Sure. If the gentleman will yield, I will be happy to answer the question.

Our Committee on Natural Resources has extrapolated out the figures from current production on Federal lands, those figures coming from the Energy Administration, the same department that the administration uses.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has not even read the bill. If everything he says on that chart is true, that is due diligence. The companies get to hold their lease, under this legislation.

I am very glad to yield 2 minutes to a member of our Appropriations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

I'm glad my colleague from West Virginia answered the previous speaker on the Republican side and explained the bill. But let me further clarify what the bill does and does not do, and current law.

Currently, the law allows leaseholders 10 years to develop oil or gas. Our bill used to cut it down to 5 years. We have now upped it back up to the 10 years to try to satisfy some of the critics concerned with this legislation. Yet, they are still not pleased, of course.

Existing leases can be cancelled if leaseholders fail to comply with lease provisions, such as public safety and environmental requirements. Yet, there's no law or regulation that requires diligent development on Federal oil and gas leases. That is what we are doing here, is requiring this due diligence. As long as the leaseholders paid the required annual rental fee, the government cannot compel diligent development of the leased lands.

Our bill requires oil and gas operators to diligently develop oil and gas leases, as is currently required of coal leaseholders, I might remind my colleague from West Virginia. We had this same regime in place for Federal coal leasing. It was put in place when coal was in its boom days.

What we are doing for oil and gas now is what we have done with coal and other commodities that are produced on the land that the people of the United States own.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

If the gentleman will yield.

We have these maps that are identified, that we have shown.

Would the gentleman tell us the same about the OCS, where

the President is proposing to lift this moratorium?

Yes, we do. We will bring it in. Right here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to reply.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate my friend from Texas yielding.

The due diligence requirements or timeline that you asked for submission into the Record, that is perfectly allowed under my bill. We would not grab a lease. If a company is showing due diligence, if a company is moving toward production of oil or gas on Federal leases, we don't touch them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind the distinguished minority leader, if my memory serves me correctly, the minority party was in control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue for some 6 years, both Houses of Congress. I don't recall this legislation or any serious energy policy being adopted during that time period.

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the minority leader about developing all of our domestic reserves. Coming from a coal area, certainly I agree with that scenario, that we need to develop all of our domestic resources, and in a non-partisan fashion as well.

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

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have said this in my opening comments and I will say it again. We on the Democratic side are not opposed to drilling. We are for drilling on leases that oil companies currently already have in hand. We are for a comprehensive energy policy, including using all of our domestic resources and our domestic willpower as an American people.

A comprehensive energy policy is something that this Congress will address using in a bipartisan fashion the talents of this body and the talents of American ingenuity and willpower.

This pending legislation is a responsible bill that seeks to say to the oil companies: Use what you already have or show where you are moving toward producing that oil; otherwise, give somebody else a chance that may want to competitively bid on that same lease.

This is a use it or lose it. And I urge a ``yes'' vote for this responsible piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1298, I call up the bill (H.R. 2176) to provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 H.R. 2176.

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

Today, the Committee on Natural Resources is continuing our effort to bring justice to Indian country. Last year, the committee brought to the full House legislation to finally provide Federal recognition to the long suffering Lumbee Tribe in the State of North Carolina.

We also brought to the floor legislation to grant Federal recognition to six Virginia tribes 400 years after the founding of the Jamestown settlement. These were the very tribes that greeted the English settlers when they landed on our shores.

Today, we are considering legislation to end a 153-year odyssey involving two federally recognized tribes in the State of Michigan--the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.

This bill seeks to settle legitimate land claims of these two Indian tribes. I would note that the resolution of Indian land claims is something that is vested with the Congress, and Congress has taken this type of action on numerous occasions. No precedent is being set by these bills.

The genesis of the pending legislation dates back to 1807 when the Chippewa ceded much of what is now the State of Michigan in a treaty with the Governor of the Michigan Territory. Subsequent treaties ensued in 1817, 1820, 1836, and in 1855.

In the case of both the Bay Mills and the Sault Ste. Marie, the 1855 Treaty of Detroit set aside land, in what is now known as Charlotte Beach, for their exclusive use. However, shortly after the treaty was concluded, that very land was sold to non-Indian speculators.

This is hardly the first time something like this was done to Native Americans, but it is another indictment in the long and sad chapter of their past treatment by those with wealth and power.

