Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to recognize an outstanding veteran of World War II who dedicated much of his life in service to our country--Howard Snell of Tyler.

Mr. Snell devoted 21 years to service in the U.S. Navy, moving through the ranks from cook to chief sonar technician. During that time, he engaged in 17 World War II battles, including the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor and the monumental showdown at Midway.

Now at the age of 81, Mr. Snell has found himself in the middle of another battle--with cancer. Yet in a display of his trademark determination, Mr. Snell was one of the proud veterans present at the May 29 dedication of the National World War II Memorial in Washington. He postponed his first round of chemotherapy so that he could attend the ceremony, fearing that starting the treatment before his trip would cause him to miss the dedication--and that was simply not an option for this World War II veteran who serves as an official of the national Survivors of Pearl Harbor Association.

Throughout his life, Mr. Snell has upheld the high standards of conduct befitting a soldier and a gentleman. As we adjourn today, it is my privilege to recognize such an outstanding American and veteran--Mr. Howard Snell--and wish him well as he fights another of life's battles.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following speech that was delivered by Mr. John Browne, Group Chief Executive of Beyond Petroleum (BP) to the Washington Press Club on March 23, 2004 entitled, ``Energy--the Medium Term Outlook.''

The level of interest in energy issues and energy security

has grown steadily over the last three years. A whole series

of events have reminded people both of the importance of

secure energy supplies in a modern economy and of the

challenges involved in matching available supplies to growing

global demand.

Concerns have been expressed--here in the U.S., in Europe

and in many other parts of the world. BP is the largest

producer of oil and gas here in the U.S., and the second

largest private company in our sector in the world. We work

in over 100 countries--exploring for, producing, distributing

and selling oil and gas in areas ranging from Russia to

Angola from Germany to China. So we hear the concerns

expressed from many sides.

I want to try and separate the concerns which are real, and

which need to be managed--from those which are false, and

which need to be discarded before they distract us from the

serious agenda. I want in particular to emphasize the point

that ``self sufficiency'' can't be achieved through

protectionism. Trade is essential and we have to ensure that

trade can thrive. I'll talk about the U.S. position--and I'll

try and set that position in its proper context--which is the

global energy scene. And I'll focus on facts--because facts

should be the basis of good policy.

At one level this is a very simple issue. It is about

demand and supply. The demand for energy is driven by

demography and economic performance. By the number of people

who can afford to buy the energy they need. Today the world's

population is estimated at 6.3 bn. That figure grows by

almost 10,000 an hour. In ten years time there will be almost

another 1 billion people on earth. 7.2 bn by 2015 according

to the most authoritative estimates from the U.N. More and

more of those people will be able to afford to buy the energy

they need. Economic growth continues to extend prosperity to

more people every year in China and India and in other

emerging economies. The Chinese economy has quadrupled in

size over the last twenty years and China is now the 2nd

largest single consumer of energy in the world after the U.S.

Today the world will use some 190 million barrels of oil

equivalent--that is expressing all the different forms of

energy supply--natural gas, coal, nuclear and so on in terms

of a common unit of measurement. That energy is used in

homes, in industry, in offices, in power stations and in

transportation. Technology is gradually making the use of

that energy more efficient. The energy intensity of each

extra point of GDP growth has fallen over the last thirty

years and continues to fall. But the fall is gradual.

The combination of more people and more prosperity will

mean that the demand for energy will rise. The most recent

estimates of the International Energy Agency suggest that

world energy demand will rise by a third to around 240 mbdoe

by 2015.

How can that demand be met?

Some place their faith in renewable and alternative forms

of energy supply. Power from the wind and the waves. Power

from solar panels. We believe those are important sources of

future supply. We in BP are investing in research and

development work in photovoltaics--the technology which

supports solar power--and at various other forms of

alternative energy supply. One day one or more of those

new sources will provide a significant proportion of

global energy demand. But the evidence is that day is

still a long time off.

Today all the renewable and alternative forms of energy

supply provide just 2.5 per cent of world demand, the bulk of

which currently comes from biomass. Solar power provides just

0.001 per cent. Or to put it another way--all the solar power

in the world would meet Washington's energy needs for just 6

days per year. Research continues--here in the US and in many

other countries. But in every case we are still at the stage

of research and experimentation. We believe renewables will

provide material supplies of energy in the long term. But the

long term could be 20 or 30 or more years away. The estimate

from the International Energy Agency is that in 2015 they

will provide only 3.3 per cent of total demand.

