Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, a generation ago, extreme environmentalists began filing lawsuits to stop the production of timber in the United States.

They killed the timber industry throughout this great country. 20,000 jobs were lost in New Mexico alone. Today we have fewer than 100 of those jobs left, and they're in the process of dying probably this year. That whole response to our timber industry was a hoax.

Today we're involved in another hoax, the hoax that is sending $700 billion a year to enemies across the seas; $700 billion a year would be a 6 percent increase in our economy. That means more jobs. And yet instead of solving the problem, we're extending the problem through a hoax.

If we want to stop the outflow of American jobs, we need to stop the lawsuits that are killing every single new lease. They're killing mining, they have already killed the timber industry. The extremists, with litigation, are killing American jobs, and this hoax that is on the floor today called an energy bill is doing nothing about the litigation that is killing American jobs. We must stop it, and we must stop the litigation.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining for each side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I would draw the attention of our viewers across America to look at the picture that the gentleman just presented to us. Make no mistake about it. The majority in this House wants to change your way of life to where you cannot drive the cars you drive today.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I would point out that there is more stimulation in this bill for bicycles than nuclear power.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for 15 seconds before I recognize Mrs. Capito of West Virginia for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we've just heard that we're going to sell oil out of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to cure a marketing problem. That oil was put there for our national defense and now we're using it in pure marketing.

I yield 2 minutes to Mrs. Capito.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for 15 seconds prior to recognizing Mr. Fortenberry of Nebraska.

Two years ago when the new Speaker took over, we were promised a plan. Tonight, we're told that we're going in a new direction. The new direction: Sell off our Strategic Petroleum Reserve; provide more stimulus for bicycles than nuclear power; and the solar car that the gentleman from Washington showed us the picture of. That's the plan the American people are given while they're hurting at the pump.

I would recognize Mr. Fortenberry for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for 10 seconds before recognizing Mr. Johnson of Texas for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill taxes American refinery jobs and does not tax foreign refineries. So we're giving the advantage to foreign jobs and we are hurting American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds prior to yielding to Mr. Scalise 2 minutes.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the carbon footprint of solar is tremendously higher than that of wind. It is exponentially higher than the carbon footprint of nuclear. So while we are trying to clean up the environment, we are dumping now solar carbon into it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself 15 seconds before yielding 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

I would again point out that there is more stimulation for bicycles in this bill than there is for nuclear power. That indicates this new direction we are being taken by the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record three letters of opposition for this bill from The American Conservative Union, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, and the National Association of Manufacturers.

Dear Representative Pearce: On behalf of the American

Conservative Union, I urge you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 6899,

the so-called ``Comprehensive American Energy Security and

Consumer Protection Act,'' a 290 page bill put on the floor

with less than 24 hours notice under a closed rule with no

room for amendments.

When we were kids, we all played a variation of the game

``Let's Pretend'' in which we pretended to do something or be

somebody knowing it was make-believe. The authors of this

bill are playing ``Let's Pretend'' with the American people,

pretending they are passing a bill to increase domestic

energy production when they know it will do no such thing.

By eliminating revenue sharing for the states in royalties

for offshore oil and gas drilling while requiring states to

approve the drilling leases, the bill's sponsors know it is

unlikely the states will bother to give their approval. Even

Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana has said this

bill ``will not see the light of day in the Senate'' should

it pass the House.

The bill prohibits drilling less than 50 miles offshore

when the sponsors know that, to give an example, 95 percent

of the known reserves off the coast of California are less

than 50 miles out.

Once again, as in other energy legislation, the bill

needlessly increases taxes that only serve to increase the

cost of energy. The bill will also increase electricity bills

for the average consumer by forcing utility companies to use

alternative fuels regardless of the cost. This provision has

already been rejected by the Senate in a previous energy

bill.

The American people are demanding we change our bankrupt

energy policy which has prevented the U.S. from utilizing our

own resources and made us dangerously dependent on foreign

oil supplies from unfriendly countries. They will not fall

for a bill full of gimmicks which does not do the job.

We strongly urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 6899.

Sincerely,

Larry Hart,

Director of Government Relations,

The American Conservative Union.

We have two more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, I would recognize Mr. Brown for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

How much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has progressed for a long time, but made a very short distance. The American people have a right to expect that we would do our job, that we would do our job to ease the pain in their everyday life. They have a right to expect that we would increase the competitiveness of American companies so that we are able to hold a good, strong economy. They have a right to expect that we would give fairness to all States. They have a right to expect that we would use good common sense in establishing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are failing on every account in the bill that is before us tonight. When we should be establishing American dominance in the energy field, we are saying ``no'' to nuclear and ``yes'' to bicycle power. When we should be doing our job to find new clean coal technologies, we don't even mention them here. When we should be drilling for every amount of oil that we can find here to create American jobs and to stop spending $700 billion overseas, we are limiting our ability to produce here.