At present, some 100 non-Indian landowners reside on the Charlotte Beach land, under a clouded title, due to the legitimate land claims filed by the Bay Mills and the Sault Ste. Marie. This makes it impossible for the residents of Charlotte Beach to receive title insurance--depressing land values and making it difficult to obtain mortgages, among other issues.

The Interior Department has testified to the legitimacy of the land claims in question. Their legitimacy has also been recognized by two Governors of the State of Michigan--Republican John Engler and current Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm.

Indeed, Jennifer Granholm stated in a letter addressed to me: ``The Federal courts have held that both the Bay Mills Tribe and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe trace their ancestry to the two Chippewa bands named in the deed to the disputed Charlotte Beach lands and that both tribes, accordingly, share in any potential claim based on those lands.''

To be clear then, that is what is at issue with the pending legislation--the settlement of these land claims. There is no administrative process available to accomplish this. It is something that is solely vested with the Congress.

The pending measure would implement a settlement agreement entered into by the Governor of Michigan, the Bay Mills and the Sault, and in doing so, it would clear the land title cloud that has hung over the residents of the Charlotte Beach area.

Under an agreement reached with the Bay Mills and with the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, initially with Governor Engler and subsequently with Governor Granholm, the tribes would relinquish their land claims at Charlotte Beach, and instead, would be able to take into trust land at, in the case of the Bay Mills, Port Huron, Michigan, and in the case of the Sault Ste. Marie, either Flint, Monroe or Romulus, Michigan.

Under this settlement agreement, gaming is authorized on the new reservation lands at Port Huron and at either Flint, Monroe or Romulus.

However, in my view, the primary concern of Congress is the settlement of the land claims. What then occurs is a matter that is up to the State of Michigan, its political subdivisions, and the affected tribes.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that all Representatives of the House of Representatives whose congressional districts contain either the lands where the existing land claims rest or the areas where the new reservation lands would be created support these two bills--the dean of our House, Chairman John Dingell; Representative Bart Stupak; Representative Dale Kildee, and Representative Candice Miller. I would also note that the municipalities involved support this settlement.

I have set out the facts, Mr. Speaker, the historical record regarding these two tribes and their Charlotte Beach land claims. I do believe that the deliverance of justice is on the side of these two tribes and of the legislation we are considering today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, would you tell us how much time is left for all Members.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of our Committee on Natural Resources, a member of my class as well, and from the State of Michigan, Mr. Dale Kildee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to yield to the distinguished dean of the House of Representatives--the gentleman from Michigan, a dear friend to all of us regardless of our position on this issue-- Chairman John Dingell, 5 minutes.

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

May I have the time that is left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a dear colleague of ours from Michigan as well, to a gentleman who has been very tenacious for many, many years in seeing this bill to its fruition, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, who has the right to close?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. Speaker, I plan to close with that time; so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this debate, I would like to take this opportunity to implore the other body to act upon the Lumbee and the Virginia Tribe bills that this body had sent over for its consideration last year. The magnitude of injustice that has befallen these Indian people is almost beyond comprehension.

To the matter at hand. One hundred fifty-three years ago, ladies and gentlemen, that is when these tribes were robbed of their land. The historic record shows they were swindled out of their promised land. This has been their version, their own version of the Trail of Tears. We must not continue to condone that.

We have a higher calling in this body. This is a matter about rising above the petty differences, it's about making restitution and making the tribes involved whole, making the tribes involved whole, and as well clearing title to land where the good people of Charlotte Beach reside.

So I would say to those of my colleagues with concerns over this measure, look into your souls. There, it is my hope, that you will find justice to this cause, to this land claim settlement. The pending legislation, I might add, is supported by the United Auto Workers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the International Union of Machinists.

As I conclude, let me say again that it is time we move on so that we can address other issues of importance to Indian country, such as the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, reported out of the Committee on Natural Resources; self-governance issues; other land and economic development issues, such as with the Catawba in South Carolina.

There are many other Indian tribes in Indian country around our country that have many injustices yet to be addressed by the Congress of the United States. We have to look into our souls and decide that it is time to move above these petty differences, to realize that it is incumbent upon us in the Congress to address these issues when others will not.

So I implore my colleagues to support the pending legislation as well as ending many other injustices to our first Americans, our native Indians.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, certainly after listening to the gentleman's diatribe, or whatever it was he was talking about, it's certainly not related to the pending legislation. Never once did I hear the word ``Indian.'' It's a further example of the petty politics the minority is trying to play with the serious problems confronting the American people.

