Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

This bill, H.R. 2535, introduced by our California colleagues, Devin Nunes and Jim Costa, is the first step towards improving the water supply situation on the Tule River Indian Reservation. This bill authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study to capture more surface water on the Reservation.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want it to be very clear that I respect extremely Mr. Nunes and Mr. Costa who have introduced the bill that is before us. I also respect Mr. Salazar on the bill about which he was just speaking, because all those bills are very well written bills. They have gone through what we call regular order in this body so that the details have been worked out in a fair and equitable process. They are good, decent bills.

But we meet together on this day of suspensions in a unique concept. As we enter into this Hall, there are symbols placed throughout this building. And those symbols are there to remind us of certain concepts that we should be emulating. Around the top of this room, you see the faces, the side views of the icons of law, the great lawgivers of the history of this world, with Moses, obviously, who is the greatest of all, being the only one with a full face view looking directly at the Speaker. They are here because it reminds us that law, even though it sounds sometimes counterintuitive, is that factor which allows us to be free. Law sets the standard, the example, so that we know where we are going and what we are trying to do, which is why we are so offended when activist judges are creating law based on their whimsy, not on the record of the verbiage itself, why sometimes we also are offended in this body when we create wilderness or we create trail systems without maps, or we create wild river systems that violate the definition of those particular laws and we decide to do so on the whimsy of a simple majority vote.

The gentleman on the right side of the Speaker, when he was Vice President of the United States and thus also the President of the Senate, designed a set of rules by which the Senate would operate. This House has taken those rules, modified them slightly, but uses that as the basis of the rules of order for the way we conduct business here. And we often refer to that as regular order. But bills have concepts that they are supposed to take. If we indeed have a bill coming up later this week which has gone through no public input, has had no hearings, has had no committee reviews, will possibly not have the ability of being amended on the floor or in committee, being written in secret and then presented to us at the last minute, a pattern that has been pervasive during this session, it violates the message of their presence. It violates the concept of what we are trying to do. It says to us it is the wrong way to conduct business, because the basis when we conduct business out of regular order, when we do things behind closed doors and then bring a finished product to a take-it-or-leave-it vote here on the floor, is to basically produce a wrong-headed policy.

That was what these people feared, even though most of them had no concept of what a democratic republic was supposed to be, nor did they care. They always established what the process should be. We are looking at the most significant issue to be faced by this Congress this year and have begun in secret, with no hearings, no input, no public. It suddenly appears on the floor out of regular order. To do so dishonors the memory of each of these individuals who have fought so hard to allow us to have a structured way of coming to common solutions to real problems. And it is one of those things we should not allow ourselves to sink into during this coming week or even the next week.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat bill manager has I think sufficiently explained the particulars of this bill. I understand the parties involved in the land sale or exchange and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the City of Norfolk support the bill and its passage today. I think it is also an exceptional bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I once again commend the author of this particular bill. I think this is a good bill that has worked its way through. We have one of our Members, Representative Drake, who is on her way up here, from her district which is on the coast of Virginia, driving up in a very crowded parkway trying to get here as well, illustrating several of the problems that we face in this country, one of which is what do you do with that land off the coast of Virginia, as well as the entire coast of the United States, to try and help solve the problem of our parkways and driveways and highways, our freeways, as people are trying to go from one destination to another, especially with the overwhelmingly destructive high cost of gasoline that we have now.

A lot of people talk about these things as if what the Republicans have been saying is we simply want to drill now and drill everywhere, as if that were the only solution that we present to the situation. It is not the only solution. In fact, there are many who have said that you can't drill your way out of the problem.

We have found already by past efforts that you can't tax your way out of this problem of energy.

We can't regulate our way out. We can't ignore our way out. Drilling is not the only solution, but it has to be part of the real solution if we, indeed, are going to find something that helps the people of the United States.

We have lived, after 30 years now, and have seen the results of this much time of government regulation of our sources of energy. It is government rationing of our resources that has caused us to be in a situation where we are today, to the point that some people even seriously talk about having gas stamps again, which once again illustrates how the government truly is the cause of the problem, because it is the government that is doing the rationing and the regulation.

Drilling is an essential part. Drilling off the coast of Virginia, drilling off the entire Outer Continental Shelf is an important part, but it is not the only solution to our problem. We must have revenues that can be available to build alternative forms of energy. The royalties that could come from those offshore drillings, as well as onshore drillings, could be that solution if they were tied together into one comprehensive approach to it.

We failed to realize that the infrastructure we have in this country does not meet the needs of energy for its citizens. We do not have the capacity for moving energy from one part of this country to another.

We have forgotten for too long our refinery needs, our electrical grid needs, our corridor needs, to the point that we now are in a significant problem. That has to be solved if, indeed, we are going to meet the needs of American citizens.

We need to start reemphasizing conservations and rewarding Americans, not forcing Americans and mandating Americans, but rewarding Americans for their effort to help meet this problem by means of conservation. But none of the issues I have just mentioned, ticked off by itself, is a solution.

All of them have to be there at the same time, which is why, if we really are going to meet the needs of Americans in this problem of excessive cost of energy, it has to be an all-of-the-above solution.

We must drill in all of the Outer Continental Shelf, as we must drill in Alaska, as we must explore the trillions of barrels of oil found in oil shale in the States of Wyoming, Colorado and my home State of Utah. We must look at clean, coal technology, nuclear technology, oil shale, natural gas. We must ensure that States are a partner with us.

The idea that the United States can actually do any of this without sharing the royalties is an insult to the States of this Nation. Already, we have insulted them in this particular Congress when we took the existing split of royalties, which is 50/50, and decided unilaterally, without their consent, to change that to a 52/48 so that we got to keep 52 percent, and we allowed the States to have 48 percent, taking away millions of dollars that they had been counting on, that they had been using, to meet the needs of their citizens.

All of those issues have been there. If we now decide to come up to this floor with a solution that is not all of the above, that only looks at drilling in one part of this country and not all, that does not look at the infrastructure needs, does not look at the alternative needs, does not look at the other kinds of fossil fuel needs. It does not come up with conservation requirements that we have to have. It is going to be the same heavy hand of government, which has already brought us to the situation we have right now, where it is the government that is causing, by our actions over the past 30 years, nothing short of rationing of the resources that we have.

There are three great bills that have been presented, one we have asked a vote for on this floor, the American Energy Act. I have to admit there is another one the western States representatives got together, the Americans for American Energy Act. There is a bipartisan act sometimes called the Peterson-Abercrombie bill, 20 Members of this Congress, a bipartisan group, have all asked to be discussed on the floor.

All three of those are a comprehensive all-of-the-above approach. None of those have been allowed to have a hearing, to have a markup, to have discussions, or to have a vote on this floor. Yet today we are told that sometime this week the bill written in secret will be brought to this floor, like Moses coming down from Mount Sinai, and will be given to us as the law.

That process is a fraud. That resulting bill will be a fraud. Anything that takes anything off the table will be a fraud. Anything that does not allow an all-of-the-above approach will be a fraud. We will not do what we are supposed to do when we come here to this body, which is, in addition to passing good bills like the one in front of us, but also solving the problem of American citizens.

We are not doing that. We are derelict in our responsibilities, and we need to change that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, once again, our opportunity to talk about the many needs we have dealing with the environment and dealing with the energy situation that is so critical to Americans at this particular time.

I appreciate the gentlelady from Guam bringing up a problem that is, indeed, a problem, that we have known about since 2006. I am glad that the majority party has finally decided to hold hearings, after 2 long years, on that particular issue. I would hope that this week we can actually get to the bottom of that and make sure it never happens again.

But the issue of that has nothing to do with the fact that we are still rationing, through our actions, the opportunity of dealing with the resources that we do have.

Why, in Chukchi Sea, in February of 2008, were 487 leases allowed and immediately there were 487 lawsuits that took place? Why, in New Mexico in the spring of this year, were onshore drilling leases allowed, and immediately they were stopped because of lawsuits that are going forward?

Why, in my State, where we are ready to move forward with oil-shale production on private lands, was it stopped because of actions by this House that denied any funding going forward to move that process to its completion?

It is our actions that have actually been the regulatory stranglehold on moving this Nation forward, and those are the things that need to be completed. Hopefully, in the bill being written in secret that will be presented at some time, these actions will be addressed, these problems will be addressed.

These roadblocks will be addressed, but so far in the talking points that have leaked out, none of that seems to be even a topic of conversation. Yet if we indeed are going to solve all of the problems with an all-of-the-above solution, it has to be part of our discussion.

I have no additional speakers on this bill and would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

This legislation authored by our colleague from Nevada (Mr. Heller) seeks to resolve the water claims associated with the Duck Valley Reservation in Nevada. This bill has undergone many changes. It reflects intense but good faith negotiations between the administration and staff on both sides of the aisle.

The Democratic bill manager is correct in stating there is a need for consistency in waiver language, and while this bill's waiver language has been resolved for now, we have received commitments from the Democrats that

they will work together on applying consistent waiver language in all Indian water right settlements in the next Congress. I actually support this bill as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, one of the things that has changed over the past 30 years is we've had the same policies that have brought us to the situation in which we are today. It is the pain that people have faced at the gas pumps. It has been one of those things that has been a shocking realization. The road on which we have been traveling for over 30 years is a road that is simply not working. Sometimes there are people who, unfortunately, are happy with the pain that Americans are going through at the pumps today.

There was a former mayor of one of the major cities in Utah who did not like the fact that people were not living in his jurisdiction and were living across the county line. In an effort to punish them, he tried to insist that every effort to try and build more infrastructure and roads be hammered at every venue, at every opportunity. It looked at least from my side of that line as if it were punishment for actually deciding to live where you would want to live.

I talked once at length at a television and radio interview about the issue that we have with energy and about the problems that people are facing with the energy crisis that we have right now. One of the callers called in and said, you know, what we need to do is to simply have more commuter rail service. Now, I don't quibble with that caller, because he's right. We need to have more commuter rail. That's one of the solutions that we have, but having more commuter rail lines does not solve the problem of the farmer who has to fill his tractor with diesel.

For one of the farmers in my community, every time he fills up that tractor, it's $600 just to fill up one tractor. That is $600 for which he doesn't get reimbursed at the end of the week by putting in a voucher to his employer. It is $600 he has to eat until the end of the growing season when he may or may not receive money back for the sale of the goods that he produces.

Commuter lines are great, but they don't help the trucker who still has to bring those products to market. Ninety-five percent of everything we consume comes to a store by way of truck, and commuter rail lines don't stop at grocery stores. Those truckers still have to be able to have the fuel necessary to bring the food to market. We sometimes forget there is a whole segue that is involved in this particular issue of our energy crisis and that everybody isn't part of it. It's in part of the agriculture that we need. It's in part of the trucking industry that we need. It's in part of the pain that people feel at the pump.