We were told 2 years ago that we were going to see a plan, and tonight we were told we have new ideas. Those new ideas are riding bicycles and killing the American economy with higher fuel prices, hurting the American family with continued restrictions of supplies, putting ourselves strategically at risk by selling off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I request that all Members, Republican and Democrat, vote ``nay'' on the bill in front of us tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing this important subject up. It is indeed ironic that we are considering today a bridge safety bill and the very stimulus of the bill was a bridge that was approximately 40 years old, and now then we have this motion to recommit that directs attention to this bridge which is over 100 years old.

The Massachusetts Highway Department recognized five significant problems with this particular bridge, the one that is in question under this motion to recommit; first of all, that it was structurally deficient; secondly, that the narrow horizontal clearance of the draw span opening is only 98 feet; thirdly, that the location of the channel opening on its side rather than the center; and then fourth, the vertical clearance through the draw span is only 27 feet above the mean water level; and fifth, there are of course traffic congestion problems at the Route 6, 138 and 103 intersection in Somerset.

The provision that was put in to keep this bridge in place was placed in the bill in order to allow emergency traffic and pedestrian traffic. Now, the emergency traffic, the large vehicles, the fire trucks, have already been prohibited from going across this because it's unsafe, and though still we're going to

keep the bridge here, and we have to understand that with the prices of energy today, that this block has very little to do with the bridge itself but instead is to do with the fact that our energy policies have been hijacked by a small group of extremists who refuse, at any point, to have more energy brought into this country, either by our own resources or by external resources. And that is the end result of what is going on with this bridge.

So the motion to recommit simply says that the bridges that are unsafe as measured by a distinct standard that is available, would be actually torn down. The U.S. Coast Guard said that we need to tear the bridge down. The Massachusetts Highway Department said it's unsafe and would not like to use it. It's going to cost the taxpayers $1.5 million to keep it open.

Let's pass this motion to recommit. Let's do the right thing and get more energy into this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided, misdirected legislation. After seeing this bill defeated just 2 weeks ago, I quite honestly am surprised that we are back for one more attempt at it. It is really heartwarming to find my colleague from West Virginia, the chairman of my committee, saying ``drill America now.''

The only thing is I am wondering why the chairman did not allow us to have amendments that would allow us to drill now. If he would allow us the amendments that would stop the litigation that is stopping us from drilling now, maybe we could work through some of those 68 million acres, if he would allow us to have amendments

which would stop the regulatory process that is delaying unnecessarily and is of no benefit to the American consumer, maybe we could drill now. But I find the chairman's comments just hard to believe.

In the context of the discussion today, I would invite the chairman to sign on to a letter with me. The letter is from myself and several other Members asking just in one area, one area where we find bureaucratic delays, 7 years in Utah, the BLM has not issued the resource management plans that are required in order to develop just that.

If the chairman of the committee is intent on drill, drill, drill, as he says today, let him just put his one signature beside mine, and we will send it to Nancy Pelosi and send it to the President of the United States from Nancy Pelosi and us in the House and the Members of the Senate.

One place where we have some of that 68 million acres, 1 million of the 68 million acres, and let's just work one block at a time to figure out exactly what the roadblocks are because I believe, I believe in my heart that the majority does not want to drill today.

I believe that they understand that it is not the oil companies who lack the diligence, but it is instead roadblocks by people who have hijacked the energy policy of this country.

In my section of the debate we will talk about the reason the 68 million acres lie unused, and it will go from regulatory process to litigation. It will go into the problems of seismic that are being blocked up along the northern end of this country. We will talk about the delays one step at a time.

But let's talk just a little bit about the bill before us today. It is several sections.

The first section I want to talk about directs the sale of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, the NPR-A. Now that is curious that the Democrats on the floor of the House today do not want to open up ANWR, 2,000 acres. They have been concerned about the environmental degradation of the 2,000 acres of ANWR, and yet today they are saying that they are going to open up 23 million acres to environmental degradation. There is not one bit of infrastructure. There are no roads. There are no drilling pads. There are no pipelines. They are hundreds of miles away from where they need to be for the market. Yet with ANWR, with a 74-mile pipeline, it is sincerely believed that we could get production down to the continental United States within a year.

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline, 800 miles long, took 3 years to have it built and full of oil because this Congress, at that point in time, realized that they could make a difference and they did make a difference by saying that this pipeline is not going to be delayed by litigation.

If the gentleman from West Virginia says drill and drill now, then let him make the equal commitment that we will not allow our production to be delayed by litigation which is going to come from every sort of environmental group, either in the NPR-A or ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf.