I insist on my point of order, and I 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 to the pending legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 145th birthday of my home State, West Virginia.

The most violent conflict in the history of our Nation, the Civil War, gave America a new definition of freedom, strengthened the role of the Federal Government, and ultimately reconciled our fractured Union. For West Virginians, the 1861-1865 conflict remains significant for another reason: Virginia was rendered in two, east and west, and a new State, West Virginia, was born.

This June 20th marks the 145th birthday of the State of West Virginia. I ask all West Virginians--the hardest working, most hospitable, and most patriotic people in the United States--to join me in celebrating how far our State has come.

West Virginians have long known their uniqueness and celebrated it. As the only State to be formed by seceding from its parent State, West Virginia blazed a trail of independence of mind and spirit in a country that was tearing itself apart. West Virginia is the only State to achieve Statehood by the proclamation of a President on the provision that West Virginia would support the gradual abolishment of slavery in its newly formed constitution. On June 20, 1863, West Virginia became the 35th State.

On this West Virginia Day, I reflect upon the treasures of our State--truly one of the most beautiful in the Nation. With its majestic mountains, rolling hills, awesome gorges and rivers, picturesque towns, hospitable people, and a ``wild and wonderful'' atmosphere, I thank God for the opportunity to call it home.

Many historic figures have lived and traveled through the Mountain State on their way to shaping the course of our Nation's history. Daniel Boone settled and lived in present day Kanawha County. Stonewall Jackson, the stalwart Civil War general, was born in Clarksburg and Pearl S. Buck--Pulitzer Prize and Nobel Prize winning author was born in Hillsboro, Pocahontas County.

Many modern-day heroes and stars also hail from the hills of West Virginia. Jennifer Garner, who received a Golden Globe for her performances on ABC's hit television drama ``Alias,'' is a Charleston native. Chuck Yeager, who broke the sound barrier and has used his influence to promote scholarship and development opportunities for the State, was born in Myra. The mining town of Coalwood, in McDowell County is now world-renown as the home of Homer Hickam, best-selling author of Rocket Boys, upon which the award-winning 1999 motion picture ``October Sky'' was based.

In addition to celebrities, both historical and modern, West Virginia's elected leaders have brought vision and opportunity to our State. Most notable, Senator Robert C. Byrd, the ``Big Daddy'' of West Virginia politics, is the longest serving Senator in history and has secured billions of dollars for the future of our State. He remains a force to be reckoned with in the Senate with his longevity and leadership.

Home to an abundance of natural resources, West Virginia has helped feed and power our Nation. West Virginia's ``Coal Keeps the Lights On.'' Our agricultural industry provides dairy, poultry, and feed crops for our State and beyond. The lumber industry makes use of the bountiful forests that cover 75 percent of our beautiful terrain.

Lastly the greatest gift and most precious resource our State has nurtured are West Virginians themselves--honest, hard-working people who are very the lifeblood of our State. Today West Virginians thank the Lord for our bountiful blessings, bound together in loyalty and love for our State as we remind ourselves that, yes--John Denver was right, West Virginia is truly almost Heaven.

Happy Birthday West Virginia.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 350, a resolution I introduced with the gentlelady from Guam, Ms. Bordallo, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, urging the U.S. delegation attending the International Whaling Commission meeting in Santiago, Chile, to take a leadership role in ensuring the protection of the world's great whales. I wish to thank Chairman Berman and Subcommittee Chairman Delahunt for their support of my resolution and for ensuring its timely consideration today.

The American people care deeply about protecting whales, and the U.S. played a leading role in the adoption of the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling by the IWC.

Before the moratorium, whalers from many countries routinely exceeded quotas established by the IWC, and whale populations plummeted. Adoption of the moratorium and the end of the slaughter represented an historic milestone in the history of whale conservation, and many stocks have recovered.

Despite this, whales still face many threats--from pollution, climate change, and even continued hunting. Norway officially objected to the moratorium when it was adopted and resumed commercial whaling in 1993. Japan and Iceland exploit loopholes in the Convention and continue to hunt whales under the guise of ``scientific whaling,'' despite the fact that the scientific committee of the IWC has decried the need for and condemned the quality of this science.

At the same time, Japan is calling for the IWC to once again sanction commercial whaling in the form of ``coastal'' whaling, ``community'' whaling, or some other iteration of small-scale commercial whaling that will effectively eviscerate the moratorium, threatening to leave the IWC and resume larger-scale whaling operations unless their request is met.