What sources then will meet the demand?

Some people believe that the key lies in the potential of

nuclear power. That is certainly possible. But it seems a

remote possibility on the timescale of a decade. Nuclear

currently supplies 7 per cent of world energy demand. The

first generation of nuclear stations are reaching the end of

their natural lives. Last year only 2 new nuclear stations

were commissioned and public doubts both about safety and

about the uncertain long term costs continue to constrain new

investment. In the US, no new stations have been commissioned

for over two decades while in Europe the forecasts suggest

that on current trends nuclear capacity in Europe will

decline rather than increase over the next ten years.

And that leaves hydrocarbons--coal, oil and gas--to meet

the balance. The mix will vary from one country to another.

China for instance will no doubt continue to use large

volumes of coal but in terms of convenience, oil and gas seem

set to remain the fuels of choice. In reality, energy

security is about the supply of oil and gas to meet demand

which could grow, again taking the IEA figures, to around 93

mbd of oil and 64 mbdoe of natural gas by 2015. That would

represent a 20 per cent increase in oil demand from today's

level and a 45 per cent increase in the consumption of gas.

Can the oil and gas industry meet that demand?

In physical terms the answer is clearly yes. The resources

are there. The world holds some 1,000 bn bbl of oil which has

been found but not yet produced, and some 5500 tcf of natural

gas--also found but not yet produced. At current consumption

rates that is 40 years of oil supply and 60 years of gas. In

addition the US Geological Service estimates that some 800 bn

bbl of oil and 4500 tcf of natural gas are yet to be found.

So in terms of physical resources, energy security is within

reach.

But I believe there are two fundamental elements of risk

which we have to deal with to ensure that security. The first

is environmental--the risk that as the evidence of impact of

human activity on the world's climate mounts we will be

forced to take dramatic and potentially damaging action to

avert the danger. That is a risk for the medium and longer

term--not for today but we believe that precautionary action

now could avert the risk. We believe that it is possible to

keep atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases below the

level at which sustainability is threatened--which on the

currently best available scientific evidence is around 500 to

550 parts per million. There are various available paths by

which that can be achieved--and there will be no single

solution. Different countries can make different

contributions to the overall objective and if we can

establish a legitimate trusted emissions trading system--

linked regionally--I believe we can reduce the risk without

imposing a major cost on the economy. The real risk in this

area is if we do nothing until it is almost too late. At that

point the costs could be much higher.

The other element of risk arises from the fact that supply

and demand are not typically co-located. One of the key

issues of energy security over the next decade will be the

growing trade in both oil and gas which will be necessary to

match supply to demand. By 2015 there will be at least four

major energy importing regions in the world. Europe, Japan,

China and the United States. Europe will be importing around

an estimated 80 per cent of its daily needs of both oil and

gas. The US rather less--but still more than 65 percent of

its oil and around 30 per cent of its gas. By 2015 trade will

likely account for almost 70 per cent of world oil demand--

some 64 mb/d--and 20 per cent of world gas demand.

Is that trade secure? Can the US and others rely on trade

rather than retreating to a policy of self sufficiency with

all the costs which that could involve in terms of the

environment and competitiveness?

I think the answer to that is also yes, but we can't take

anything for granted. Genuine energy security needs

sustained, long term engagement and action by both the

industry and by Government. The issue of security arises not

so much from the growing volume of consumption or the

required trade growth but because the resources needed to

supply the world's growing demand are concentrated in a

relatively limited number of countries.

There are a number of sources of supply to the world

market. Let me mention just three. The Caspian, through the

Baku to Ceyhan pipeline which is now under construction, is

scheduled to be producing and exporting 300,000 barrels per

day by the end of 2005. Trinidad is now exporting some

200,000 barrels oil equivalent per day in the form of natural

gas and the expansion plans which are now being carried

through should double that figure by 2006. Indonesia is

likely to be producing 1.5 million barrels per day oil

equivalent and exporting 800,000 bdoe of that by the end of

this decade. But however important these activities and those

in other countries are, the inescapable fact is that even

with all those areas developed successfully, the bulk of

world traded supplies of both oil and gas for the future will

almost certainly come from just three regions. The Middle

East, Russia and Africa.

Going back to the estimates published by the IEA--which

represent a fair consensus of informed opinion--of the 64 mbd

of oil likely to be traded in 2015, well over 80 per cent

will come from those three areas. For natural gas the figure

is around 50 per cent.