It is really difficult to believe that the majority is sincere when they say drill today, and on the other side of the spectrum we see all sorts of delaying mechanisms from people who contribute money to them.

I was interested in the last debate to find that oil companies contribute money to Republicans and therefore there is some scheme. When I look at the bill in front of us today, I see groups, I see an alliance with groups that contribute a lot of money to Democrats. I see over $670 million in the last several years from trial lawyers. There is new language in this bill which will be litigated probably for decades.

I see a section in this bill, section 5, that requires project labor agreements, and I see that the unions have given to the Democrats over $1 billion.

And then I find the continuing language which says that there are going to be protections in place that satisfy environmental groups; and again, environmental groups have invested over $1 billion in Democrat candidates.

So when I hear from the other side their observations about the special interests, I think we should look at the bill. Section 2 requires again the direction that any leases be environmentally responsible. That is new language.

Sections 3 and 4 deal with pipeline requirements that companies tell me that they have to currently comply with already, so it appears to be a duplication.

The project labor agreements are brand new. These are things where private companies are directed that they will, before they can work on any private project, have labor agreements in place.

Then we have a ban that is reinstated on exporting Alaskan oil. Keep in mind that it was Democrat President Bill Clinton that opened up the Alaskan oil to be exported. So again, we find now the flip-flop in that position on their part. The ban was originally in place, and President Clinton decided he would relieve that ban. And now we find it being put back in place.

The issuance of new leases, use it or lose it, frankly is already in place in law. There is language that currently states that if you do not use a lease, you lose it.

So either this bill is simply to try to convince the American people that we are doing something when we are actually not, or it is even worse than that. I believe that we have no purpose for this bill. I believe that this bill is not going to increase the amount of domestic energy one bit. I think that what it is going to do is to start anew, it is going to start new processes and are going to delay even by months the process in place for the NPR-A.

So while it is telling us we are going to drill now and drill in the NPR-A, actually it is doing the exact opposite. It is instituting new rules that will have to go through a completely new process.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, July 17, 2008.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny Hoyer,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Roy Blunt,

Minority Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker, Minority Leader Boehner, Majority

Leader Hoyer, and Minority Whip Blunt: In the last month,

through various legislative proposals and public comments,

Majority leaders in Congress have accused oil and gas

companies of refusing to drill. We think many times idle

acres are caused by factors beyond these companies' control.

In many cases, Congress and the bureaucracy create roadblocks

that shut down companies' access to the lands.

Your rhetoric over the last few months leads us to believe

we have finally reached a consensus in Congress. In order to

start drilling on idle acres where regulatory burdens exist,

we request Congressional leaders act now to remove these

obstacles on a case by case basis. We also request that you

join us in sending a joint letter to the President urging him

to issue an Executive Order systematically removing barriers

on a case by case basis from lands under development that,

due to regulatory burdens, remain blocked from development.

We suggest starting with the permanent delays and lawsuits

preventing drilling in Utah. Please join us in sending a

letter to the President asking that he open drilling in Utah

by issuing the final Records of Decision (RODs) on this

state's Resource Management Plans (RMPs)--Vernal, Price,

Moab, Richfield, and Monticello--which authorize oil and gas

activities in Utah. These plans were to have been underway

for over 7 years. In our letter we will ask the President to

order the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to issue the RMPs

by August 31, 2008.

Additionally, we ask you insist that the RODs authorize the

Preferred Alternatives in each RMP without the adoption of

new Wilderness Characteristics Areas (WCAs). Removing

bureaucratic roadblocks to these 955,000 idle acres will

ensure that development starts immediately. This would enable

the oil and gas industry to effectively tap into over 5.2 Tcf

of natural gas and 334 million barrels of oil. This energy

would heat 72.9 million homes and power 24.5 million cars.

Clearing the regulatory roadblocks in Utah is one simple

step to lower the price of energy for the American people. It

is only by acting in a bipartisan manner that we can move our

nation out of this national energy crisis. We have prepared a

letter and await your approval. Additionally, we stand ready

to assist you in bringing legislation before the House of

Representatives that will eliminate the roadblocks to energy

development in America.

In coming together to encourage the President to take steps

and reduce the regulatory burden on companies developing

resources, we will show the American people that the

Federal government is serious about lowering the price of

gasoline. If we support the President as he removes

regulatory roadblocks, we will see increased development on

the acres sitting idle and lower energy prices.

Sincerely,

Stevan Pearce,

Member of Congress.

Rob Bishop,

Member of Congress.

Chris Cannon,

Member of Congress.

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

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that is not dealt with in the drill now bill, DRILL, someone said maybe that means Democrats Reinventing the Inconvenient Liberal Lies instead of drilling now, but we just have a process that takes a long time. This process is part of what creates the 68 million acres.