The issues of commercial whaling under the guise of scientific or community whaling will likely be debated at this year's IWC meeting, and many will claim that the future of the organization is in jeopardy. We must be very careful, however, that our efforts to fix what some people perceive as a broken institution, do not come at the expense of the very species that institution is intended to protect.

H. Con. Res. 350 calls on the U.S. delegation to remain firmly opposed to commercial whaling in all its forms at the upcoming meeting of the IWC. The resolution urges the U.S. not only to oppose the unnecessary lethal taking of whales for scientific purposes, but also to reject proposals that would weaken or lift the moratorium by creating the new category of coastal or community whaling that is nothing more than commercial whaling in disguise.

Now, it is more critical than ever that the U.S. maintain its leadership role in shaping global whale conservation policies through the IWC. The American people strongly oppose commercial whaling of any kind, and the Administration must not undo more than 20 years of whale conservation by yielding to a few nations who threaten to leave the

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters for inclusion in the Record on the consideration of H.R. 5511, the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Act of 2008.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, June 12, 2008.

Hon. Nick Rahall,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rahall: I write to you regarding H.R. 5511, a

bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to remedy

problems caused by a collapsed drainage tunnel in Leadville,

Colorado.

H.R. 5511 contains provisions that fall within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure. I recognize and appreciate your desire to

bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious

manner and, accordingly, I will not seek a sequential

referral of the bill. However, I agree to waive consideration

of this bill with the mutual understanding that my decision

to forego a sequential referral of the bill does not waive,

reduce, or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure over H.R. 5511.

Further, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees

during any House-Senate conference convened on this

legislation on provisions of the bill that are within the

Committee's jurisdiction. I ask for your commitment to

support any request by the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure for the appointment of conferees on H.R. 5511

or similar legislation.

Please place a copy of this letter and your response

acknowledging the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure's jurisdictional interest in the Committee

Report on H.R. 5511 and in the Congressional Record during

consideration of the measure on the House Floor.

I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

James L. Oberstar, M.C.,

Chairman.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. RAHALL: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 5618. A

bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College

Program Act, and for other purposes, with an amendment;

referred to the Committee on Science and Technology for a

period ending not later than July 11, 2008, for consideration

of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within

the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(o),

rule X (Rept. 110-701, Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, I would like to commend our colleague, Representative John Sarbanes, for his tireless efforts on behalf of the pending legislation.

This bill is a simple, straightforward measure that would permanently authorize the highly successful Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network, which would otherwise expire at the end of this fiscal year.

Over 10 million people each year visit one of the 156 gateway sites supported by this program. They come to kayak or canoe, hike or bike, picnic, hunt or fish or to watch wildlife. Others come to visit the Chesapeake's many maritime museums or to renew their acquaintance with turning points in our Nation's history at sites such as Fort McHenry and Yorktown Battlefield.

Each of those visitors comes away with a strengthened awareness of the crucial role of the Chesapeake in our national story and as the ecological and economic heart of the mid-Atlantic. And that is the goal of the Gateway Network, to renew our connection with that great bay.

The program is so successful that the National Park Service has heaped praise upon it, and the White House, in 2005, declared it to be a ``cooperative conservation success story.''

Congress originally authorized this program for 5 years, and renewed that short-term authorization in 2002. In 2004, a National Park Service special resource study concluded that a permanent commitment to the program would ensure its long-term viability and enhance the Chesapeake's status among America's national treasures.

Anyone who saw the Washington Post article on Monday knows that the bay's oyster population is in trouble. That situation is both a symptom and one of the causes of the precarious health of the bay. Keeping people connected with and concerned about the Bay is vital to each step in restoring that great estuary--from its headwaters to its oysterbeds.

The Gateways Network does just that. The program is a proven success, and should be permanently authorized. I commend the gentleman from Maryland, a valued member of the Natural Resources Committee, for his advocacy of this measure.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5540.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3058, the Public Land Communities Transition Assistance Act. As the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, I do want to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Oregon, Peter DeFazio, for his strongly tenacious efforts and determined determination on behalf of this legislation. He has more than adequately explained the bill. My purpose is to stress the urgency of this body acting on the legislation.

This legislation, commonly referred to as the ``county payments bill,'' was enacted in 2000 to provide stability in revenue sharing payments made to the States and counties containing Federal forest lands. This funding has been extremely important, critically so in many cases, in assisting schools and communities in rural counties across the country, including my home State of West Virginia. Yet the Congress has failed to reauthorize the program.