Those people who are looking at what is coming out of their pockets week after week don't want us simply coming back here and talking about a highfalutin energy policy. It's not an energy policy to them. It is the way they cook their food. It is the way they heat their homes. It's whether they have a job or not. The pain at the pump is what people are feeling right now, but come this winter, there's going to be pain as the prices of heating their homes will increase by 20 to 30 percent.

So far, the only solution this Congress seems to want to do to address that situation is to try to increase welfare payments or LIHEAP payments in some way rather than to go to the root cause of that problem, which is 30 years of mismanagement that we have had that brings us to this particular situation.

It also means that food prices will be increasing because it is so much more difficult for the farmers to produce that food, for the processors to process that food, for the truck drivers to deliver that food. All of those are going to come as crisis after crisis after crisis if we do not address a comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy policy and do it now. For every week that we delay, we delay and continue on with the pain that real people are facing out there in America, and we are turning this country almost into a second class society.

I had a principal once who was in the military before he went to education, and he always used to answer many of my requests with the old military phrase ``rank has its privileges.'' It is true. Rank has privileges. That's why, in class, I was able to drink a Dr. Pepper and my students could not, because rank had privileges. That's why I get to park in the Cannon building parking garage and my staff does not. Rank has privileges. Some people are able to write bills in the secrecy of their offices and to bring them directly to the floor because rank has privileges. Some people are able to establish an agenda here even though 136 Republicans came back here during the recess time and spoke on that floor, asking, begging, demanding that different types of votes be allowed to take place on this floor. It happens because rank has privileges. In addition to privileges, rank also has responsibilities, and part of the responsibility has to be to solve the real problem that real Americans are facing.

When the Members met in Philadelphia to do their Constitution, a document we'll be celebrating in a couple of days, they were sent there to make minor adjustments to the Articles of Confederation, but they recognized that some of the States that had sent their instructions had also told them to go beyond that to solve the problem. What they decided was essential, not because it was what literally was put in front of them as their responsibilities, but what was essential to meet the needs of the people was to solve the problem.

If we fail in this Congress to bring an all-of-the-above solution to the floor that is a real solution to real problems, we fail in our responsibility to Americans.

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

May I also yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger) who understands this issue completely and who understands the need of a real solution to the real problems facing real Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything that Ms. Bordallo just said in her comments, that we should have an energy policy that comes in a deliberative fashion, which means that the bills should be allowed to have committee process. They should be allowed to have public hearings. They should be allowed to have an open rule so that Members can amend them in committee or here on the floor. That is the deliberative process. Those are the rules that these people try to establish. That's the concept of the rules that these people try to establish so that we can go through this process.

Everything she said is exactly accurate, except we're not going to do that. We're going to have a bill written in secret and unveiled on the floor. And if it, by chance, has an open rule, I'll be the very first one to be surprised and will probably apologize.

But she is right. That is exactly, that is exactly what needs to take place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6889, a bill to extend the authority of the Secretary of Education to purchase guaranteed student loans for an additional year. And I do want to thank my friends, the senior Republicans, Mr. McKeon and Mr. Keller, as well as the two significant chairmen, Mr. Miller and Mr. Hinojosa, who introduced this extension.

We have been reading about the instability that still exists in the credit markets, and, in fact, it has gotten worse. Through this extension, Congress is assuring students and families that they will be able to receive the Federal assistance they need to pay for school.

The steps in the underlying bill are modest, but they make a real difference for students and families. I appreciate that this bill carries no cost to taxpayers, proving that we can use a creative approach to respond to economic difficulties without bloated spending that will drive up taxes.

Since the implementation of H.R. 5715, we have seen at least 10 lenders take advantage of the program that has been put in place. Without this relief, these lenders could have dropped out of the program altogether. Up until this point, we have seen over 6,000 employees laid off as a result of the cutbacks lenders have had to make. In addition, 106 lenders have suspended their lending service as a result of the credit crunch and the cuts made in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. Without this extension, students could attend college this year without knowing whether the financing would be there to attend college next year.

In difficult economic times, many Americans turn to higher education. That's because a college degree continues to be one of the single best investments an individual, and our Nation, can actually make. College graduates have higher lifetime earnings, lower unemployment rates, greater civic involvement, and exhibit numerous other qualities that help enrich our society and keep our Nation competitive.

With all the benefits of higher education, it's concerning that amid these economic uncertainties many current and prospective students are worried about whether they will be able to access student loans. And as more and more students look to higher education to help get them through these difficult economic times, we cannot allow market turbulence to limit college access.

This extension signals our unwavering support for the Nation's largest source of financial aid, the Federal Family Education Loan Program. It is a crucial step that will help protect students and families and restore market confidence.

Mr. Chairman, I know how important it is that higher education be made affordable and accessible. This is particularly important in our turbulent economy. For the same reason, it's important that we come together to pass an all-of-the-above energy reform package that will help bring down prices and free us from our costly dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that stabilizing our loan program will have an economic positive yield, just as solving the real problems of energy will have an economic yield. Our energy prices and energy problems are not just affecting those who stop at the pump, they affect those who will be trying to heat their homes this winter; they affect those who will be trying to buy food; they affect not just commuters, but all of us. Students as well as parents need real solutions to the energy crisis that is confronting us. They need to be able to make the commute. They need to be able to make those heating payments. They need to realize the cost of food will not keep spiraling upwards simply because farmers cannot afford energy to put into their tractors to grow the food and truckers cannot afford the energy to take that produce and send it to the markets where we can then buy it and enjoy it.

We have to realize that the solution to this problem has to be an all-of-the-above approach, that we are not doing enough to encourage conservation by small business or by citizens. But even if we did the maximum amount of conservation efforts, that still does not solve the entire problem. It's estimated that if the most stringent efforts of conservation were put in place, only about half of the foreign imports that we bring into this country would be eliminated; the other half would still have to be there.

We also have not done enough over the last few years to put in infrastructure so that we can move energy from one part of this country to the other. There are bottlenecks all over this country in which energy cannot take place. There is plenty of pipeline for natural gas going from the Gulf of Mexico up north, but it cannot get to New England because there is a bottleneck that we have yet to solve in that particular problem. That infrastructure problem needs to be addressed. The lack of refinery capacity needs to be addressed. The lack of electrical corridors needs to be addressed.

We also have to recognize that we do not have a successful payment plan for alternative energies for the future, not only for our immediate problems, but for the long-term problems of this particular country. We need to recognize that this is a supply and demand issue, and that that supply can only be satisfied if we have an all-of-the- above strategy.

There is not a single source of energy that does not have some detractor. I was amazed to read in the local paper the other day about a detractor from a wind farm who said that the noise of the blades kept him up at night, and that they chopped up too many birds, which violates our Migratory Bird Treaty. I was amazed to find out that somebody was opposed to a solar energy plant down in New Mexico because it would consume too much of the desert land.

There is not a source of energy that doesn't have someone who will jump up and complain about it and potentially bring a lawsuit about it. That is why if we start to take any of those resource potentials off the table, we might as well take them all off because everything drops one after the other. The only way to be fair and the only way to be equitable and the only way to make sure that we have a real solution is to make sure that every source of energy known to this country, every source of energy in this country is on the table and is part of the real solutions.

Our students, for their future, require that. The parents, for the present, require that. The citizens of this country demand an all-of- the-above approach and that it be talked about in committees, in public hearings, and here on the floor. Nothing else solves the problem. And our goal and responsibility should be to come to this Congress to solve the problem, not try to create a political atmosphere so that we can take credit for what may or may not happen, but simply to solve the problem.

If we do not fulfill our responsibility, the students who will benefit from these extensions will have a short-lived benefit and will not look at us in kindness for the generosity when we help them get their education, but refuse to allow this economy to sustain them post- education.

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

If I may, once again; I appreciate the remarks that have been given. I am fully supportive of this particular piece of legislation, I urge my colleagues to do so as well. But I also realize that, in the words of the Broadway song, ``It's a fine, fine line between reality and pretend.''

I certainly hope that when we come to this floor and actually deal with the issue of energy once and for all, we have the ability of dealing with the reality of the situation for a real solution. That's the crying need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman who is the sponsor of House Resolution 1372 and an alumnus of the University of Nebraska at Omaha, as opposed to the University of Nebraska at New Orleans or something, such time as he may consume for this particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say a few words in support of this particular resolution that congratulates the University of Nebraska at Omaha in its 100th anniversary of its founding, which will be 100 years on September 19 of this year. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Terry, for introducing this resolution. I also have to clarify that he was not the alumnus. His wife is the alumna of this institution. And I want to recognize the contributions the University of Nebraska at Omaha has made to the education of the citizens of this Nation.

It was founded with just 26 students and now serves over 14,000. In the 2006-2007 academic year, the university awarded over 2,400 degrees to its students. The University of Nebraska at Omaha is nationally recognized for a strong academic program. Last year alone, the university was honored as one of the Best Colleges 2007 list, and the Best Midwestern College 2007 list and the Best Graduate Schools 2009 list, as published by ``U.S. News & World Report.'' In addition, the College of Business Administration's masters in business in administration students rank in the top 5 percent nationally, while the undergraduate students ranked in the top 15 percent on the most recent standardized exam on business topics.

University of Nebraska at Omaha has graduated such notable alumni as Marlin Briscoe, Peter Fonda, and a couple of Senators. Despite that fact, it is still a good school. I would like to congratulate all of the students, the alumni, and past and present employees on all they have accomplished over the last 100 years at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

While I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, our efforts to help these college students will still be incomplete if we don't recognize the factors that all colleges are facing. Our higher education system is being squeezed by the high energy costs, just as the rest of society is. Schools are being forced to limit their operations, to reduce the number of school days just to save on utility costs and save their students the price of a day's commute. I know in both regular education as well as secondary education that the budgets for those particular institutions are written very narrowly and that whenever there is an unusual spike in something like the cost of electricity and the cost of fuel, that it is taken out primarily either in the short term or the long-term from the funds that are available for the faculty and for teachers for their salaries. It is simply a fact of life that if we do not get control of this energy crisis that is burgeoning, every school district in this Nation, whether it be a secondary, elementary, public or private or university level, every one of those schools is going to have the costs that will be borne by the teachers either in suppressed salaries at the current time or suppressed salaries into the future. That is the price we are paying for our failure to try to grasp this particular concept.