The 68 million acres of idle land are not idle at all. They are involved in this process. This process is not changed one bit by the bill in front of us. Again, if the bill had come through committee, if we would have had hearings, we could have made these points in committee.

It's rather inconvenient because we don't have the ability to amend the bill today. We do not have the ability to offer a substitute bill, no motion to recommit. So we are tasked with simply explaining why the bill should receive a ``no'' vote.

But the process today has not changed at all, and you cannot read every single element in this block, but you can just see, as we move the chart toward me, what the steps are that are required to drill any single well. Litigation can occur at many different points. Again, this bill does absolutely nothing to stop any of this regulatory process that exists today.

There is not really such a thing as a third-world country. There are only overregulated countries, and when we look at this chart, we see why America is moving towards the status of a third-world country, because we are overregulating to the extreme, and it is winding up with millions of idle acres. Our friends want to say take it away from those companies that are not using it.

Either it is because of bureaucratic process, external litigation, but there are very good reasons why acres are idle. I think that our friends on the other side of the aisle are simply avoiding the real question of why we are not drilling in this country, why we are preferring Hugo Chavez oil, why we are giving preferential treatment to oil from OPEC, rather than this country.

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

Would the gentleman yield?

I really appreciate and respect what the gentleman says, but when you give the figure 68 million acres are idle, I wonder how many of those acres are, in fact, in this bureaucratic process.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Brady, I would point out that this is the area we are talking about leasing, it is not some area up in Alaska that doesn't have any infrastructure, no pipelines. The majority is still avoiding the real question that is in front of this country, why we have $4 gasoline is because we can't get access to supplies that have an effect on the market today.

I would recognize Mr. Brady for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Perdido lease in the Gulf of Mexico was sold in 1996. Twelve years later, over $2 billion has been spent before we even produce one drop of oil. That is 34,000 acres that, according to our friends, are idle. And yet, $2 billion has been spent. Another billion dollars has to be spent before that can be produced.

And what is going to happen with this bill is that people are going to say, I am afraid I might lose my lease. 12 years to produce one, not even 1 drop of oil on 34,000 acres, and people are going to stop buying leases. This bill is going to kill production, not assist production.

I would like to recognize Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman of the committee pointing out that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was supposed to speed up the delays. And, in fact, we did.

You would remember, sir, that it was in our committee that we established the five categorical exclusions. Those are the categorical exclusions that were dropped out in your energy bill earlier this year that slowed the process down.

You also remember that we established the pilot offices. The pilot offices were established in several places across the country, and your legislation stopped those too.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I was simply addressing the questions that were addressed to me by the gentleman from the floor. I would thank you for that reminder, and would point out that, in fact, what we are doing here today, we are saying that people have been laying on these leases, that they are letting them lie idle.

But it was actually the Democrats of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 that passed, Democrats in the majority. And you notice that we have many of the gentlemen on the floor of the House today. Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Miller, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Rahall all voted yes in saying that we need, not just 5 years, but 10 years to produce these wells. And now we are having the finger pointed by the same people today, saying that it is irresponsible oil companies who are delaying too long. So the flip- flopping that we are seeing across the country right now is absolutely amazing.

We would love to hear the Democrats say that they want to drill and drill now. The only problem is that I have heard Democrats say that drill is a four-letter word. Well, either they can't spell or they can't count; I don't know which.

But let's yield 2 minutes to Mr. Carter of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlelady from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin) for 2 minutes.

The gentleman asks a question whose fault is it. Let's read down through a list of observations: Wilderness Society v. Wisely, 16 leases, 11,000 acres stopped; Montana Wilderness Alliance v. Fry, stops three leases, limits additional 9; Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, injunction covering 93 percent of the resource area; Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership challenges total of 127 APDs, applications for permits to drill; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Kempthorne stopped 60 wells; Potash Association stopped 72 wells; Biodiversity Conservation Alliance suspends leases; Wyoming Outdoor Council v. BLM, 11 parcels BLM stopped; National Audubon Society challenging the Resource Operational Division, and then we have Pennaco Energy v. U.S.; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

The reason that oil and gas exploration is stopped, the reason that we have 68 million acres is because of litigation and excess regulation, many of which do nothing, nothing to improve the environment. Most are bureaucratic delays.

I would suggest that the gentleman should--maybe if he thinks that he can produce oil more cheaply and more effectively than the people who are producing it, maybe he should be there and actually be drilling some wells and find out for himself the difficulty of producing.

Mr. Speaker, I would recognize the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, again we would just look at one area. This is the Powder River Basin, and 86 percent of the leased land is idle because of the fear of lawsuits. It is lawsuits that are stopping much of the production, and yet the gentleman's bill does nothing. It does nothing to stop the lawsuits.