This Congress, with a Democratic majority, is attempting to pick up the pieces of a program that was looking at being eliminated square in the eye. Last year we managed to pass a 1-year extension of county payments, but that is due to expire at the end of this month. So I cannot stress enough the urgency of today's vote.

Critical funding for schools and county services across the country will evaporate if we do not act today. Indeed, the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition estimates that about 7,000 teachers and other educational staff will be laid off as of June 30th when their contracts expire if this body does not act. That is something worth thinking about. Students in rural forest counties across this Nation will be deprived of almost 7,000 teachers and the other educational staff.

Now, some have taken issue with the pay-for, the offset being used for this bill, which is a conservation of resources fee on a class of Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico that

are unduly enjoying royalty relief by virtue of not having price thresholds.

This is not a new proposal. This body has considered it before, and rightly so. My colleagues, to date the American people have been deprived of over $1 billion in Federal royalties as a result of this situation. That is over 1 billion with a ``B'' dollars, something worth thinking about.

We now learn that in the future if this situation is not corrected, the American people will be fleeced to the tune of $4 billion and to a high of $14 billion.

That figure could go as high as $14 billion, depending on the price of oil and natural gas and the amount produced from these leases.

So it is very important that we recognize this bill does have funding sources and that is what we are trying to do here, at the same time generating funds to pay for teachers and the education of our school children.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States, through the International Whaling Commission, IWC, should use all appropriate measures to end commercial whaling in all of its existing or potential forms and seek to strengthen whale conservation and management measures.

Whales cannot be humanely killed, according to Dr. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University. As Dr. Singer said, causing suffering to innocent beings, without an extremely weighty reason for doing so, is wrong. Beyond subsistence needs, it is difficult to think of a reason weighty enough to cause such suffering to one of God's most magnificent creatures.

As such, the purpose of my resolution is to send a strong message to the Administration as it prepares for the June 2008 meeting of the International Whaling Commission, IWC, in Santiago. The message is simple: now is not the time to capitulate to calls to weaken or undermine the IWC ban on commercial whaling. The American people care deeply about protecting whales, and the U.S. should continue to be an international leader in whale conservation.

Established in 1946, the IWC's initial focus was the allocation of whaling quotas among member countries. Unfortunately, whalers from many countries routinely exceeded these quotas, and whale populations plummeted. In response, the IWC instituted a moratorium on the commercial killing of whales in 1986.

Despite this moratorium, significant whaling has continued. Norway officially objected to the moratorium and resumed commercial whaling in 1993. Japan and Iceland have been using a provision in the Convention-- which allows countries to issue themselves permits for ``scientific whaling''--to kill whales under the guise of science, and later sell the meat commercially. More than 11,000 whales have been reportedly killed in lethal scientific whaling programs since the adoption of the commercial whaling moratorium, even though the IWC Scientific Committee has repeatedly stated that such lethal takes are not necessary for scientific research.

At the same time, Japan is calling for the IWC to once again sanction commercial whaling in the form of ``coastal'' whaling, ``community'' whaling, or some other iteration of small-scale commercial whaling that will effectively eviscerate the moratorium.

In contrast, the anti-whaling nations want the IWC to look to the future--a future in which whales are protected and their nonlethal use is promoted. With its 75-plus members almost evenly divided between anti- and pro-whaling, it is imperative that the U.S. make clear its strong stand against the resumption of any form of commercial whaling, including community whaling, and that we press for the end of ``scientific'' whaling that is anything but scientific.

Therefore, the resolution I am introducing today calls on the U.S. delegation to the IWC to remain firmly opposed to commercial whaling in all its forms. The resolution urges the U.S. to not only initiate or support efforts to oppose the unnecessary lethal taking of whales for scientific purposes, but also seek to end the sale of meat and blubber from whales killed for scientific research in order to remove this perverse incentive. The resolution also calls on the U.S. to reject proposals that would weaken or lift the moratorium on commercial whaling by creating a new category of whaling deceptively called coastal or community whaling.

It is more critical than ever that the U.S. remain firmly opposed to any proposals to resume even a limited level of commercial whaling and to maintain its leadership role in shaping global whale conservation policies through the IWC. The administration must not undo more than 20 years of whale conservation and capitulate to Japan's demand for a sanctioned resumption of coastal commercial whaling. Instead, the U.S. should again demonstrate leadership in whale conservation and promote nonlethal uses of whales--such as whale watching--a far more benign and profitable venture. Worldwide, tourists spend an estimated $1.5 billion on whale watching each year.