The majority has been meeting behind closed doors to craft a bill to offer what seems to be, at least from leaks

coming out, more political cover than actual reform. I am reminded of the U.S. Senate. The U.S. House has always had galleries so that people could watch what is taking place. But at the very beginning of the United States, the Senate convened in a closed room and no one could see what was taking place in that particular Chamber. The first employee of the United States Senate was actually the Senate secretary, a protege of John Adams who held the job for 25 years. The second employee of the Senate was the doorkeeper whose responsibility was to make sure that the public and House Members did not enter into the Chamber of the United States Senate. In fact, the Senate went on at that time to establish a funding schedule that would pay all Members of Congress $6 a day and Members of the Senate $7 a day. They also established a rule that a secretary could take any communication to the House, but at least two House Members had to be responsible for taking any communication to the Senate.

Well, the doorkeeper turned into the Sergeant of Arms as time went on. And eventually the Senate broke down and decided to actually allow people to watch the proceedings on the floor. Yet once again we find ourselves in an amazingly similar situation where the most important issue of our time is what we do with this energy crisis, and yet the bill that is supposed to be debated this day, this week on the floor, supposed to be being heard in Rules Committee as we speak, has yet to be heard in any public forum, has not had any kind of public hearing, and has not had any kind of committee work. And my bets are still that there won't be a heck of a lot of amendments that will be allowed to that particular procedure, all of it done in secret and private and then unveiled on the floor.

That is not the way of good regular order. Regular order should allow public process and open vetting so that all ideas are explored and the best ideas are those that surface to the top. We are not doing that this week. And we vitally and desperately need to do that, or just go back to the days where we keep a couple of doorkeepers around so the wrong people are not allowed to participate in the process of the policy of the United States.

We need to do that. We need a real energy policy that looks good not on paper, but keeps vital American resources viable and usable, not under lock and key. The students of this college need that for their future. All students need that for their future. Teachers need that if their retirement and their salaries are going to be kept impact. All of us need that if this economy is going to be vibrant and move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have other speakers at this time, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and it will be quite awhile.

Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are in a 15-day session. We're now one- fifth of the way through our final session before we end. The Democrat leaders, who have set the agenda and run this floor for almost 2 years now, have had 5 weeks in preparation for this day. So the first issue of significance, the only issue we may have this week that has a rule, the most significant piece of

legislation we're talking about today is a study that, if passed, may perhaps someday, if conditions allow and the elements are conducive, possibly create a compromise that would might possibly pass an additional 70 miles being added to the inventory of the national government, and only costing the taxpayers $300,000 to do it. That's what we're doing today.

I would like to make a couple of points about this particular bill, not necessarily in opposition to it. But one point that is significant; we talk a great deal in government about transparency. It's important to government to be transparent. It's good to be transparent--until it deals with how we treat people.

One of the things that the Republican Party has tried to do on almost every bill that has come either to committee or to the floor that deals with a trail, a heritage area, an historic area or a scenic river is to ensure that the people who will be involved in that area are informed up front about what may or may not happen to them. Because once we go to the next step and actually create this wild and scenic river, the Federal Government is given--not in this bill, but is given in the existing powers they have--the right of condemnation of any of that land that will be in that area. They have almost unlimited rights of easement. They always have the ability of dealing with local officials to create zoning ordinances that have a huge impact on the people in those areas.

Almost always these studies are done with small groups. And then citizens will come back to us afterwards and say we were unaware of what was actually happening at this time. The dairy farmers along this river--who may or may not need protection and may or may not be happy and satisfied with what will result to them--may or may not have any idea what will happen as they go through this study.

The first year I was here in Congress I passed a wilderness bill. I made sure that I went to every single property owner in that area that would be impacted by that wilderness bill, even the guy who was dead and had no heirs, which was a neat trick. But we went to every one of them to make sure they were well aware in advance of what was to take place. And yet when we tried to add an amendment, both in committee and once again before the Rules Committee, to make sure that everyone who may be impacted by this new designation and this study was made aware and they had to respond affirmatively that they wished to be part of the study, it was again rejected.

Why do we not treat Americans with respect? We will pass these types of provisions to empower government, but we will not ask the citizens who will be impacted by our decisions to be part of this particular process. It's something that used to be standard language that we would add to these types of provisions, and it should be added again. That's a flaw.

For 2 years Speaker Pelosi has been the one who was to set the agenda for our discussions here on the floor. One of those issues that I think people would like us to talk about is obviously energy. We have been talking about that for a long time. When this new leadership took over the House, on day one, when the energy prices started to climb and it was $2.22, the topic of discussion we had on this floor was congratulating the University of California-Santa Barbara soccer team. When energy reached $4 at the pump, I was here to spend a rollicking hour and a half talking about monkey bites. And today, after our 5-week adjournment, after people have been talking to us, after our constituents have said what is affecting them, after 5 weeks of preparation, what we are proposing to talk about today as the significant issue on the agenda is to study two rivers in Vermont. The only bill we will have with a rule, to study two rivers in Vermont.

And I hate to say this; I'm not opposed to it. There's no reason to be. It's fine. The bill is a nice bill. It can be improved significantly, but there's nothing wrong with it. The question is, why are we here talking about that after 5 weeks of getting prepared to talk about significant issues?

I had a couple of my constituents come to me. They said what they wanted to see Congress do is something in a bipartisan way; that we should come back here and show that we can work together. Indeed, the Senators have already told us that there is only a bipartisan energy plan of theirs, that's the only thing that can be passed, therefore, we should come together and support what they are trying to do in the spirit of bipartisanship, not only between two political parties, but between two branches of Congress. I am sure maybe someday this week we might even have another energy bill proposed for discussion on this floor, and I'm sure somebody will say this is the only thing we can pass; let us now embrace this in a spirit of bipartisanship so that we can show that we can work together.

Sometimes I have the feeling that we on this floor believe that if we toast one another or we slap one another on the back or we have congratulatory comity, that that, indeed, is the end of the discussion; that is the goal, not the means to reach some kind of discussion; when the end should be, have we solved the problem?

We have now had eight votes over 3 days on this floor, each of them getting around 400 plus votes. That is bipartisanship, that is comity, that is coming together. But have we solved what the needs of the American people are? Those eight votes, we've named three post offices, we said we're against hunger and we're for the Red Cross. That's good. But that does not solve the problems plaguing Americans.

If I was to go to a hospital and I was on the gurney being rushed into the surgery room, is it logical that I would look up at the assembled doctors and nurses and say, ``Look, when you open me up, I don't really care what you do inside just as long as you do it together in harmony, in a bipartisan way''? Or would it be much more logical for me to say, ``Ladies and gentlemen, when you open me up, solve the problem''? And that is, indeed, what the American people are looking at us to do here today is not necessarily find out how many bills we can pass on suspension, how much comity we can have, but how we can solve the problem.

To simply pass a political statement does not make a difference to individuals. We are supposed to be here to try and solve the problem. And it is very clear that the problem has to be some way in which we have an overarching, comprehensive energy proposal. That is the problem that we're facing. We need to come to this floor and actually encourage people to conserve, not by mandating conservation efforts, but by rewarding Americans for conservation efforts and they will take it from there.

We must come to the floor and finally realize that our problem is supply and demand, and that we have to increase production of that supply, that we do not have a logical pattern of funding alternative energy sources. But if we could actually increase the amount of oil and coal and oil shale and natural gas, that we could use the royalties this government would then create to actually fund a comprehensive energy program for alternative energies--for solar, for wind power, for anything else that happens to be there--if we simply decided to use an ``all of the above'' approach. We can solve our problem in the emergency, for the beginning, for the present time, as well as coming up with a long-term strategy for the future that actually would be funded.

We could finally realize that this country does not have an infrastructure that will allow energy to be moved from one part of the country to the other. There are good friends in New England who will face high costs of heating their homes this fall. We have a good pipeline that goes, but it stops before it ever gets to their part of the country.

We need to solve those problems. We need to make sure we have more refineries. We need to make sure we do something on the electric grid. And we are not. That is the solution to the problem for the American people.

We need to finally realize that the future of this country is not going to be solved by bringing experts into Washington to sit around a room and come up with an idea, but the ability of America to solve its problem rests with the people out there. Because within the American people, without their soul and heart, is the ability and the creativity to come up with real solutions if we just empower them to find those solutions and then reward them

for the creativity that they can expound.

We need to realize that the solution to our problem is that the next time we lose 84,000 jobs it is not exacerbated by the lack of energy; that the next time an airline doesn't have enough energy to run 100 planes, they don't have to fire 1,100 people because of it; that the cab driver in Washington, D.C. who now drives 2 hours extra every day because he needs that to provide enough funds for the new energy he has to provide could actually be back at home meeting his kids after school the way he used to; or that we provide enough energy in here so the father in Virginia can finally go with his son to a father and son outing; or the family in Maryland can finally have enough energy so they can re-enroll their daughters in dance and gymnastics; so that school kids in the middle of this country can finally make it to field trips this year; or the teachers in our districts throughout this country will not find their salaries to be depressed or in some cases slashed because of unusual and unexpected energy costs in their districts; so that home heating oil will not drive people out of existence; so the farmer in the field will have enough energy to put in diesel in his tractors to produce the food so that truckers will have enough energy to drive them to market so that the prices of food that we have to pick up at those markets will not be spiraling this winter and this next year. And all of those is what we should be talking about.

The river is nice; it's okay. The study is okay. But it is not where we should be at this particular time because it doesn't solve the problem.

There are a lot of rich people in this body. For them, this energy crisis is an annoyance. But for those people on fixed incomes, those people at the bottom of the scale, those people in the middle class, we're not talking to them about energy policy. We're talking about the way they cook their food, the way they heat their homes, whether they have a job or not.

Three days into the last 15 days of this session, and the most significant issue is a study bill on two rivers in Vermont. This country is aching for legislation that will nourish the body politic, and yet we continue to put up, day after day on this body, pieces of legislation that are as nutritional as cotton candy. We need to do it differently.

But, on the plus side, we will probably do this bill in a bipartisan way. Doesn't it make you feel proud?

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the discussion especially about Teddy Roosevelt, a famous President. But I would remind my friend that William Howard Taft, who came after him, created more national parks, created more land in the national forests, and busted more trusts in 4 years than Roosevelt did in 8. The difference was he didn't use public relations.

Our issue is still the same. Talk about these issues after we have had a debate on real issues for a real solution on the real problem of energy that affects real Americans here on the floor. That should be our priority.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

In my 6 long years of being here on this floor, and I welcome my freshman colleague from New Hampshire, we have been involved in many issues that deal with energy, and I found that what was not stopped by filibuster in the Senate, was stopped by litigation in the court, and that is part of the overall reform we are talking about, which is why we desperately need a real vote on a real solution, the American Energy Act.

May I just inquire how much time we have remaining.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

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

Mr. Chairman, I was about to be critical of the remarks of the gentlewoman from Ohio, but once she said the Senate is a problem that should be working, how can I reject that?