If we are serious about drilling and drilling now, then let's put something substantial in this bill, let's take it back to committee, let's amend it like we should have, let's put things that restrict the litigation that is stopping Americans from receiving the oil that they deserve and the lower price of gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, I would recognize the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) for 1 minute.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that oil companies are very rarely sitting on it. They are delayed by regulation. They're delayed by litigation, and if we were serious about drilling and drilling now, drill today, we would do something more than recommend a Black and Decker drill. I was surprised to hear our chairman of the committee say that because it takes billions of dollars to build these rigs out in the middle of the gulf, and to suggest that it is quite as simple as grabbing a Black and Decker and going and drilling with your hand, simply just, I think, intentionally understates the difficulty in providing low-cost gasoline for consumers in today's market. I was surprised.

Yes, I would yield.

Reclaiming my time.

I would just point out to the gentleman that the 34,000 acres with the Perdido lease has got no production coming from it yet. It's declared as idle according to your specifications. And I would just remind the gentleman that there are always reasons why production is not occurring. No one is withholding oil at $140 a barrel.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert two documents that show a history of litigation in the NPR-A. If the gentleman from West Virginia is unaware of those, maybe that would help.

Litigation History: Oil and Gas Leasing in the National Petroleum

Reserve--Alaska

In 1980 Congress amended the Naval Petroleum Reserves

Production Act (Public Law 96-514), directing the Secretary

of the Interior to carry out ``an expeditious program of

competitive leasing of oil and gas'' in the 23 million acre

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Pursuant to this

directive, BLM developed an expedited leasing program.

In 1983, BLM completed an environmental impact statement

(EIS) and issued a record of decision (ROD) opening all but

1,416,000 acres of NPR-A to leasing. The ROD called for five

annual lease sales of approximately two million acres each.

Soon after the release of the ROD a lawsuit was filed by two

Inupiat Eskimos in U.S. District Court for Alaska. The

plaintiffs, together with amicus State of Alaska and North

Slope Borough, sought a preliminary injunction blocking the

lease sale. They contended that BLM failed to make certain

subsistence-related determinations required by Section 810 of

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA),

16 U.S.C. Sec. 3120. After a trial on the merits, the

district court held in favor of BLM, finding that such

determinations were not required. However the court issued an

injunction precluding execution of the leases pending appeal

of the matter to the Ninth Circuit. The district court's

decision was affirmed on appeal in Kunakana v. Clark, 742

F.2d 1145 (9th Cir. 1984), thus allowing issuance of the

leases. By 1998, all leases issued under the 1983 ROD had

expired without a significant discovery.

In 1998, BLM completed an ElS and issued a ROD addressing

the 4.6 million acre Northeast Planning Area of NPR-A. The

ROD opened 87 percent of the area to leasing, excluding an

area that included most of the submerged lands of Teshekpuk

Lake and lands to the north and east of the lake. Several

environmental groups filed suit in U.S. District Court for

the District of Columbia (Wilderness Soc'y v. Babbit, Civ.

No. 98-2395), alleging violations of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and seeking an injunction to

preclude lease sales under the ROD. In an unreported

decision, the court ruled in favor of BLM as to the

plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, thus

allowing the lease sales to move forward. BLM held lease

sales in 1999 and 2002, which resulted in the issuance of

several leases near Teshekpuk Lake. However, the court has

yet to issue a final decision on the merits, and the case

remains pending without any action having been taken by the

court for several years now.

After completing an EIS, in 2004 BLM issued a ROD

addressing the Northwest Planning Area. The ROD opened all

8.8 million acres of the planning area to leasing, but

deferred 1,570,000 acres near the village of Wainwright from

leasing for ten years. Several environmental groups filed

suit against the Department of the Interior in U.S. District

Court in Alaska. The plaintiffs argued that BLM acted

arbitrarily in violation of NEPA by authorizing leasing in

the entire planning area without considering reasonable

alternatives and without doing a site-specific analysis of

each of the areas affected by the proposed action. The

plaintiffs further argued that the biological opinion was

arbitrary in violation of the Endangered Species Act,

alleging that it was insufficiently thorough, not co-

extensive with the ROD, and paid insufficient attention to

the uneven distribution of eiders within the affected area.

The district court ruled in favor of BLM on all counts, N.

Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Norton, 361 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. AK

2005). The decision was upheld on appeal in its entirety in

N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969 (9th Cir.

2006).