That is the global picture. What about the US?

US energy demand is now 46 mbdoe of which two thirds is

provided by oil and natural gas. The forecasts suggest that

oil and gas demand will continue to grow so that by 2015 the

US will be using around 21 mbd of oil, mainly in

transportation and around 13 mbdoe of natural gas. In terms

of resources the US remains strong. The US has more domestic

supplies than any of the other major importing regions.

Alaska continues to produce just short of 1 million barrels

per day and though oil production is declining, technology is

progressively expanding the commercial life of Prudhoe Bay.

The real strength for the future though lies in the Gulf of

Mexico--in the deep water, which is producing 1.5 million

barrels per day and which looks set to produce as much as 2.7

mb per day from 2010 onwards.

The gas position is also strong. As well as gas in the

lower 48, and in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico, there

are extensive supplies--perhaps as much as 100tcf in Alaska

which are ready to be brought to market once the

infrastructure is in place. That's a strong position--but the

US will still need imports and will still look to the world

market to supply the balance of its needs through the next

two decades. The forecasts suggest that the US will be

importing some 13 mbd of oil and 3 mbdoe/day of natural gas

in 2015.

What conclusions can we draw from all that? What do we need

to do today to ensure that this country and its trading

partners in Europe and Asia and elsewhere enjoy sustainable

energy security?

The first conclusion is that these are single global

markets. Oil, and increasingly gas are traded

internationally. Every area will seek to develop its own

resources rationally, but there is a competitive limit to

that--set by the cost of development. The cost of self

sufficiency for any area would be prohibitive. Trade and open

markets have the sustained development of world economy over

the last half century and I believe they can and will

continue to do so. That applies to energy as much as to any

other product. Energy prices will be set by the international

market, and prices will affect the economy and the export

markets of every country in the world. Energy security can't

be achieved in one country. To deny the reality of the global

economy would be dangerous and costly.

Secondly, the growth in trade worldwide means that everyone

has an interest in the development of the widest possible

range of available supplies to limit dependence on any single

country. It would be dangerous, economically and

strategically, to allow a situation to develop in which the

US or any other region was dependent totally or very

substantially on countries in the Middle East or any other

single producer. At the moment the US imports some 11 mbd of

oil. But those imports come from 57 different countries and

no one country supplies more than 17 per cent. That is a good

position to maintain. And to do so the US has to maintain the

open flow of investment--to ensure that the international

industry can invest with confidence in exploration and

development across a diverse set of countries.

The best estimate of the total investment required to

generate the flow of supplies necessary to match demand in

2015 is $2,000 bn. That means that investment by the oil and

gas industry will have to be even higher than the $160 bn per

annum which has been the average over the last few years. In

financial terms I don't doubt that those resources can be

found. But each individual investment by each company will be

dependent on the climate for investment in the country

concerned. That is why we are doing so much to support the

principle of transparency--to ensure that the revenues we

generate are used wisely in the interests of the long term

development of the countries in which we invest. Corruption

is an enemy of development, an enemy of business [because it

raises costs], and an enemy of energy security.

The third conclusion is that we have to ensure that the

necessary resources and infrastructure are built. That

applies here to projects such as the Alaskan gas pipeline

which could bring 1 million barrels per day oil equivalent to

market, and to the development of LNG terminals which can

open up channels of imported supply from Trinidad and West

Africa. But the same point applies internationally--because

infrastructure is necessary to bring resources to market from

areas such as the Caspian and Siberia. In all these areas

investment now will bring greater security for the future. I

want to use this occasion to thank the US Government--under

two administrations--for their sustained support for the

development of the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan pipeline. The line

which will enhance energy security for the world as a whole

could not have been built without that support.

Fourth, we have to continue to develop technology--pushing

the edge of what can be done with the resources we have.

Extracting more, and using them more efficiently. That ranges

from the Deep water, where we and others are now producing

from fields in over 7,000 ft of water--two and a half times

deeper than was possible ten years ago; to the progressive

extension of recovery rates in Alaska; to the sort of work we

have underway with our partners in the automobile sector to

combine advances in lubricants, in fuels and in engine

technology to lift the level of productivity in vehicles.

All those steps are necessary, and many if not most of them

will start here in the US--because this is a world

technological leader.