I would, though, remind you, if you really want to help Exxon, don't do anything. Sixty-eight percent of all the oil and 87 percent of all the natural gas is being drilled by small entrepreneurial companies. If you want competition, allow those to be successful.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope when my chairman rolls me into the surgery room and opens me up, he will solve the problem.

May I inquire of the other side if they have additional speakers left up and how much time remains.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my last 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, though not in opposition, I claim the time in opposition on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in a unique situation on this particular amendment. The gentleman who proposed it thinks it is unnecessary. I think this is a wonderful amendment. It was great when

somebody first wrote it, and now that you have incorporated it into the general discussion on these bills, I am equally as enthralled with that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I wish to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I wish to defend my good friend from Georgia. Actually he said NOT-A, which is N-O-T-A. It is just that Georgian accent, it's hard to get the letters straight there. That's something we don't face in Arizona or Utah, I realize that.

Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity, we support this particular amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of talking about a bill that asks us to review energy issues with this particular piece of legislation.

When the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was originally established, it was designed specifically to inhibit, if not stop, the production of dams across rivers where electricity could be the result. It is fitting and proper to see what kind of impact this wild and scenic river would have in that area, as well as the fact that this river, the Missisquoi River, translated means the great grassy meadow. It could possibly be the ``great gassy meadow'' if we find some kind of minerals down there, which, once again, a review of that I think would be appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

I thank you for that kind introduction. And it won't be

50 minutes unless I go into Mr. King's time in some particular way.

I'm excited to be here to join you and to join the others, especially the gentlelady from Minnesota, who painted such a marvelous vision of what we could, indeed, be doing in the future if we just come together on this particular issue.

There are many people who have said, you know, where have we been all these years on this particular issue? I haven't been here forever, but I do know, from my years here as well as in the State legislature in Utah, that we have been arguing this issue for years.

One of the freshman Members today came to the floor and criticized us for why we haven't done any of these issues earlier. And the bottom line is: We did. I have not been here forever, but there have been countless votes I have made in favor of drilling in ANWR and I would do so again. I have made countless votes in this body on expanding our offshore drilling leases and permits in areas and would do so again.

From the very first day I came here, John Peterson has been extolling the problems this economy will face if we don't face up to the fact we have a dwindling supply of natural gas here in the United States. We have been talking about this forever. Even before Speaker Pelosi changed my mindset and told me that natural gas is not a fossil fuel and you don't actually have to drill to get it, despite that fact there is something that is different now. And like most issues that come to their prime, there is a catalyst that changes and a catalyst that drives the issue forward. We have seen that this year.

I come from the West, which is the energy-producing section. Some of my friends in the areas that I call the ``energy consuming'' sections have been very happy over the years to try and lock up areas of the West and areas off the coast which produce energy, and they can do it with impunity because it has no impact on their lives. But all of a sudden, when you start paying 4 bucks a gallon of gas, then something is different.

The massive spike in gasoline prices at the pump over the last 2 years is the catalyst that is taking the arguments--and the arguments that we have said over and over and over again year after year--and have finally driven it to the point where everyone realizes mistakes we have made in our energy policy and our land policy for the past 30 years have brought us to the situation where we are today. And the cost we are paying at the pump is because of misguided decisions we have made for over 30 years. And now is the time where Americans are ready to stand up all over this country and say now is the time we need to take a new direction with real solutions so that we can solve where we have been brought by past decisions.

And as has been stated before, we're not just talking about drilling. It's one of the common arguments they say, all Republicans want to do is drill. Yeah, we want to drill, but we have always said it's not drilling alone. When we say we need an all-of-the-above solution, it means we need an all-of-the-above solution.

The common fossil fuels are as important to solve our energy problem now as expanding alternative energy sources will be to solve our problem in the future. But one of the issues we have never faced in this country--once again, another decision we've made improperly years ago--is an adequate way of funding our investment and expansion of alternative resources.

Now, one of the things we could do if we actually do increase our production of oil and natural gas and oil shale and coal is to use the expanded royalties this Federal Government would receive and funnel those royalties into building and developing our alternative resources for the future. And that's what the all-of-the-above American Energy Act wants to do. It is both of those.

I have found, to my utter amazement, there is no source of energy that does not have its critics. How can one be opposed to solar power? Although when we tried to build a solar plant in New Mexico, people were opposed to it because it would take up too much of the desert. How can you be opposed to wind power? Although I was reading an article in a local paper of a farmer in Wyoming who was opposed to wind power plants simply because the wushing of the blades makes too much noise, or it chops up too many birds that are part of the Migratory Bird Treaty.

Every source of energy has somebody who is opposed to it, which is why, if we're really going to reach a consensus of everybody, the only solution is to say nothing is off the table, we develop everything. It is the only real solution, it is the only fair solution, and that's what we are after. If we care about consumers in the future, we develop everything.

Conservation is essential, but we all know conservation alone does not solve our problem. But the American Energy Act is the only bill that actually has real incentives for Americans to conserve and rewarding them for efforts to conserve. We realize we do not have the infrastructure to move energy from one part of this country to the other. And the American Energy Act is the only one that realizes we must put extra money and effort into building our infrastructure or everything else is useless. We are the only ones that realize it has legal impediments. As was mentioned before, as soon as you open up an area, it is immediately open to open-ended standing so that anybody can sue, and that is, indeed, what happened. And in the Americans for American Energy Act, that is the only area that actually talks about reforming that process so that once a decision has been made, we can move forward.

The American Energy Act is the only one that recognizes solutions are made by people out there, because within the soul of American people is the creativity we need to solve our problems. And what we should be doing as a government is not trying to dictate solutions from here in these hallowed halls, but allowing Americans to find their solutions by themselves and then rewarding them for it.

When England became a superpower on the oceans, they did not have a way of mapping the oceans, so they established a prize of 20,000 pounds to the first person who could figure out how to do it. And the British clock maker from London who invented latitude and longitude, we are still using his invention. When Napoleon started marching with his troops, he realized he did not have a way of feeding them, so he gave a 14,000 frank prize to the first person to solve the problem. The vacuum-packed concept of food is the same thing he invented for 14,000 franks and we still use today. When Lindbergh flew across the ocean he was after a prize from a newspaper. And the aeronautics industry has developed from it.

All we need to do is say we will reward Americans for coming up and producing a solution and reward them well for it, and they will solve the problem without our expert attention driving that way.

Now, we've heard a lot of blame about the problem. We've heard Big Oil blame because they're gouging people, therefore let's tax them-- which is what we tried 30 years ago when the development dried up; or we have said that they have leases out there they're not using it, so use it or lose it--even though that's exactly what the status quo is, indeed, doing. We've had all sorts of other ideas that Big Oil is the problem here. As Newt Gingrich said, if you really want to help Exxon, do nothing. They already have their oil. Sixty-eight percent of all the oil that is being drilled in this country and 87 percent of all the natural gas being drilled in this country today are being done by small entrepreneurial companies, 200 employees or less, names of which no one in this body has ever heard.

If we really want to expand our economy and add competition, which will lower price, expand the efforts of people to become involved in this process. What we need is not another political scheme, we have had 30 years of them; we need real solutions. And that is what we want, a vote on a real solution, not some faux solution, a real one that actually addresses real issues for real Americans and solves their real problems.

Groucho Marx once said that ``politics is the act of looking for the trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.'' If we're not careful, that's exactly what we could do in these next 2 weeks. We can't just go for the cheap fix political deal. We have to go for a

real solution that helps real people. And that's the vote that we demand.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to offer the amendment of Mr. Boehner, the minority leader, at this point in the reading.

Would the gentleman yield to a question?

It was our understanding as I was waiting for the proper time to offer this amendment that the body would take the two colloquies first, and then we would have the opportunity of presenting this in this form. So I think actually going through this form in the long run was probably more timesaving than doing other kinds of actions if this was not allowed.

I don't know that one.

If the gentleman will yield on that issue? That was always our intent. I think I am enough.

That is my understanding.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the courtesies, real or unreal, that have been granted to this point so far.

If you go back to the movie The Natural, there is a wonderful scene where this mythical team, the New York Knights, are on a losing tradition, so they bring a sports psychologist down to try and talk to the team. And as the sports psychologist is droning on to them, he says, ``You know, men, the mind is a strange thing. What is losing? Losing is a disease as contagious as the bubonic plague, attacking one

but infecting all. And consider yourself, if you are on a ship at sea gently rocking, gently rocking.''

And at that point, Roy Hobbs can't take it anymore, so he bolts out of there because he realizes that if you are in a losing situation, talking about it doesn't help, only action on the field of play will help.

And when given the chance to go on the field and play, he pounded the ball and led them to victory after victory after victory.

And what we are talking about simply here tonight is what Americans want, which is for us to do something here on this playing field on the issue of energy and energy security.

We are fighting for the people of my district who will be faced with a 30 percent increase in heating costs this winter. We are fighting for the 1,100 people who lost their jobs with an airline because 100 planes were not able to be provided the fuel to fly. We are flying for an Ethiopian-born cab driver here in Washington, D.C. who, for the first time in his life since coming here, he cannot meet his kids at home because he has to drive two extra hours every night just to make up what he loses in these fees. We are fighting for a father in Virginia who can no longer go to his father-and-son outings because he can't afford the gasoline to drive there. We are talking about the Clark County School District which had an unexpected 62 percent of its budget all related to energy costs, and that all comes out of future salaries of the teachers of those poor areas.

If you are rich, this problem is simply an annoyance. Only 11 cents out of $1 goes to energy. But if you are on the poverty line, 50 cents of every dollar goes to energy. And that 50 cents that comes out of the pocket of a poor person or somebody on a fixed income is money that cannot be spent on luxuries like tuna casseroles or Hamburger Helper.

We are a country that has the technology and the ability to solve this problem. We are a country with a proud history of solving our problems with technology. Since 1784 when we invented the bifocals, to 1867 when we changed the world by inventing the typewriter and changed the West by inventing barbed wire and changed our lives by inventing toilet paper in the same year, to 1945 with the microwave, to even soft contacts today. We have had the technology to be able to solve this energy problem. And before us is an amendment which will reward Americans for their efforts of conservation in a way that we have not done in a long time. It will increase production of our energy sources by recognizing that not only do we have to have the fossil fuels increased, but all the royalties that we will now make by increased production in oil and gas and oil shale and coal will be used to fund the improvements and the innovations and the research for alternative energy so that we can look forward to the future.

We recognize that we have to do something with our infrastructure. We do not have the refinery capacity that we need. We recognize that Washington is not the seat of all wisdom, that bringing an expert into a room here is not going to solve our problems; but what we need to do is unlock the brilliance within Americans and within what they have to offer to the American people. By offering prizes, we can find solutions that have been plaguing and missing us for years.