Seeking to open additional areas of the Northeast Planning

Area to oil and gas leasing pursuant to a 2002 recommendation

contained in the President's National Energy Policy, BLM

completed an amendment to the 1998 EIS in 2005 and issued an

amended ROD in 2006. The amended ROD sought to open for

leasing all lands in the planning area except the submerged

lands underlying Teshekpuk Lake. In doing so, 389,000 acres

that had been unavailable under the 1998 ROD would be

available. Several environmental groups filed suit against

the Department of the Interior in U.S. District Court in

Alaska, alleging violations of NEPA and the Endangered

Species Act. Holding in favor of the plaintiffs in part, in

National Audubon Society v. Kempthorne, No. 1:05-cv-00008-JKS

(Sep. 25, 2006), the court vacated the ROD. The court found

that the amended EIS failed to adequately analyze cumulative

impacts associated with the adjoining Northwest Planning

Area, and that for similar reasons the biological opinion was

inadequate as well. The Department chose not to appeal the

adverse decision, but instead proceeded to correct the

deficiencies noted by the court by supplementing the amended

EIS and revising the biological opinion accordingly. BLM

issued the final Supplemental EIS on May 23, 2008. Under the

Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, potential plaintiffs

have 60 days from issuance of a final EIS to bring suit

(i.e., until July 22, 2008)

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend debate by 10 minutes, equally divided.

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 offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, America is faced with an energy crisis today, and solutions have not been forthcoming under the current Speaker of the House or her leadership. The majority has failed in its effort to take any meaningful action to increase the domestic supply of energy for the American people. In a State like New Mexico, a very moderate income State, probably $25 to $30,000 a year is the average income, we find that the price of $4 gasoline is very difficult.

Last week in a story in the Albuquerque Journal, Associated Press talked about a young woman with cancer who was being treated almost 200 miles from her home. The family had to suspend visits by her young children to visit her because of the price of gasoline. Each day we're finding these sorts of impairments in our daily living while the majority simply says, we're in favor of energy.

I was listening with interest to the previous speaker, the gentleman from New York, and I would invite him to sign on a letter that we will be producing today that would go from the Speaker of the House to mention to President Bush about those 68 million acres of land that are not being used. Let's remove, first of all, the regulatory burdens that are stopping that land from being used and produced. In Utah alone, almost 1 million acres by one office which is 7 years overdue in putting out the land management plan that would allow people to move ahead.

Those are some of the acres that are moved from production that our friends talk about as if the greedy oil companies are sitting out here purposefully withholding production knowing that at all-time record highs, every company is producing every amount of oil and gas that they can get to, and they simply kind of twist the facts around.

So I would invite the gentleman to sign on to that letter indicating his willingness to press the President of the United States to push the BLM into getting these regulations out the door.

I would also be interested to see if the majority would recognize with us their failure in December by removing all shale oil from production. With one simple sentence in a bill in December, the majority removed almost 2 trillion barrels of shale oil from production, and again it tells me that maybe we have words on the House floor that differ from the words that are actually created in the votes.

I would also welcome our friends on the other side of the aisle to change their votes on the wilderness areas that removed over 100,000 acres from production because wilderness stops all development of oil and gas. And so again, I find some difference in the words that we hear on the House floor and the words that are actually put into place by law when we vote.

Additionally, there is a moratorium that limits 85 percent. We're told that the majority doesn't mind offshore production at all. Then go with us, sign a letter, and let's start producing just around the area, just in that spot where Cuba and China are drilling 47 miles off the coast of Florida. We have prohibited it ourselves through a moratorium in producing this oil and gas.

So I would ask the leaders of the majority party to go with me and sign on to this letter to take that one spot and let's allow American oil companies to produce where we're allowing the Chinese to produce within our Outer Continental Shelf area.

My amendment today to this House bill 1286 simply says that as we create this new trail system, we would like an accounting for all of the energy assets that are going to be affected by this bill. It's a very simple amendment.

The majority has, in fact, got a statement in the bill that says nothing will hinder, but too often we find that we do not know what has been hindered and what has not been hindered. So our amendment is very simple. Let's just get a report from the Secretary of Interior to tell us exactly what the stakes are, which resources might be limited, which might be hindered, and it's a very straightforward amendment.

I would appreciate if the majority would understand the reasons for this because we see every day that the American people are paying the price for the majority's opinion on energy. The opinion is that $4 gasoline is not too high, that in fact $4 gasoline will cause maybe a change within which we conduct our business; we ought to be converting to other forms of energy. The problem is we don't have wind cars, we don't have solar cars, we have no nuclear cars. America is on an oil and gas economy. We drive oil and gas cars, and as long as we limit the supply, we're going to drive the price higher.

It's not American consumption. American consumption actually has remained quite stable for the last 10 years. It's actually Chinese consumption. It's consumption from those developing countries around the globe that are pushing the price of oil higher.

Now, I did note with interest the comments that the majority party had done something for fuel efficiency. Actually, the majority party did nothing for fuel efficiency.