So to summarise:

We can't take energy security for granted, and we can't

achieve it through protectionism. Demand is rising and the

substitutes for oil and gas are a long way off. There is no

physical shortage. Technological advances must be deployed

both to increase the amount of energy which can be produced

and to ensure that it is used with the maximum possible

efficiency. Finally, and most importantly, the risks to

energy security are political and cannot be resolved by the

private sector alone. The private sector has a vital role to

play--particularly international companies such as BP. We

have to explore and invest in the development of diverse

sources of supply and in the infrastructure to bring it to

market. But as companies we work within a space defined by

public policy decisions. Actions by Governments are crucial

in keeping the market open to investment, and ensuring that

trade continues to be free and open. Those actions will

determine whether those of us in the private sector can make

successful long term investments in the development of

resources and infrastructure. Diversity of supply is crucial.

If we want to avoid undue dependence on just one region such

as the Middle East, we have to invest in technology and in

trade--raising investment confidence to ensure that supplies

and infrastructure are in place to bring oil and gas from

areas such as Russia, West Africa and the Caspian. The

challenge is to align the medium and long term perspective I

have been describing with the inevitably shorter perspective

of Government. That has always been the case but the need to

achieve that alignment between the actions of the public and

the private sector has never been more important than it is

today. If we can achieve that alignment I believe we can

ensure that secure supplies of energy continue to be

available to consumers here in the US and internationally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. When NASA created the Apollo program in the early 60's, America was in the midst of the Cold War and the Soviet Union had put an astronaut into orbit. A mere eight years after Kennedy expressed the vision of landing an American on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth, our country launched Apollo 11, which carried three men: Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins into outer space. It was an enormously successful mission that proved America's leadership, technological strength, and drive. It proved that our great Nation could take on even the most daunting challenge if it had the will to do so.

The Apollo 11 mission captured our imagination and inspired generations of young men and women to reach toward the stars. The next three and a half decades witnessed enormous technological and biological advancements fostered by the space program. The experiments conducted on the International Space Station allow scientists to discover new tools and medicines to combat debilitating diseases like stroke, osteoporosis, and heart disease.

Today, we remember the men and women of NASA who made the dream of landing a man on the Moon a reality. We also celebrate our Nation's continuing quest to explore the universe and push new frontiers of knowledge. On January 14, 2004, we were pointed toward a new Vision for Space Exploration and a renewed commitment to the American dream of reaching for new frontiers. For the first time in over 40 years, our Nation once again has a Vision. We owe it to future generations of Americans and the men and women who have kept the space mission alive for decades to continue to forge ahead. Congress should approve the President's modest request for an increase in NASA funds this year so that we can continue this journey, secure our national interest, and fulfill America's destiny in space.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 723) recognizing the 35th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this day 35 years ago, two Americans stepped onto the surface of the Moon and ushered in a new era in space exploration. The astronauts of Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins, not only made history, they also fulfilled an American dream. Their successful Moon landing was the culmination of years of preparation by hundreds of thousands of people in government, in industry, and universities. And they became heroes to all Americans in the process.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy laid out a goal of landing an American on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. On July 16, 1969, NASA launched the Apollo 11 spacecraft into orbit to fulfill this quest. The successful mission demonstrated the United States' technological and economic power, and it established our Nation as the leader in space exploration from that moment to the present.

During their walk on the Moon, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took pictures, planted an American flag, and gathered rocks, tangible items to take back to Earth for posterity. They also gave the world a sense of wonder and awe and an enthusiasm about future space travel. Astronaut Neil Armstrong's first step on the lunar surface was indeed a ``giant leap for mankind,'' but it was also a first step toward a new era of discovery and innovation.

The next three decades witnessed enormous strides in space exploration and research. Experiments conducted on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station expanded health research into our most threatening diseases. Microgravity experiments helped scientists fight infections, produce medicines to treat patients who have suffered from strokes, and combat osteoporosis. From the development of MRI technology to microchips, the scientific partnerships between NASA and American universities and companies continue to ensure our Nation's viability, increase our Nation's competitiveness, and help drive our economy.