In 1714, the British didn't have a way of mapping their waters in the navigation, so they offered a $20,000 prize and a clock maker came up with the system of longitude and latitude that we still use today.

In 1810, Napoleon needed a way to feed his troops. He gave a 12,000 franc prize to find somebody to use the vacuum-packed processes we still use today.

Lindbergh flew across the ocean to get a prize from a newspaper, and it spawned a $32 billion industry.

We have that capability today. We have the Roy Hobbs who realizes that the only way you solve the problem is get on the playing field and do it.

We have the ability to solve our problem today if we just come to this playing field and do it, and to require a vote on this amendment so that we can fulfill the words of Daniel Webster that are looking at us every day we come here to inspire us, to tell us to take our resources and to build from that, and to do something that is worthy to be remembered.

This amendment would be worthy to be remembered, and I urge that we accept this amendment and I urge that we have a vote on this amendment. This may be the only chance we actually have to have an up or down vote on this particular amendment, which impacts the lives of everybody but especially the most vulnerable in our society.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?

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

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for interrupting; I just want to be clear. Is the gentleman speaking to a point of order, or is he speaking to the amendment itself? I would make the point of order the gentleman is not speaking----

Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Wisconsin chose not to extend our time by debating energy here tonight.

I wish to speak specifically to this point of order. The issue on a point of order is the nexus between the amendment to the underlying bill, and it would be my contention there are multiple in which one can look. This particular bill on MILCON has at least eight references to runways and roads which are to be produced, all of which will be made by asphalt, which is a petroleum-based substance. With costs increasing, it would be a difficult price to try and do that.

We will have people coming in here talking about VA benefits to people, falling all over themselves stumbling to be good about it. That is great. But if, indeed, those VA hospitals are going to have a 30 percent increase in heating costs which have to be paid first, many of the benefits that we are looking at in this bill will be unable to be provided. It is almost like taking medicine off their trays when we require people to get those benefits to pay 4 and $5 a gallon to get there.

The couple in West Virginia that drove 80 miles every week and were reimbursed 11 cents a mile. For 8 bucks they could not fund their ability to get those benefits.

We will increase our benefits and, at the same time, tell veterans they are going to have to pay at a higher price out of their pocket to get those benefits. What we give with one hand will be taken back simply with another because of our inaction.

There is precedent for what I am attempting to do. In 1999, there was an amendment that was made in order even though it was in violation of the germaneness rule by Spence and Ortiz. In 2000 there were two more that were part of the Department of Transportation bill, bipartisan amendment.

There was another one that was made in 1990, and those are the original ones we were able to look at, let alone the concept of all sorts of legislation that we routinely put into appropriations types of measures. There is precedent for what I am trying to talk about.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of those situations where a ruling by the Chair will make a decision on whether we deny discussion on energy in this body or not. A ruling by the Chair will decide whether we talk about conservation and production and infrastructure needs; will deny or not a vote by the representatives of the people on an issue the people are asking for us to take a vote.

Benjamin Franklin, when talking about the Revolution once said that ``revolutions come into this world like illegitimate children.'' He didn't use the word illegitimate, but illegitimate children, ``half improvised and half compromised.''

We have provided the improvisation for this issue. We are looking to the gentleman at the Chair to provide the compromise; to simply say that we can go forward with the debate that is significant, it is timely, it is important and does have significant nexus to this particular piece of legislation for, indeed, what we are appropriating cannot be accomplished if the energy prices continue to soar and make it an impossibility to do that.

This is a chance, Mr. Chairman, that the fate of the American economy and maybe our military intelligence will rest in the hands of your decision. It is my hope that you will decide in the favor of people on this particular point of order.

Madam Speaker, consistent with House Republican Earmark Standards adopted by House Republicans, I am submitting the following earmark disclosure and certification information for an individual project appropriations request that I made and which was included within the text of H.R. 6599, the ``Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009.''

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop (UT-01)

Bill Number: H.R. 6599--``Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009''

1 project was included at my request which qualifies as an earmark under Republican Conference guidelines, as follows:

1. Project: Three-Bay Fire Station, Military Construction

Project Amount: $5.67 million

Account: Air Force, Military Construction (MILCON)

Requesting Entity: Congressman Rob Bishop

Receiving Entity: Hill Air Force Base; Air Force Materiel Command

Address: 75th Air Base Wing, Hill AFB, Utah 84056.

Project Description and Justification: Construction of new, 3-bay fire station next to the main runway is necessary to correct for violation of Air Force fire protection regulations regarding response times. New facility is necessary to provide adequate fire protection for aircraft, as well as industrial operations on East side of runway in support of vital national defense missions. This project was already approved in the Air Force's Five-Year Defense Plan as being necessary to meet military safety requirements. MILCON projects are inherently necessary as having been requested and reviewed by the applicable military service in the first instance. Congress merely readjusts prioritization of project funds in any given fiscal year based on showing of emerging or critical needs.

Matching Funds: Not applicable (Federal entity).

Detailed Spending Plan: $5.67 million in appropriated dollars will be expended by Hill Air Force Base Civil Engineer Division pursuant to existing Military Construction statutes and regulations under an open bidding competitive process with the private sector, for the construction of a 3-bay Fire Station complex. Additional questions regarding this project may be addressed to: U.S. Air Force, Hill Air Force Base Public Affairs Office (801) 777-5201.

Mr. Speaker, I had intended to obviously reserve my comments till the bill itself this afternoon, but after listening to the debate on the rule I felt somewhat compelled to say a few things about it.

Earlier this morning in the 1-minutes, one of the members of the Massachusetts delegation came to the floor and spoke about the significant problem of heating that will be taking place in the State of Massachusetts. He said that there were 350,000 people of Massachusetts that needed LIHEAP. That is subsidization for heating energy that all of us in the United States pay for the citizens of his State, and there would be more this fall. In fact, he said heat is not optional. It is something that has to be there.

Certainly this action right now does not help that problem. It retards our efforts to try and come up with it.

I am also somewhat confused as we are talking about this proposal. It is very clear that this proposal to study this river had certain sections. We are only talking here so far about segment 4; the lower part of the Taunton River, which, for the first time, has been designated as a potential wild and scenic river site.

I will say though that when the Park Service presented their information, they did not come up with a recommendation; they came up with three recommendations. Only recommendation B is the one that has decided to be included in this particular bill, the so-called environmental recommendation.

But I want you to know in the recommendation in which they said this particular recommendation is easily for a river that is the most developed of any that has ever been submitted for this kind of designation, and that would be problematic, and there is no precedent, no precedent for this kind of area to be included in a wild and scenic designation, although it does meet political expectations of the area.

Now, there are other options that we could take, and there will be an amendment put on this floor to do this the right way, by taking the area that in 2000 was designated for study and appropriated for study and putting that which does have wild and scenic designation and characteristics into existence. But not this lower portion.

In fact, there is another article that appeared yesterday in the Massachusetts paper which simply said, scenic designation could sink riverfront businesses. Indeed, what we are trying to do here is an effort that will aid some businesses but harm other businesses.

Just as in 2002, the Massachusetts delegation asked and received an appropriation to dredge this river in the effort to help some economic businesses and not necessarily others. The fact that it was dredgeable and that it was dredged, I am sorry. I don't know if it was actually done, but the fact that it was eligible for dredging ignores the area and the criteria that is necessary even for recreational purposes in the wild and scenic designation.

There are significant problems with this type of approach, not represented by us but represented by the Park Service. There are problems, as we have talked about, the denial for the permit for an LNG port that was supposedly done by Commerce, supposedly done by the Coast Guard, and the other group to which the gentleman mentioned, those were not permanent denials. Those were temporary denials. In fact, each of them said that they could be reinstituted and reapproached. It is very possible to reinstitute another proposal for a LNG port at this site, unless this bill is passed.

Now, that is the reality of what is going on here. It is far different than some of the spin that we have been hearing. But this is a problematic approach.

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

If this body were a debating society or we were involved in a high school forensics tournament and this bill were the topic of the tournament, I would be giddy with happiness every time one of my teams was given the negative side of the debate because there are so many reasons why this bill is a bad bill for policy reasons that it would almost be a rhetorical feast for even the most inexperienced and naive of my high school debaters.

Let me at least start by addressing three of the main problems with this particular bill.

First, this bill is very clearly an abuse of the Wild and Scenic River language. In 1968 when this bill was passed, its purpose was to inhibit dams and locks along rivers so that there could be a free flow of water on rustic rivers. The verb used in that act was ``preservation.'' The goal and purpose was preservation. Not rehabilitation, not restoration, certainly not economic advantage or economic development, but simply preservation. There are some elements of this particular river which have the qualities of a wild and scenic river, specifically the upper parts of the Taunton River. But the lower parts of the Taunton River, what is sometimes called segment 4, are the elements of this river which provide major problems. They are not and do not have the qualities of a wild and scenic river.

You've seen the pictures before. All you need to do is look at the pictures and you recognize this is not the design of a wild and scenic river as envisioned in the 1968 legislation. In fact, the only part of this river that's scenic is the graffiti that's found on the bridges and the human embankments that are part of this river system. The only thing that's wild about this river are the gangs that wrote this graffiti in the first place. These are not the qualities of which we are looking for. In fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if you are floating down this river, it is not a wild and scenic if you can look over and see the local McDonald's right there on the bank.

What we also have is the understanding that this lower portion is supposed to be for recreation. We could believe it would be for recreation if you believe that tugboat races or barge surfing would be considered recreational activities. This is not the kind of material that one would want to find floating in a river for Boy Scout troops to try to paddle their canoes around or by.

This bill simply violates the concept of the wild and scenic river. The wild and scenic river was never intended to go through an industrial park. It was always intended to be water that was surrounded by public lands so that you could control and preserve both the water and the embankment of those public lands, not something that goes through a privatized residential/industrial park.

Also, if you look at section 1 of the act that it specifically talks not only about preservation of the water but the embankment as well, that actually in a real wild and scenic river, the National Park Service is required to take the embankment as well up to a quarter of a mile away and put that aside. Obviously, you can't do this because there is no public land on this lower Taunton River, although the National Park Service does have eminent domain power; so if you really wanted to create a true wild and scenic river, we could probably accomplish that deal if that was really what you are after.