I ask for support for the amendment.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 439 H. Con. Res. 372-- Supporting the goals and ideals of Black Music Month and to honor the outstanding contributions that African American singers and musicians have made to the United States. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 440, H. Res. 1051-- Congratulating James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, for 100 years of service and leadership to the United States, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 H. Res. 1242--Honoring the life, musical accomplishments, and contributions of Louis Jordan on the 100th anniversary of his birth. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Forbes for your leadership in this call to establish American Religious History Week.

Also, as a cosponsor of H. Res. 888, I'm strongly supportive of the idea that we should remember that we should always acknowledge the founding fathers' belief that this Nation was indeed blessed by our Maker, that we would, as a Nation, acknowledge our corporate belief.

It's important to remember not only our founding, but also to take a look at where we're headed as a Nation. We acknowledge that our Nation was founded on the right to choose to believe or not believe, but also our founding fathers gave us choices in exactly how to express our faith.

I believe that acknowledging America's rich spiritual and religious history is important and it is a great step towards accomplishing what would be the future of this country, America's religious heritage.

It troubles me that we are beginning to see shifts in this country. We're seeing shifts, not in ideology, not in philosophy, but over whether we can even declare our faith publicly. In this country we're beginning to hear people say that if you declare faith publicly, you're infringing on their rights. I simply do not agree or believe in that.

If you want to acknowledge your faith, there are people who say that it should be behind closed doors. This is sad. Often this mind-set is originating right here in Washington. This mind-set is originating in this institution, but it's also originating even in institutions where the members are not elected, and I think those are critical things for us to look at as we consider where this Nation is headed.

This Nation has a motto ``In God We Trust.'' It was approved by Congress, and yet it's being circumvented sometimes by unelected officials. ``In God We Trust'' is printed on coins, on our currency. It is engraved on our buildings. It appears over the entrance to the Senate Chambers, and you can see the phrase engraved in this Chamber on the wall above the Speaker's dais. This phrase is woven into the fabric of our Nation, but we're beginning to see an unraveling of the phrase, an unraveling of this tradition of declaring that

we do trust in God. This is a string that should not be cut.

In 2006, the U.S. Mint announced plans to move the inscription ``In God We Trust'' from the face of the Presidential Dollar coin pieces to the thin edge around the dollar coin.

In February of 2006 the Treasury announced that in an accidental omission an unknown number of Presidential coins had made it past inspectors and were sent into circulation without the words ``In God We Trust'' at all. Some estimates are as many as 50,000 of these coins are in circulation.

I understand that mistakes happen, but sending 50,000 coins without the basic motto which this institution declared should be on our currency is a major mistake. I ask for the U.S. Mint to give a full report and accounting of the situation.

Our history tells us the importance of God and faith in the birth of our Nation. The problems with the phrase, ``In God We Trust'' being omitted from our coin is just one indicator of how badly we're drifting off course. It is fitting that we honor the spiritual history with a week dedicated to remembering our founding and ensuring that the lasting connection which so many Americans share in and believe in is a part of our national fabric.

I support H. Res. 888, and agree that we should, indeed, establish a week which declares American religious history. And I thank Mr. Forbes for yielding time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to restore a small sum of money into an important program, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. The RRW is critically important for our national security. Our current nuclear stockpile is aging. As it ages, we must constantly pour more money into maintaining the aging weapons.

We have a choice to make as a Nation: Do we continue to rely on current weapon stockpiles and pay an increasing cost of maintaining the readiness and reliability of these weapons, or do we develop a new line of weapons to replace the current stockpile? The RRW would improve the overall shelf life of a warhead from 30 to over 50 years, and the program is true to its name.

RRW does not pursue new nuclear weapons capabilities. Rather, it pursues making our weapons more reliable, and more reliable weapons will help reduce the maintenance costs of our nuclear stockpile and ensure that we have stable and reliable weapons ready, and most notably, reduce our overall nuclear stockpile by potentially as many as 1,000 warheads.

Without RRW, we will continue to have a larger weapon stockpile. Not pursuing RRW is essentially counterproductive to our stated goals of arms reduction. Not only is my amendment the responsible thing to do for our national security, it's the fiscally responsible choice as well. The current life extension programs that are designed to extend the shelf life of expired warheads are at a great cost to the taxpayer.

I think we should all agree on the goal of reducing our total stockpile of nuclear arms, and if you agree with that goal, then I urge you to adopt my amendment to restore funding for the RRW program, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, I have heard the arguments that maybe we're taking too much money from the EEC program, the Energy Efficiency Conservation program, that we're actually taking 12 percent was what was stated, but actually the truth is from last year's funding, we're not taking a penny. We're actually leaving that program funded at exactly the same level.