Whales constitute a vital component of the world's marine ecosystems and are some of the largest and most intelligent mammals on Earth. Conserving them requires us to uphold strong international agreements and maintain an unwavering commitment to protecting these species from killing for commercial gain. I thank my colleagues for cosponsoring this resolution, and I urge all Members to support it.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, May 13, 2008, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 6022, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act by a bipartisan vote of 385-25.

This important piece of legislation is now awaiting action by the Senate, which passed a similar bill 97-1. Hopefully this bill will be on the President's desk in the immediate future, and he will sign it into law so that American consumers can experience some relief immediately.

The purpose of the bill is to temporarily halt filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) while oil is at recordbreaking highs. It makes absolutely no sense for the Government to be buying oil at roughly $125 a barrel and pumping it underground. While this is a modest measure to address gasoline prices, every little bit helps, as the President noted over 2 years ago. Considering that American taxpayers are paying $9 million a day to continue filling the reserve, I think halting the purchases is more than just a ``little bit.''

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created in 1975 to respond to the first Arab oil embargo of the 1970s. Originally, the Department of Energy was provided with appropriations to purchase oil to fill the SPR, but in 1999 the situation changed, and it was announced that oil taken as a ``royalty-in-kind'' from production in the Gulf of Mexico would be used instead. Through the end of the last fiscal year, the Department of the Interior has provided roughly 140 million barrels of royalty-in-kind oil to fill the SPR, valued at approximately $4.6 billion. Today, the SPR is almost 97 percent full, yet royalty-in-kind oil is still flowing into it at a rate of 70,000 barrels, worth, as stated above, nearly $9 million per day.

As in any government contractual undertaking, the act of suspending shipments of oil to the SPR cannot occur without some adjustments in schedules, and it will take some time as well. For example, the Department of Energy will have to suspend its contracts with those entities that are delivering the oil to the SPR, and at any given moment a huge quantity of oil is already in transit.

My interest, however, as chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, which has primary jurisdiction over the Department of the Interior and the program that has been transferring royalty-in-kind oil to the Department of Energy, is to ensure that proper guidance and oversight is provided to that Department of the Interior.

To that end, we understand the language of Section 2(c) of H.R. 6022 to provide the necessary authority to the Secretary to terminate existing SPR-related contracts and dispose of any remaining RIK oil accordingly.

Under the terms of Federal oil and gas leases, the Federal Government is entitled to a percentage of the proceeds derived from the sale of oil and gas produced on Federal lands. The specific percentage is set by the terms of the lease, and typically ranges from 12.5 and 18.75 percent. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to take that percentage either in the form of a cash payment or in the form of oil or gas itself. This latter method is called royalty-in-kind, RIK, and when the Government chooses to take its royalty-in-kind, it then typically sells--using private marketing companies--that oil and gas on the open market, directly competing with private firms. Currently, some of that RIK oil is not sold, but instead is directed towards filling the SPR.

Under the terms of the RIK-SPR program, the Secretary of the Interior enters into long-term transportation contracts with energy companies to deliver royalty oil from the Gulf of Mexico to an onshore market center, where title is transferred to the Department of Energy. These contracts are typically for 6-month terms, and on May 1, the Interior Department issued those contracts for the period of July 1 to December 31 of this year. These contracts have a contingency clause to convert them from purely transportation to an outright sale contracts, but there is a 45-day notification requirement before such a conversion can occur.

In order to get the oil from the onshore market center to the SPR, the Department of Energy enters into exchange contracts with energy companies. Under the terms of the exchange contract, the contractor takes title of the oil at the market center, and then delivers other oil that meets SPR specifications at one of the SPR sites. Consequently, the RIK oil does not directly flow into the SPR.

The language of H.R. 6022 directs the Secretary of the Interior to ``suspend acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the royalty-in-kind program.'' This means that the Department must terminate its transportation contracts and suspend delivery of the RIK oil to the SPR. In order to ensure that the Department of the Interior does not end up leaving RIK oil ``in the pipeline'' so to speak, H.R. 6022 intends that the Secretary convert the transportation contracts into sales contracts as soon as practicable and in accordance with the terms of the transportation contracts.