This bill provides economic advantages to some elements but not to others. In 2002 the sponsor and other members of the Massachusetts delegation received an earmark to try to dredge this river, a fact which should disqualify it within the National Park Service criteria in the first place. Yet what it does now when we want to make this a wild and scenic river is simply take the law and turn it on its head. This bill gives current businesses disadvantages and some current businesses advantages, as is clearly illustrated in the newspaper articles that are coming from this area already where people are wanting to know what we do to see how it impacts, positively or negatively, their business operation. And that was never, never, never the intent of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Secondly, this is simply an abuse of the system, an abuse of power. In the year 2000, this Congress authorized a study of the Taunton River, the upper Taunton River. The authorization was for the upper Taunton River. The appropriation was to study the upper Taunton River. And yet mysteriously the National Park Service, a system that has millions of dollars of backlog, a system that has 37 studies still in backlog for Wild and Scenic River projects, a system that is always talking about how pressed they are for cash, volunteered in actual disregard to the legislative direction and legislative intent to study something never intended to be studied, never directed to be studied, and spent roughly $400,000 to do it, in total violation to the aspect of Congress and the requirements of Congress.

One low-level employee within the National Park Service felt in some way compelled to violate Federal law to study the wrong part of the river and to spend money illegally to study the wrong part of the river and then in his report had the audacity to say, well, this would be the most developed river we would ever have in this kind of status. When asked why he did that, his response was very simple to us in committee: He did what the river would choose to do if it could speak.

He said that twice. Not only do we have a mid-level bureaucrat who is talking to water, but he is now interpreting the will of water. And if in 2002 it wished to be dredged and in 2008 it wishes to be wild and scenic, this must be schizophrenic water at the same time.

Here is the problem: When the National Park Service came up with their report, they did not come up with one alternative. The sponsor has chosen one of the alternatives to make part of this bill. They call that the ``environmentally preferred'' alternative. But there were two other alternatives

which I compare to the rational and the intelligent alternatives that did not include the lower Taunton River. And, in fact, in this so- called second version that has now become part of this bill, the report said it was problematic that there is no precedent for this kind of action, no precedent for this kind of action, but it does meet political expectations.

Let me give a third reason, and yes indeed, this is an energy reason. The potential LNG port which would be put in Weaver's Cove would have been the largest taxpaying entity. And it was not agreed to to move on so far, but it has not been stopped. This project is still viable until the year 2015. This bill, if passed, is the only way to permanently make this a moot issue.

This language is the language of the report, which simply meant that the current proposal was to be rejected but that they encouraged an additional proposal to try and work out the situational problems to be encouraged. And they gave them the time to do that. The actual report encourages them to review this issue one more time. So it is true that this issue of an LNG port is still on the table. And the only way it can be permanently taken off the table is by passage of this type of bill.

Now why would that impact me because I live in Utah and I really don't care about this river all that much? It is simply because one of the members of the delegation came down on the floor this morning and said that last year 350,000, according to his numbers, individuals in the State of Massachusetts had to be given subsidies under LIHEAP, paid by all the taxpayers of the Nation, because they did not have the ability to handle the energy crisis within their State and that, indeed, heat was not something that was negotiable. However, the problem is, why don't we simply solve the problem by providing the energy there so that you don't have to tell the citizens of Massachusetts to freeze in the dark but solve the problem yourselves?

There was an interesting discussion on the floor during the rule which the gentleman, Mr. Hastings of Washington, was criticized for not having LNG ports in his home State. I wish to simply respond that it was a factual accuracy that has total irrelevance to the issue, because Washington State does not need LNG ports. It has gas pipelines. The entire West is provided by gas pipelines that do not reach to the eastern coast. The only way Massachusetts can step up and solve their own problem is by having not fewer but more LNG ports. That is the only option that is left to them. And this bill does inhibit that particular option.

Now with that are only three of the many reasons why this bill should not be passed, why this bill is poor public policy, why this bill does abuse the statute and change the meaning of the words that were intended for a wild and scenic river, why this bill does disrespect to this body and how we decided to try and do this study in the first place by ignoring the will of Congress and ignoring the authorization and appropriation of Congress and going off on some other particular way. And it does stop any potential improvements of an LNG port on this river which is desperately needed in that part of the country.

Those are only three of the possible reasons. There are others. I'm sure we will hear from those others as this discussion continues on.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate very much the gentleman from Massachusetts standing up to defend his constituency. It is the right thing to do. It is the proper thing for him to do. It is his job and purpose. But once again, I want him to focus in on the reality of the situation, which is not the quality of the individuals in Massachusetts. It is simply the issue at hand. This, by the way, is that same battleship--assuming there should be a battleship in a wild and scenic river zone--this is the same battleship from the other angle which is decidedly less pristine and much more urbanized.

But the issue at hand that the gentlemen on the other side need to deal with is that the purpose of the act is for preservation, not rehabilitation, not for economic development, which are the very words that were just used. That is not what the Wild and Scenic River Act was ever intended to do. And that is what is going to be done in this particular bill. That is why we are abusing the vocabulary of the Wild and Scenic River Act. And we must focus back in on what we are doing. Indeed, the proposed LNG port is in an existing brownfield, zoned for maritime industrial use. But the issue is for what purpose are the verbs and the nouns in the Wild and Scenic River Act supposed to be implied? And does it apply to the lower Taunton? And the answer is simply ``no.'' It doesn't meet the definition.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, unless, Mr. Chairman, you would like us to reserve and then come back.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I appreciate once again the comments that have been made here. I appreciate the defense of constituencies. I appreciate that there is a difference between gasoline that goes in a car and gasoline that heats a home, and LIHEAP does deal with gas that does heat homes.

But once again, the issue is not the same. I want to focus on the issue. The beautiful picture you had here of the park does not qualify for the purpose of a wild and scenic river designation. That is why under the law, you are supposed to take a quarter mile on either side of the river and stop everything from that area. It is already developed. Development does not qualify even under the concept of recreation under the letter of the law.

This bill is bad because the study itself violated the law. Congress told the National Park Service to study the upper river and paid for a study of the upper river which has legitimate merits to it, and instead they studied the lower river in violation of the congressional directive.

Once they wrote their report, they still said it was problematic. There is no precedent for the lower river. It is still the problem of the details of what the river is supposed to be.

The department still recommends not doing this. The National Park Service recommends not doing this until the entire study has been totally completed. So once again we are back to this issue of what does it mean to have a wild and scenic designation?

The upper Taunton River has those qualities. The lower Taunton River does not because the purpose is for preservation, not for economic development, not for creating more urban parks, not for changing the landscape on the sides. It is for the purpose of preserving a river in its native state. That was the purpose of, and that is the intent, and there has never been a proposal to this date that is this far afield from the purpose of the 1968 act. Never. That is why there is no precedent ever for this type of action. That's why this bill should not go forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Once again I appreciate the comments from the gentleman, and I would like once again to try and focus on what is indeed the issue. The State of Rhode Island, the State of Massachusetts do, indeed, have coastal zone management acts in which they get Federal money to help maintain the quality of their coastal zones and rivers. The fact that they are cool rivers running in urban areas is wonderful. You can do it, it's great, but not under the definition of this act.

When the gentleman from Rhode Island says you want to put it back to the way it were, it disqualifies it from the concept of preservation of existing facilities and preservation of existing embankments. That's why you have struck too far when you go into the lower Taunton River.

Mr. Chairman, I have letters in opposition to this bill from the Shipbuilders Council of America, as well as from three companies who actually do business on the lower Taunton River who are worried about the kind of economic disadvantage they may be facing that I would like to be placed in the Record.

Shipbuilders Council of America,

Washington, DC, October 29, 2007.

Hon. Bob Bishop,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and

Public Lands, Natural Resources Committee, 1329 Longworth

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Grijalva: I am writing to express the

opposition of the Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA) to

H.R. 415, legislation to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

(WSRA) to designate segments of the Taunton River as a

component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Specifically, SCA is strongly opposed to the inclusion under

the WRSA of the Lower Taunton River (Segment 4).

The Lower Taunton River does not meet designation criteria

for inclusion in the WSRA. The WSRA requires that a river be

``free flowing'' defined as ``existing or flowing in a

natural condition without impoundment, diversion,

straightening, rip-rapping, or other modifications of the

waterway''. There is today significant industrialization

along Segment 4 of the Taunton River including bridges, a

power plant, sewage plants, marinas and shipyards, and

granite bulkheads. In addition, this portion of the Taunton

has been federally dredged for more than 125 years.

The SCA does not oppose designation under the WSRA of the

upper portions of the Taunton River. However, inclusion of

the Lower Taunton will harm existing businesses and

jeopardize crucial industrial jobs.

SCA is the national association representing U.S.

commercial shipyards. SCA represents approximately 40

shipyard companies that own and operate more than 100

shipyards on all three U.S. coasts, the Great Lakes and

Hawaii. SCA member yards employ more than 30,000 shipyard

workers. Our companies build, repair and maintain America's

commercial fleet as well as small and mid-sized vessels for

the U.S. military and other government agencies. SCA member

yards also repair and maintain Navy combatant ships.

Sincerely,

Allen Walker,

President.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Massachusetts, his views may have evolved. The law has not. We are a nation of laws, not what we wish it to be, but what the law is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I will be happy to close when you are ready.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate once again the discussion that we have had here today.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, who is the chairman of a very important committee, does a great job, charming, witty, one of the funniest Members we have in Congress, actually said what my close was going to be. Someone once asked me, why do I care about this? I'm from Utah. I don't care about this river in Massachusetts.

And you're right. I really don't. I didn't get involved in this issue by choice. The gentleman introduced a bill that had to come to my committee.

But the reason that I do care is because exactly what the gentleman from Massachusetts said. We are attempting, in a vote, by a majority vote, to change the definition of law.

When I was in college, I had a professor that told me that all those men that went to the Constitutional Convention had baggage that they took, which meant they had a common educational, classic educational system. They understood what they were talking about. They went back to the concepts of Aristotle, who loved to make

definitions of everything. He said government was of the one, the few, and the many, and it could be either good or bad depending upon the attitude of those who were empowered to govern.

Government that was good is a government where the people, the leaders of that government, cared about the individuals and were self- sacrificing. Government that was bad is where the people didn't care and they tried to make things for themselves.

Then he gave definitions to that. So a government of one that was good was a monarchy, called a monarch back then, that's positive. Government of one that was bad was a tyranny. It is no coincidence that Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, of all the terms he could use to describe King George called him a tyrant, because it harkened back to their common understanding of classical literature and everything that Aristotle wrote.

The government of the many that was good, he called a polity. The government of the many that was bad, bad intentions, bad mindset, he called a democracy.

That's one of the reasons why we very seldom used the term ``democracy'' for the first 150-plus years of this country. The idea was that the worst form of government is one in which by a majority vote you can either take property from someone else and redistribute it or you can change the definition of the law--by a majority vote.

And that's why I object to this bill, because that is exactly what we are trying to do. The language of the original act is still clear and has not been changed. The language is clear, and that's why the Park Service did say that this proposal for the lower Taunton is without precedent, that it is problematic, that it does have its problems, because the law and the words of the law need to have a meaning. The law gives us guidelines. It gives us parameters. It protects the minority at the same time it directs the majority.