As Buzz Aldrin said before Congress, the footprints on the Moon ``belong to the American people, and since we came in peace for all mankind, those footprints belong also to all people of the world.'' Michael Collins told Congress, ``Man has always gone where he has been able to go. It is that simple. He will continue pushing back his frontier, no matter how far it may carry

him from his homeland. Someday, in the not too distant future, when I listen to an earthling step out onto the surface of Mars or some other planet, I hope to hear him say: `I come from the United States of America.' ''

We are the keepers of this dream. As we celebrate today's anniversary, we can also rekindle this vision. Venturing to the Moon, Mars and beyond is challenging, but our citizens have never shied away from a challenge. As a democratic people who look to the future for inspiration and solutions, we have a destiny to continue to lead in space travel. In a world marred by conflict, we can once again usher in an era of peaceful exploration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), chairman of Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), another member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), a member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, which oversees the Space Station, and one of the major leaders in the space thrust.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). Cape Canaveral is in his district. He is a long-time member of the Committee on Science and Subcommittee on Space, and is now a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 723, the resolution just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep sorrow for the loss of a young soldier from my district, Sgt. Gerardo Moreno, 23, of Terrell, Texas. Gerardo, who was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division based in Fort Hood, Texas, died on April 6 in Ashula, Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He had been in Iraq since early January and was killed in a grenade attack.

Following graduation from Terrell High School in 1999, Gerardo enlisted in the Army. He was a dedicated soldier and upstanding citizen of Terrell, Texas. In a show of support for the fallen soldier, the residents of Terrell lined Moore Avenue on the morning of his funeral to pay their respects. He was laid to rest in Dallas/Fort Worth National Cemetery.

Gerardo was also a devoted family man. He is survived by his wife, Teresa Moreno of Terrell and their two children, Dominique and Marrisol Moreno. Mourning his death are also his mother, Sandra E. Iracheta, and her husband, Noe Iracheta; father, Gerardo Moreno; brother, Jose J. Moreno; stepsisters, Yara and Yadira Perez; grandmother, Rita Iracheta of Terrell; grandfather, Israel Iracheta of San Antonio, and other family members.

Mr. Speaker, Gerardo left Texas in defense of our Nation, and he returned to Texas a hero. He made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation, and we are forever indebted to him and to our brave men and women who are serving in our armed forces. As we adjourn today in the House of Representatives, let us do so by joining with the good citizens of Terrell in honoring this American hero, Sgt. Gerardo Moreno, and extending our deepest condolences to his family and friends. May God bless them and bring them comfort in their time of sorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to recognize Sammy Clegg, Chelsea Schneider and Daniel Sagrero as the 2004 winners of the Treasures of the Texas Coast Children's Art Contest.

As part of the Texas Adopt-A-Beach program, the ``Treasures of the Texas Coast'' art contest is open to Texas students grade K-6. Hosted annually by the Texas General Land Office, the core objectives of the contest are to encourage young artists while promoting the cause to keep Texas beaches clean. This year's winners, Chelsea Schneider and Daniel Sagrero of Lee Intermediate School in Gainsville, Texas, and Sammy Clegg of Rowlett Elementary School in Rowlett, Texas, masterfully demonstrated those objectives.

Each young artist beautifully displayed the concept of keeping Texas beaches clean by using an elaborate and colorful palette. The winning artwork was displayed in the Capitol Building in Austin, Texas, as well as compiled into a statewide calendar for all to see. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend congratulations to these outstanding students.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for having my pastor here to pray over this Congress and to pray over the Nation. Keith Payne Boone is a native of Dallas, Texas, a graduate of my alma mater Southern Methodist University. He has Methodist in his veins from head to toe. His grandfather was the legendary Bolton Boone who headed up the Golden Cross. It was the first ecumenical charity. I was a member of that board some 50 years in Dallas. Keith was not around at that time, but he is a leader in the Methodist Church of Rockwall, Texas. The Dallas News carried, I think 3 months ago, that Rockwall County was the fastest-growing county in the United States. That is how fast our church is growing with the great pastor.

I thank Pastor Keith Boone, my friend, friend of my family, Mary Ellen and my entire family, friend of Methodists, Baptists, and all denominations alike in Rockwall. Thank him for the prayer. Thank him for what he has done, what he is doing, and what he will do for this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, you can use all the figures you want and make all the projections that you want to make and you just cannot shake this down as anything other than an effort to misuse the purposes for which SPR was set up. I think we need to go back many, many years ago when Congress voted it. The President has not declared an emergency as required. President Clinton did declare an emergency. Secretary Richardson did release at Clinton's request. It did little effect. It had very little effect. It had very little help. It was just a blip on the market.