This is the obvious intention of the bill, as Congress would certainly not want to strand tens of thousands of barrels of oil a day in pipelines across America. Consequently, we envision that the Department of Energy will continue to accept the oil at the market centers for as long as the Department of the Interior is contractually obligated to have it delivered, which we anticipate will not exceed 45 days from enactment of H.R. 6022.

Congressional intent in this matter is to require the Departments of the Interior and Energy to end the process of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as rapidly as possible. The Department of the Interior should immediately, upon enactment of this legislation, provide the necessary notice to their contractors that RIK delivery contracts will be converted to sale contracts within 45 days.

I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt, for yielding me the time.

While the Republicans continue to argue that opening more land is essential to lowering gasoline prices, the facts prove otherwise. We simply cannot drill our way to lower prices at the pump, and let's look at those facts.

Since 2000, the amount of drilling on Federal lands has steadily increased. Between 1999 and 2007, drilling permits on public lands has increased more than 361 percent; yet gas prices, as we all know too acutely, have risen dramatically. There is simply no correlation between the two.

Despite the Federal Government's willingness to make public lands available to energy production, of the 42 million acres of onshore Federal lands currently being leased by oil and gas companies, that's the red column here, only about 12 million are actually in production or producing oil and gas. The industry has this much available to them, and this is all they're using right here. They are obviously stockpiling these leases, and it's been evident for at least the past decade.

In 2007, for example, the government issued 7,561 permits to drill. Yet only 4,704 wells were started. Over the past 4 years, there have been 9,800 more permits issued than the wells drilled.

Today, the oil and gas industry holds in excess of 3,000 permits for onshore oil and gas development that they are not using to increase domestic production.

Now, here's the most important point for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Some would argue that the entire Outer Continental Shelf should be opened to oil and gas development. This is a specious argument as drilling off the coasts of California, Florida or Virginia has been consistently and repeatedly opposed by both parties.

And for those on the minority side who may want to vote for this motion to recommit, just remember: This will be viewed as a vote to allow oil and gas drilling off your shores.

According to the Department of the Interior, the parts of the OCS, primarily the Gulf of Mexico, that are currently open to drilling contain 79 percent of the oil and 82 percent of the natural gas that exists on the entire OCS.

And as is the case with onshore, out of the 40 million acres currently being held by oil and gas companies, under lease, in the Outer Continental Shelf, the oil and gas industry has put less than 7 million of those acres into production. It's already there. It's available to them. Yet they're not using it, and they want to go elsewhere to drill.

In a nutshell, the industry has access to most of the estimated technologically recoverable natural gas that's occurring in the Federal OCS, in fact four times as much as is estimated by the Minerals Management Service to occur in the moratoria areas, but the industry is not developing it.

You cannot drill your way to lower gas prices at the pump. The industry has plenty available to them. Let them use what they already have before going into other pristine areas like ANWR.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Jerry L. Beasley and his 23 years of service to the students and faculty of Concord University. Concord University is home to over 2700 of West Virginia's best and brightest students and one of the finest public universities in the Nation. Since 1985, Jerry has led the faculty and staff of Concord University as President of this great institution and is now set to retire on June 30, 2008.

Born and raised in Hinton, West Virginia, Jerry has devoted his life to improving our State's educational opportunities. He earned his bachelor's degree from Harvard College in 1966 and his master's in education degree in 1969. He worked at Harvard as an assistant to the admissions committee for the college before joining the West Virginia Commission of Higher Education. In 1972, he came to Concord College as a special assistant to the President before being hired by Waynesburg College as Vice President for Planning and Development from 1974-1982 where his efforts more than tripled gifts and grants for operations.

In 1979, he was awarded a Ph.D. from Stanford University where his doctoral research focused on innovations in State government. His last stop before returning to Concord was at West Virginia Wesleyan, where Jerry served as Vice President for Planning and Development. In 1985, Jerry became President at Concord, and in what would be the first of many signs of his lifelong dedication to the institution of higher learning, he decided to forgo the traditional inauguration and instead devoted the funds and efforts for the ceremony to the support of student scholarships.

During his tenure, Jerry has been a godsend to Concord University, helping it to expand and flourish, and has played a powerful role in developing one of the largest endowments of any West Virginia public college. At close to $23 million, the Concord University Foundation is number one among small public colleges and universities in the state. He also oversaw major changes and improvements to the campus from the physical plant, Marsh Hall, the science building and new technology centers on campus. From special assistant to the President to being installed as President himself, Jerry has left his mark on virtually every aspect of the University and touched countless lives around him.