It's just like if we ever come to a point of time where by a majority vote we can come in here and change the meaning of the law, we have moved to the time where we are back with Petrucchio and Bianca, where the sun is the moon and night is day and by a majority vote we can accomplish it, and that is why I am so opposed to this bill because it is exactly what the gentleman said and exactly what we are doing.

By a majority vote, we are going to change the definition of wild and scenic rivers. By a majority vote. So I really don't care if you want to do this, if it's nice, if it enhances the attitude of any kind of urban area, it is not explicit with the letter of the law and with the spirit of the law, with the understanding of the law, which is why you are supposed to take a quarter mile of an embankment on either side of the designation and keep it free from development, for preservation purposes, not economic discovery and not economic development.

I have great concerns, and I have expressed this many times, with the process that we have. At no time in the debate on this floor have we had more than perhaps a half dozen Members who have heard the debate and participated in it, perhaps a larger number are listening, but what will soon happen is we will call for the vote on this bill, and through those doors will come 300 Members who have not heard the debate and do not understand the issue of this bill. They will look up on the screen and say, it's an issue, it's a bill for Mr. Frank, and they will say, I like him. He may be of my party. I'll vote for him. He's an influential chairman. I'll support him. He is a very nice person. He is a very funny person. He is probably the best debater we have on the floor, and I'll vote for it.

But that is not the reason, and that is not a rationale for changing law by vote instead of changing the words. Words have meaning.

And if we ever deny that words have meaning, we no longer have the rule of law. All we have is what Aristotle warned and threatened and criticized that our attitude is going to be what drives us in the future, not what we should do, but what we want to do at the time.

So, yes, it is important what the 1968 bill says. Yes, it is important. Yes, the upper Taunton River has all the qualities for which the gentleman wants. And, yes, the lower Taunton River does not. I don't care whether you are talking about LNG ports or not, it doesn't meet the qualifications of a wild and scenic river.

Until we change the law, we should not, by a simple majority vote on this bill, try and change the definitions of those words. That is why I, from Utah, care about this river.

Because if we can change the meaning of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by this vote, there is no river in America that is not in danger of being made wild and scenic if you have enough votes to do it. There is no law that can stand if you have enough votes to do it, which is why this is supposed to be a republic, why the words have meaning and the words of the law are significant and important.

That's why I beseech the handful of Members of this floor who actually are listening to this debate to please understand the rudiments of this debate and the significant issue that we are doing right here. That's why we are making this significant. That's why we are putting this. That's why I am opposed to this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Once again, I appreciate the discussion we have had on this bill. I think that is perfunctory. We have to say that. But let's once again make common the facts of this particular bill.

The Department, the National Park Service, has not supported this bill. They have asked that we refrain from it until the study is final. They have also, though, in that study, given options, three different options of what to do with this river. This bill happens to take the worst of the options, an option that has no precedent, an option that is problematic.

My amendment makes this a legitimate bill. The area to which I object, the area that does not meet the standards of a wild and scenic river, those areas I am asking to be removed. The Upper Taunton River, that is the area this Congress, in the Year 2000, mandated the study and paid for a study, and that what the study should have done, has those wild and scenic qualifications that match the law.

That is my amendment, to remove the offending sections of this bill and limit just to those which meet the meaning of the words in the law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me continue to reserve until we are done.

I am prepared to close whenever the gentleman from Massachusetts is.

I appreciate that. And to be honest, I anticipated going first in the closing of this, so the gentleman from Massachusetts could have had the last word. So I will try and be kind with that.

But to be very honest with you, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't matter how many property owners may or may not object to it. Under our constitutional system of laws, if there are three people with property rights, they must be respected. It doesn't matter how many dislike it. They must be respected.

The gentleman has very nice people in his district. I am positive. Look who they elected. But that is not the issue. The issue is the language of the law. The language in section 16 talks about free- flowing rivers, natural waterways, existing and flowing in a natural condition. There should not be low dams, diversion works or other minor structures at the time the river is proposed.

This ain't minor structures. This is a large urban development. It does not meet the definition of those terms. We say it over and over again.

It is not the House that is denying the constituents the right to have this designation. The State of Massachusetts could do the same thing if you just used local ordinances and State authority. It is not the House that will be denying them. It is the law that denies them. It is the law that does not allow this lower river to meet definition of wild and scenic rivers. Period.

Pass the amendment, and I can easily and happily support the bill because if you pass the amendment, the parts that do qualify as wild and scenic rivers will be included as wild and scenic rivers, and the parts that do not qualify will be exempt.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, though to be honest, I'm not in opposition to this amendment.

The words of this amendment are hauntingly familiar. As Yogi Berra would say, ``It's deja vu all over again,'' but I don't like to use cliches that are that old. However, this amendment is a wonderful, positive, good amendment. It's been mine up until the last couple of bills.

I like this amendment. I am proud that the gentleman from North Carolina has seen conversion to this point of view. To be honest, in our committee, on H.R. 1528, this same amendment, you voted against. I'm happy for your conversion. I welcome you over to the side of truth, right, and justice and where words have meaning.

For that reason, we are more than happy to accept this amendment. We will be supportive of this amendment. It's the right thing to do. It's the positive thing to do. It's brilliant verbiage because, to be honest, we wrote it a long time ago.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Pearce's designee, I offer amendment No. 3 made in order under the rule.

Thank you, sir. If I had known we were having a vote on the last one, I might not have fished for the first one.

It's a wonderful opportunity for me to introduce this particular amendment from the gentleman of New Mexico who spends so much time in this area and understands it so well. We're facing, obviously, an energy crisis in the United States, and we do have a dearth of solutions that have been forthcoming in this particular body. And we have repeatedly passed legislation that actually has, over the last 30 years, restricted access, limited our resources.

This amendment is once again simple. It calls upon the Secretary of Interior to provide us the full accounting of the resources this bill may take away from the American people. Simply, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and private industry, if it remains, shall complete and submit a report accounting for the energy resources withdrawn from future development by designation of this land and waters included in the Taunton River bill. Specifically, the report shall identify, among other sources, the amount of geothermal, wind, solar, biomass energy and any impact on electrical transmission.

The amendment is simple. If Congress is acting to take energy resources away from the people, we should know if there is a true impact by these actions.

I would urge your support of Mr. Pearce's well-thought-out and significant amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest a wise choice of action, and I will yield back my time.

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

I think the other side of the aisle will be happy to know that this amendment does nothing to prevent a proposed LNG port in the Taunton River. The legislation does, but the amendment does not. I'm not really sure exactly what the amendment does. About the most you can say is it doesn't appear to do anything negative, and for that purpose I will be happy to support this amendment, because at least it recognizes that energy is important, and that's an excellent first step. A curious one, I admit, but an excellent first step, especially if it's accepted by those who are supporting the underlying legislation without the first Bishop amendment to be added to it.

It is curious also to understand what domestically produced energy source will come in this particular area unless maybe you actually do have the Park Service use their eminent domain power and actually condemn all of the land a quarter mile from either side of the river in the way a real wild and scenic river should be done. But let's see what happens.

An LNG port, if it was actually produced there, would be able within 3 years, according to best estimates, to reduce the amount of energy needs for the people that live in this area by 10 percent or more, just from this one port. But the issue at hand is not domestically produced energy because an LNG port does not bring in domestically produced energy. It's all coming from abroad.

The countries that produce LNG are Australia, Trinidad, Malaysia, Algeria, Nigeria, Oman, Brunei, Qatar, with other developments in Norway, Venezuela, Egypt, Bolivia, Peru, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, and Russia.

It is true that some is produced in Alaska, which I don't know if the gentlelady actually accepts that as part of the United States, but that doesn't go all the way around to the east coast. That stays up here in the West.

That's the issue. So I accept this amendment, but we're actually talking not about domestic production. The LNG port was about foreign production coming in to the country, but because it at least addresses the issue that energy is important, I'm happy to accept it.

I yield back.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.

Bill Veeck was an old baseball owner and entrepreneur who used to say, ``I don't ever break the rules, I just test their elasticity.'' Apparently the Democrats on the Rules Committee are doing that same standard of testing the elasticity. When the time for amendments to the Rules Committee was closed, I did have one that was filed that dealt with second amendment issues, the only one that dealt with second amendment issues. After the filing was closed, apparently Democrat staff then took that amendment, without public hearing, without any Member input, they amended that to leave the most important part of second amendment protection on the floor, and then introduced it as a self-executing rule.

Self-executing rules were originally intended for technical amendments only to help the process along, but more and more we see the Democrat Rules Committee using substantive amendments now under self- executing processes.

Now, in the good old days, I tried to get Chairman Dreier to do that for me, but he always said I had to give him my first born son, and it still had to be technical. I am willing to give the gentleman from California my first born son--actually, he's out of college now, it won't help me at all, but I'm still willing to do it if that's what it takes now to meet the process. But I realize, you're not breaking the rules, you're just testing the elasticity.

There are groups out there that rank Congressmen. There's even a fantasy congressional league that's out there. They give us all points for how many bills we introduce, committee assignments, amendments that are passed. I've known the pain of having a fantasy baseball team where half of the members were on the DL.

So I'm asking the gentleman from California if he would have the courtesy of calling these groups and letting them know that this self- executing rule that is now part of the bill was actually mine so I could get those points. Not because of me, mind you. I'm just worried about my friends who have me as part of their fantasy congressional team because I know you're just testing the elasticity of it. In fact, it was suggested that sometime in the future we should start copyrighting our amendments before we actually give them to the Rules Committee staff.

This is not necessarily the first time this has ever happened, as the gentleman from California mentioned. There was another lands bill where I introduced an amendment with the same topic that once again was redrafted, this time refiled with a Democrat as the sponsor of it and it did pass this House and I was happy to vote for that because it was a good idea. It was my idea, but it was still a good idea. But I realize you're just testing the elasticity of it.

I'm not saying you're stealing, mind you. I am not saying anyone is stealing. But John Stockton has called and wondered if his NBA steal record still exists. The Patriot coaches are wondering why they're in trouble. The 1919 Black Sox want their title back. And Henderson has actually discussed it because he could have beat Ty Cobb's record years earlier had he had these same techniques in line. In fact, to be honest with you, I had a softball game last night that we won and we are now 9-1. And I'm wondering if the gentleman would actually do another self- executing rule to make us 10-0. That would actually do something for me. And since we're pulling stuff out of thin air without committee assignments, without floor discussion, I think it would fit within the concept.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we're doing all the work and someone else is taking the credit. Because we're used to that. We work with the Senate all the time. We understand how that works. But if indeed we are becoming the Puff Daddy of legislative efforts in here, I would suggest that if the Rules Committee really wants to do something to further discussion and actually do something positive to make it worth the 4-hour flight we had to come back here for this particular bill, why don't you take my Americans for American Energy Act and do a self-executing rule to put that in. At least that would be a meaningful discussion that we would have on the floor of a meaningful bill and would make it worthwhile for us to come back here and finally start talking about something that is meaningful and useful for the American people.