Actually, we are in a situation here where attempts are made to stop putting into SPR, and that is to save maybe a penny a gallon or maybe less than a penny a gallon. It just does not make any sense at all. Yet at a time when we cannot pass ANWR, we cannot pass drilling up there that could have some real consequential effect on whether or not the gas prices go up or down and make a great defense on whether or not youngsters have to cross an ocean to take energy away from someone who has it, when we have none that we can mine, now that does not make any sense. We have a chance to save for this country for this generation to cross oceans and take away energy from people who have and save our children from having to fight a war. Give them the chance to say what profession, what business am I going into rather than what branch of service. We cannot pass ANWR. We cannot pass the Ultra D. We are two votes away, for political reasons, from passing an energy bill.

I just want to say this amendment seeks to suspend deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the 2004 cap and to prohibit the use of taxpayer money to maintain more than 647 million barrels of oil in SPR. That means with 661.4 million barrels in SPR now, there must be a release of 14.4 million barrels out of SPR.

By the time the fiscal year 2005 begins October 1, 2004, the SPR will have over 670 million barrels in SPR. This amendment will force the immediate sell-off of 23 million barrels, causing extreme volatility in the market which could ultimately lead to grave shortages as the markets come to rely on the government to provide supply. Of course, the government only has a limited supply for a country that uses 20 million barrels of crude oil every day.

This amendment is merely a backdoor attempt to change the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to make the SPR a means by which the Federal Government can manipulate crude oil supply for political gain instead of using the SPR as an insurance policy, which it was intended to be used for and then only in the event of a ``severe energy supply interruption,'' as set forth in the existing law. That just has not happened.

As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) stated here just a few moments ago, the premise of the amendment is just absolutely bogus and false. It says that this amendment can reduce gasoline prices by 10 to 25 cents per gallon. The Department of Energy says that the effect would be between zero and 1 percent per gallon.

The world is at a more dangerous place than it was back in March of 2004. Terrorists have attacked oil installations in Saudi Arabia. The bulk of Iraq's exports were shut down on just Tuesday of this week by terrorist attacks on two oil pipelines in southern Iraq. We need to preserve what we have in SPR in the event of a true emergency. That is what it was intended for. That is what it was set up for. That is what this Congress based it on, not a political emergency.

If we want to truly lower gasoline prices, we need to encourage the Senate to pass H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004 which the House passed by a vote of 239 to 192. When a vote was on the floor to really do something about gasoline prices, cosponsors of this amendment, most of them voted ``no.''

Now, no individual, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), should cash in a life insurance policy to pay their recurring monthly expenses. Neither should the Federal Government cash in an oil insurance policy to simply make a one-time payment on a recurring expense, namely, gasoline prices.

Having seen how turbulent the world has become in just the past few months, we should have the foresight to see how much more so the world could become in the coming months. We need to use SPR for what Congress really intended it to be, an insurance policy in the event of a severe energy supply interruption. We have not had that.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to pay tribute to a business associate, good

friend and great East Texan who passed away last year--L.T. ``Herby'' Ballew.

Herby Ballew was the founder of the famed Herby's Foods in Grand Prairie which produced over 100,000 sandwiches daily. He sold the company in 1975, and became chairman and CEO of the Bank of Crowley, Texas--an institution he ran until the early 1990's. Herby ended his prosperous career as the owner of Fame Care, a chemical company.

Herby was a successful businessman who considered his employees as members of his family. They remember him as a compassionate and generous man.

He was also devoted to his family, who include his wife, Vee Ballew; sons, Barry Ballew and Terry Lampman and wife Marolyn; daughters, Terry Jean Trevino and husband, Gonzy, Kathey Long, Patty Grieder and husband, Clyde, and Rose Shirley and husband, John; and sister, Dorothy Jewett and brother-in-law Elliott. He also was the proud grandfather of ten grandchildren and eleven great-grandchildren.

Herby will be long remembered as a generous citizen as well as successful businessman who touched the hearts of everyone he met. Mr. Speaker, as we adjourn today, let us do so in memory of this esteemed man and a life-long friend--Herby Ballew.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep sorrow for the loss of a young soldier from my district, Sgt. Gerardo Moreno, 23, of Terrell, Texas. Gerardo, who was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division based in Fort Hood, Texas, died on April 6 in Ashula, Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He had been in Iraq since early January and was killed in a grenade attack.

Gerardo graduated from Terrell High School in 1999 and enlisted in the Army after graduation. He was a dedicated soldier and an upstanding citizen of Terrell, Texas. In a show of support for the fallen soldier, the residents of Terrell lined Moore Ave. on the morning of his funeral to pay their respects. I am heartened to see the citizens of this great city, state, and nation come out in support of our dedicated soldiers.