Jerry's list of accomplishments far exceeds his years of service. He has nurtured generations of young minds and helped shape the higher education system in West Virginia. His dedication to his work and commitment to helping others are examples for us all.

I again congratulate Jerry on his 23 years of dedicated service to Concord University and wish his wife Jean and himself continued success in all their future endeavors here in Athens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6022, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008.

At a time when crude oil is over $120 a barrel, it makes absolutely no sense for the Federal Government to continue purchasing massive quantities of oil in order to stick it in a hole in the ground for safe-keeping.

Under the current situation, the Federal Government is buying oil at record-high prices to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the rate of 70,000 barrels a day. These daily purchases create additional pressure on demand and further inflate prices at the pump. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is roughly 97 percent full right now. We do not need to pay a premium to the oil companies just to top it off.

In addition to the obvious economic reasons to suspend filling the Reserve now, the Federal Government should not use oil taken as a ``Royalty-In-Kind'', RIK, from oil and gas production in the Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico to fill the Reserve. By way of background, RIK is one of two methods used by the Government to collect the taxpayer's share of production from the Nation's substantial oil and gas mineral assets. The other method is good old-fashioned cash.

I have been arguing for years that the Royalty-in-Kind program is a bad idea. Under the pretense of ``enhanced transparency'' and ``reduced litigation,'' the oil industry, with a little help from its Republican friends in Congress and the Administration, snookered folks into believing that taxpayers would get a better deal if Federal oil and gas royalty payments were made ``in-kind'' instead of paying in cash. Despite report after report, investigations and potentially even criminal indictments, the Minerals Management Service, MMS, has forged ahead with this misbegotten program. Today, the RIK Program is selling over 800 million cubic feet of natural gas per day and over 150,000 barrels of crude oil per day on the open market.

The MMS reports that revenues from sales of RIK oil and gas in fiscal year 2006 were approximately $4.1 billion. However, we have no way of knowing if it got the best price or even broke even. Even the MMS itself estimates that the Royalty-in-Kind program only increased royalty revenues by a meager 0.3 percent--which according to the Government Accountability Office, GAO, during a recent Natural Resources Committee hearing, could not be confirmed.

As further evidence of the problems with RIK, earlier this year, the Inspector General for the Department of Energy found chronic mismanagement in the transfer of oil between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy. During a brief 4-month period of oil transfers between the two agencies, approximately 32,000 barrels of oil were lost or could not be accounted for--that is almost $4 million worth of oil that is simply gone. The GAO also concluded that the current method for filling the Reserve is not cost-effective.

The bottom line--the Royalty-in-Kind program should not be used to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Not now, not ever.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important first step in reducing the pain Americans are feeling at the pump. It cuts off the flow of Royalty-in-Kind oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when that flow is neither necessary nor prudent. I believe we need to pass this bill and then take a closer look at the Royalty-in-Kind program overall to see if that, too, is costing the American taxpayer more that it is worth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of H. Res. 1086, a resolution in recognition of National Nurses Week, which will be celebrated May 6 through May 12, 2008. As a proud member of the Congressional Nursing Caucus, I added my name as cosponsor to this worthy resolution.

Nurses Week has been celebrated every year since 2003 and coincides with the May 12th birthday of Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing. We recognize this week, as we should all 52 weeks of the year, the critical role nurses play in providing safe, high- quality, and preventative health care.

Providing this type of adequate health care is essential, not only across the Nation, but especially in rural America. As a longtime friend of hard-working West Virginians, I believe all Americans deserve to have access to quality, affordable health care. Throughout my tenure, I have continued to support programs that will improve this access, and I believe that providing quality nurses is part of this goal. This is why I support increased funding for Nursing Workforce Development Programs so that those who answer the call to serve others through nursing have the support and funding they need to achieve that goal.

Nursing care is an essential and necessary aspect of our health care infrastructure, and it is therefore important that we continue to provide every opportunity to recruit and maintain more nurses, particularly in rural areas like southern West Virginia. Nursing programs in my district such as those at St. Mary's Hospital, Marshall University, and Mountain State University, along with countless others around the State, help to provide a vital service to their fellow citizens.

I encourage the people of West Virginia, and the entire Nation, to observe National Nurses Week with appropriate recognition, ceremonies, activities, and programs to demonstrate the importance of nurses to the everyday lives of patients. They make significant contributions to the lives of so many every day without once asking for the recognition they clearly deserve.