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

Over the July 4th holiday, my wife and I rented the movie 1776. It's one of my favorite ones. It has some historical accuracy, a lot of historical inaccuracies, but it's a fun movie.

In the exposition of that, to show John Adams's frustration at Congress at that time, he was called down to vote on a motion by Josiah Bartlett of New Hampshire, which is an effort that says that during the hostilities in which they are in, they shall dissuade any kind of dissipation, any extravagances, any gambling, or any horse racing. That is when John Adams explodes and goes out on the street, with the classic lines in his opening song, which says about Congress in 1776: We piddle, twiddle, and resolve not one--I can't use a swear word here, but it's in there--not one thing do we solve.

Now, the issue at hand in 1776 in Philadelphia was independence. They had already been fighting for a year. They had raised an army and appointed George Washington to do battle. Yet, they still refused to talk about the key sole issue of the day, which was independence. Instead, they talked about everything else, every small, piddly idea they could come up with, rather than coming to the core. And that was John Adams's frustration with that.

As I was watching that movie, I thought, Gee, that is exactly like Congress today. We are doing the same thing.

I have to admit that I have a sense of frustration with congressional leadership. It's a 4-hour flight for me to come back here. Yet, every week I have been coming back on that 4-hour flight to deal with non- issues. We haven't dealt with homeland security, we haven't dealt with the appropriations, we haven't dealt with energy issues.

Instead, the key issue of this week is to federalize a trail that already exists, that is controlled by local governments, and there is absolutely nothing, nothing the Federal Government can do on this trail that couldn't be accomplished by States and local governments through a well-written interlocal cooperation agreement.

The sponsor does not live in the area of this trail. It encompasses nine States. Not all of the Members of Congress who are impacted either in the trail area or abutting the trail area are cosponsors.

The other side cannot even refute how many people understand or know that this trail is going to be impacting their lives. The estimates we have are less than 10 percent are understanding about this.

Yet, the key issue is not necessarily the trail, because it's already there. The key issue is who will be making decisions in the future about this trail. If it were possible that everyone involved in this particular trail was happy about it, they liked the idea, they wanted it, but at some future date would like to make a decision about that trail, by passing this bill, all of a sudden we change the process and the place of that decision from localities back here to Washington.

It's about power, it's about where do you actually make decisions in America. It's about empowerment of individuals. This bill simply takes the decision-making process away from localities and puts it back here in Washington, where we have too many decision-making powers that we are already avoiding as is.

They did take one amendment of mine and they eviscerated it, an amendment that dealt with second amendment rights, an amendment that dealt with all second amendment rights. Yet, the issue at hand that is now part of the underlying bill through a self-executing rule only deals with hunting, not all second amendment rights, which was the goal and the idea and what should have been in place, which simply means that if I'm hunting, I'm okay on this trail. If I'm trying to protect myself, I'm not. If a mugger tries to attack me, I cannot protect myself unless first I'm trying to hunt the mugger. Or if a moose is shot by me, I better shoot it in the posterior because if a moose is charging me, no longer is that hunting, that is now self-defense, and that is not allowed with the amendment that came in here.

It is simply an absurdity of situations, and it's not an unrealistic absurdity. Even the Washington Post did a recent article about serial killers along the Appalachian Trail. It is not a false fear in there, it's a realistic fear. It's a realistic fear that will be noted that when the Democrats made this self-executing rule, they did not defend all of the second amendment, only the so-called hunting rights, which is not, not the purpose of the second amendment.

But this is now simply the only bill that we will have of significance today.

It's basically the crux of this entire week, which simply means Democratic leaders don't want to address other issues. Specifically, energy issues. There is no issue of comprehensive policy of what we will be doing to address the energy crisis the Americans are facing. The appropriations process has simply shut down over the potential of doing that.

So I fly back for 4 hours to come back here last week to talk about banning pet monkeys from crossing State lines. The week before, about the Chesapeake Bay. This week, I came back here so we could talk about a trail.

Mr. Chairman, in all due sincerity, this is nothing but legislative filler. We are not dealing with the real issues that affect people or should be affecting this Congress, we are dealing with the small stuff, the triviality, the legislative minutia. This is like junk food, like cotton candy. It's there. It's fluffy, it's airy. But it is not filling and has no fiber. It gives the illusion of activity, but in essence we are dealing with a cotton candy agenda.

We have in essence a Democratic de facto filibuster against energy, against ever talking about it in any way, shape, or form. Instead, we have a trail. A trail that already exists, a trail that would be federalized, a trail that encompasses more power back here in Washington, instead of allowing people to help make decisions for themselves.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) such time as he may consume.

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

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) such time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for starting out here with my old profession as a teacher coming out. But the gentleman from Connecticut and a couple of others on this floor have said some things that I think bear discussion simply as a review on the fundamentals of how legislative government works around here.

Outside in the hallway we have the distinguished Speakers. Most of them are the most recent ones, but there are the four that I always consider to be the four great speakers of this House, one of whom was Thomas Bracken Reed, who is the one that transformed this House from a minority body into a majority body. He is the one who determined, in fact he said: If the tyranny of the majority is harsh, the tyranny of the minority is unendurable. And he was the one who prohibited the practice of calling a roll call and then not allowing people to say ``here''; therefore, not having a quorum to conduct business. He forced the counting of a roll call, which made this from that time on a majoritarian body.

The problem we have over in the Senate is that has never been a majoritarian body; it will always be a minority body. It takes 60 votes to cut off the debate and move onward.

So even though today the Democrats have the leadership positions in both the House and the Senate, I would never jump to the conclusion or the inaccuracy of saying that the Democrats control Congress because the Democrats will not control the Senate until they have at least 60 votes there. It is a minority body.

In like manner, the conversation that Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years and didn't do anything has the same problem because in none of those 12 years did Republicans have 60 votes in the Senate. And, therefore, a minority body was actually in control.

We have had split government. We will probably always have some form of split government in that respect. But to assume that because there was leadership of both parties is not to assume the same basic core that goes along with that factor. And, indeed, over the last 5 to 10 to 12 years, there has been a great deal of energy discussion from this body, and when Republicans were in control of this body, there was a great deal of legislation dealing with energy that was passed in this body only to be prohibited from going through the entire process because this majoritarian body could pass something that the minority- controlled body on the other side could not do.

I appreciate the distinguished chairman from West Virginia of our committee speaking so passionately, especially about coal. I share that passion. We have a great deal of coal in my State. The only difference between the two is, unfortunately, the coal in the State of West Virginia is on private property.

I was so impressed when the chairman had a bill that dealt with wilderness and the coal companies were there to advocate for wilderness because it did not impact them. They were on private property.

In the State of Utah and much of the West, we have the exact opposite problem; the coal is found on public lands. And so I appreciate his commitment to the concept of coal, and even though it may indeed be a form of competition at some time in the future, I take his words as a commitment to try to work forward to try and free up the coal in the West that is on public lands so it can all be part of the energy solution that we are looking for in this Nation.

You know, we are talking about a bill that dealt with Washington. Washington led the troops in an era where he simply was out of ammunition. He had the opportunity of failing, but he did not allow it to be so because the American spirit worked out the details and then worked out the process so he overcame those competitions, those difficulties. The United States today is in the same situation. We are out of energy ammunition, and it is a significant problem for those who are on fixed incomes, the poor and the middle class. If you are rich, this energy problem which we face is merely an annoyance. If you are on a fixed income or a limited income, or if you are poor or middle class, then it becomes a significant life situation so that every dollar that they no longer can spend, that they now have to spend to energy on consumption, is a dollar that they can't spent on such luxuries as Hamburger Helper.

In this particular bill the Democrats accepted an amendment from one of the great young Republican freshmen from Virginia, Mr. Wittman. It is an amendment that is still part of this bill that aims to protect energy production and transmission in this particular trail system. It is a microcosm. It is

the appropriate thing to do. The real question then is why not? Why not do this same thing not just in this trail bill, but throughout this entire country so we can honor and protect to do that.

Mr. Chairman, what we are dealing with now is simply the concept of the future of where we are going. We can either find scapegoats or we can find solutions. I think it is time that both sides of the aisle look very carefully at trying to find solutions.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, while this legislation prohibits the use of eminent domain by the Federal Government, it does not prohibit State or local governments from doing the same thing, in essence doing the same dirty work. So my amendment is very simple and clear. It prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from accepting lands from State and local governments that were acquired through eminent domain to expand this particular trail.

We are talking about George Washington and the Revolution. I think it is fitting to remember how strongly George Washington felt about ensuring private property and that his soldiers respected the property of civilians, even if they were a Tory sympathizer. He gave orders that forbid looting even though plunder was the norm of the time. And even though his men were hungry and dressed in rags, it is remarkable that in so desperate a situation with such a noble cause for which he was fighting, he imposed on his side such a high standard of conduct and a high respect of individual priority property rights.

In our world, the post-Kelo decision world, we cannot allow our constituents to fall victim to any abuse of power from any level of government that disproportionately attacks them, sometimes even disproportionately attacks those on the lowest level of our economic scales.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a favorable vote to an amendment that simply says that the Federal Government will not accept land that is taken by eminent domain.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard before that Big Oil is trying to gouge the consumer, and now Big Oil is down there trying to hide this stuff, in an effort to find another scapegoat or say there is a big conspiracy that is causing our problems,

rather than 30 years of failed policies on behalf of this Congress. And now we are doing this on a suspension where we have half the time to debate, no amendments are possible in an effort to stop discussion.

The fact of the matter is 68 percent of all oil leases and 87 percent of all natural gas leases are done by small companies, small companies who need to produce to put food on the table. Is it logical that they are actually part of a conspiracy to hide the oil beneath the ground? This bill is nothing more than another law with a layer of bureaucracy put on it than we already have.

But maybe, for the gentlelady of Oklahoma, maybe the Democrats have something here. Maybe we should be looking at this tactic for other areas. Like we all know 18-year-olds and women have the right to vote. Maybe we can pass another law to let them vote; this time, they can use it or lose it.

Or I know free speech is in the Constitution. Maybe we can say we all have free speech, unless we use it or lose it. I think there are some Members of this body who would never lose it. Or faith, use it or lose it. Or maybe a brain. You can use it, or you can become a Member of Congress.

What we need to do right now is to stop finding scapegoats and find solutions. This bill is not a solution.