Gerardo was also a devoted family man. He is survived by his wife, Teresa Moreno of Terrell and their two children, Dominique and Marrisol Moreno. Mourning his death are also his mother, Sandra E. Iracheta, and her husband, Noe Iracheta; father, Gerardo Moreno; brother, Jose J. Moreno; step-sisters, Yara and Yadira Perez; grandmother, Rita Iracheta of Terrell; grandfather, Israel Iracheta of San Antonio, and other family members.

Gerardo made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, and we are all touched by his loss. By defending our freedoms and values, soldiers like Gerardo earn a special place in our hearts. Without their willingness to serve and put their lives on the line for our nation, America would not be the great country that it is today. We are all forever indebted to brave men and women like Gerardo.

Mr. Speaker, as we adjourn today in the House of Representatives, let us do so by honoring Sgt. Gerardo Moreno and extending our deepest condolences to his family and friends. Like so many other young Americans serving and fighting overseas, Gerardo is a hero whose sacrifices ensure our continued freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to pay tribute to a dedicated patriot, great East Texan, and true friend who passed away recently--Bob Haney of Anna, Texas.

Bob and I became friends when we served together in the U.S. Navy in World War II. We stood together on the Copahee aircraft carrier when we received the notice that America had dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Bob was optimistic that the war would soon be over, and he told me that we would be home in a matter of weeks--and we were.

Bob became a lifelong advocate for veterans and for disabled American veterans. He served as a Veterans Service Officer in Dallas for many years and was my trusted advisor on military and veterans issues.

When we dedicated the World War II Memorial in Washington over Memorial Day

weekend, I thought of Bob and how much he would have enjoyed being one of the thousands of veterans who came to be a part of this historic event. So many veterans did not live to see the memorial become a reality, and so many were not able to make the trip--but the Memorial will stand as a lasting tribute to their service and their sacrifice.

Bob now is home--where he has joined his many shipmates who fought and died in the war. He will be missed by his many friends and his wonderful family--daughters Linda Martinez of Denison, Vickie Victoria Boaz of Howe, Evelyn Faye Fell of Kokomo, IN, Betty Paulette Jay of Van Alstyne and Renfro Pucket of Anna; sons Bob Ed Haney of Tioga, John David Haney of Anna and Fred Weaver Haney of Sherman; sisters Elizabeth Woolbright and Joy Belle Evans of Houston; 19 grandchildren and 21 great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of his family and friends, I want to take this opportunity in the House of Representatives to pay our last respects to my shipmate, advisor and longtime friend, Bob Haney. God rest his soul.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to pay tribute to a dedicated patriot who passed away this year, Roy L. Stewart.

Roy Stewart proudly served his country in the U.S. Air Force for more than 29 years. Most notably, he was a survivor of the attack on Pearl Harbor. After his military service, he worked for General Dynamics in Fort Worth, Texas and later started his own business, Roy Stewart Heating and Air Conditioning. Roy actively served his community as a Mason. He was a Master Mason of River Oaks Lodge No. 1311, a member of Moslah Shrine, the Scottish Rite and York Rite Bodies, a Past Patron of the Polytechnic Eastern Star, and a dual member of the Castleberry Eastern Star.

Born in Waco, Texas, Roy Stewart is survived by his wife, Thelma H. Stewart, daughter, Frances S. Reynolds, and husband, Michael E. Reynolds of my hometown of Rockwall, TX, son, Roy Victor Stewart and wife, Kathleen. He also was the proud grandfather of eight grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren. Roy will be long remembered as a steadfast citizen who dedicated his life to serving others, and the community of Fort Worth will miss his friendship. On behalf of his many friends and fans, I want to take this opportunity in the House of Representatives to pay our last respects to this honorable man--Roy L. Stewart.

Mr. Speaker, I do thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I even thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for his remarks that this is a continued assault on the price of a gallon of gasoline. That is exactly what it is. It is a continuation of the assault of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and those that believe that if we lower the price of gasoline we are raising the opportunity for youngsters to decide what branch of the service they will go into, instead to choose what field of education do I want to enter.

This is a battle against war. A Congressman's major duty is to prevent a war, and you prevent a war by removing the causes of war. So this is for the youngsters. This is for this generation that we are talking about and generations to follow. This is not a bill that costs a lot of money. As a matter of fact, we are not throwing money at it. We are not pouring money into it. We are streamlining the system. I do not really know why anybody complains about that.

It is tied to high unemployment areas, to distressed areas or where there is a closed refinery. We have got to have refineries. We have almost frightened all the refineries offshore up to this time or they have shut down.

As a matter of fact, let me see what the facts are on shutting down those refineries. I think in 1981 we had 324 refineries shut down here. This has been cut back to 153. If my math's correct, that is 171 of them that have gone off-line, that have either gone offshore or are not productive here; and this bill simply urges people to restart those refineries to where we can grind out what

we need to have to fight the rising cost of gasoline. It is just that simple. We are not pouring money into it. We are streamlining the system.

The Secretary can identify the area, similar to their depressed area legislation. It was on the books when Kennedy was elected. President Kennedy, one of the first steps he took was to take the lid off the depressed area legislation. There was a 500,000 lid on it. He took it off to really avail ourselves of it, but that was pouring money into it; and even that helped in that day and time.

Today we are not pouring money into it. We are streamlining it. We are making it a little easier to start those back up and start them back up where they are now, where people are existing now, where people do not have any objection to them because they think it is better than high unemployment.

Back in 1962 when I went into the Texas Senate, John Connally was elected Governor. He was ahead of other Governors in that he tried to have an EPA for the State of Texas, early for EPA. He appointed a fine young man from Houston, Texas, who had a business on the canal. The canal was badly polluted at that time. He came before us to be confirmed, and there were five of us who had to accept or reject him. He was rejected because he answered one of the questions wrong.

Senator Schwartz, a friend of mine, wanted to know, how do you feel about pollution, and the guy said, well, I do not want to give you a short answer, but I will quote a President who answered how do you feel about sin. He said, I am against it. One of our senators thought that was an affront to him, and he said, no, I mean, how do you really feel about pollution? His answer was one of the great answers I have ever heard. He said it tastes better than poverty.

That is what I am saying today. Put opportunity into the hands of these people where these plants have been. Open them up and give us an opportunity to save this generation from having to cross an ocean and fight for some energy when we have plenty right here at home.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 671, I call up the bill (H.R. 4503) to enhance energy conservation and research and development, to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4503, which is the same as the H.R. 6 conference report. This bill is the most comprehensive energy bill we have debated in decades. We have debated energy legislation hard and fast for the past two Congresses, and we debated it for many Congresses prior to that.

Those who oppose a comprehensive energy bill seem to forget that they use the very resources that the energy bill seeks to produce, the very resources that are now in short supply.

People who oppose this bill will no doubt question why we are debating and voting on this bill today. They will claim that it is merely a political ploy to force passage of the conference report on H.R. 6. The real question is why opponents are willing to fiddle while Rome is burning by refusing to vote for this bill. I suppose their constituents walk to work or ride horses, burn candles instead of electricity, do not use furnaces or air conditioners, and do not use plastics. If we continue, Mr. Speaker, to do absolutely nothing, then that may be the scenario that will come to pass for all of us. I, for one, do not want to go back to those days.

One section of the bill that will do as much good as any other provision to alleviate supply shortages in the future is the Ultra Deepwater Research and Development Program. With public lands being increasingly more difficult to lease for oil and gas exploration and significant areas of the offshore still off limits, the ultra deepwater holds the key to our continued ability to supply most of our energy needs domestically. However, to tap resources that lie deep beneath the ocean floor in water depths greater than 1,500 meters will require a considerable amount of research and development.

The program this bill establishes through the Department of Energy provides the necessary funding to extract natural gas in an environmentally safe and secure manner, while providing much-needed natural gas to fuel our growing economy. Therefore, I urge the passage of H.R. 4503.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman emeritus of the Committee on Commerce.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at this bill and read this bill and we debate the item called energy, I think we need to call upon ourselves and ask ourselves what probably is the major duty of a Member of Congress. It is probably to prevent a war. And how do you prevent wars? You prevent wars by removing the cause of wars.

Energy caused the war against Japan in 1941 when Cordell Hull and Henry Stimpson cut off their energy. They had 13 months' national existence, they were going to strike out somewhere. That brought on World War II.

George Bush's father sent 450,000 kids to a desert; that was a battle for energy. We did not love the Emir of Kuwait, that was to keep them from getting a bad man's, Saddam Hussein, foot, on half the known energy resources in the world.

Loss of energy and lack of energy will cause us to send our sons overseas. We do not get to drill on ANWR. We turn our backs on the next generation when we do that. We do not get to drill the ultra-deep. We are turning our backs on this next generation when we do not do that. Lack of energy causes wars.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.