I have heard that we should not be building new weapons in order to give the right example to some of our friends around the world. And when I consider our attempts to influence our friends in North Korea, I would think that our unwillingness to build new weapons won't influence them at all. And when I think about influencing our friends in Iran, I think that our new posture of not maintaining our nuclear weapons will not influence them at all. In fact, they might be influenced in the other way.

Mr. Chairman, the world is not safer since 9/11. The world is more dangerous. During the 50 or so years of the Cold War, we didn't experience one strike inside the United States that even came close to being like the attack on 9/11. Yet after the Cold War, 1993, we had the first attack on the World Trade Center and then the second attack in 2001.

The world is getting progressively more dangerous, and I think for us to think that we can negotiate with these different countries is one that we should back up with the capability to strike back if a strike is needed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I've listened with respect to the arguments from all of the speakers on the opposition side. I would note that $10 million, the amount that is designated for the RRW, is just enough to keep the doors open; that once we allow this team of experts to dissipate, once these people are hired away, then we will never build another team possible. This is just enough money to hold the human resources together to produce these weapons because we will not be able to produce them after we give up the human technology, the human capabilities, and so just enough to keep the doors open. It's exactly what the Senate did last year

I would urge passage of the Pearce amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the patriotism and dedication of Bill and Peggy Zack. These two New Mexico residents have fully devoted their time and money to lifting the spirits of our troops deployed in Iraq.

Mr. and Mrs. Zack began the Pocket flag project in 2002 and have since sent out over 70,000 pocket flags. The pocket flags are small folded American flags that are enclosed with a message. On a small piece of paper reads ``A flag for your pocket so you can always carry a little piece of home. We are praying for you. Thank you for defending our freedom.'' A heartfelt message that is sure to lift the spirits of our service men and women. Pocket flags have been sent to the 647 Support Group at Fort Bliss, Texas and all National Guard and special units being deployed through Ft. Bliss. Additional receipts of these flags include the Mountain Brigade in Fort Drum, NY and the AYN of the Alabama National Guard. The list goes on.

It should also be noted that Bill and Peggy don't accept any donations to help them with materials and shipping expenses. In fact the cost of shipping all 70,000 pocket flags has summed up to about $10,000 and over 7,000 hours. The only reimbursement the Zacks will accept are the letters written by soldiers currently deployed. While the letters vary, most say how thankful they are for Bill and Peggy taking the time to send them a little piece of home.

It is inspiring to know that citizens like Bill and Peggy Zack are trying to do all they can to lift the morale of our troops. On behalf of all servicemen and women I would like to thank Bill and Peggy Zack for all their efforts to comfort the troops in the Middle East.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Holloman Middle School teacher Ms. Trude Trudell. Ms. Trudell's hard work and dedication have earned her the Otero County, New Mexico, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, Teacher of the Year award. It is her devotion to her students that earned her this tremendous honor. Good teachers like Ms. Trudell inspire the young minds of this country and shape our youth.

Ms. Trudell was a member of the military before becoming a teacher. Yet she has said that teaching is the toughest job she has ever held.

Ms. Trudell's work has made a tremendous impact on the lives of students in Otero County. An education is an open door to the future for our children, and teachers have a key role in helping open that door for our children. Without great educators like Ms. Trudell, our children would not be prepared to enter the economy of the future. It is also teachers like Ms. Trudell who take pride in their work and use their own ambition to drive students to succeed.

This award is a reflection of Ms. Trudell's commitment to making an impact on the lives of each and everyone of her students. Her top priority is preparing her students for the future, and for that on behalf of the people of the New Mexico, I want to thank her for her service. Teachers like Ms. Trudell give us all hope for a better future for America.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2016. One of the Resources Committee staffers was just pointing out that 6 years ago she paid $1.10 for gasoline. Now we are seeing the price of gasoline at $3.30 and increasing. Now what have we done to improve the lives of the middle-class citizens who are struggling to pay taxes and to pay the cost of fuel for their car, and then face the prospect of losing jobs? Well, in 1995, the Republican Congress passed the provision to drill in ANWR. President Clinton vetoed that. If that had been passed, today we would have 1.5 million barrels of oil in production coming daily from there to help stem the price of gasoline. We have limited the ability to drill in our outer continental shelf, even though China is drilling 47 miles off our coast. So again, we are allowing foreign countries to develop our resources, yet we are restricting ourselves.

This past December, this Congress, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, put 2 trillion barrels of shale oil off limits in Colorado saying, I guess, that we're going to go ahead and import, and we're going to face the higher price of gasoline. Now, if we think there is no connection between the price of gasoline and this bill, take a look at the Wilderness Society and their 18-page brochure which tells us that it is imperative that we do something with this bill, that we pass this bill. It lists as problems that this bill will correct, road building, energy exploration, mining, recreational use, offroad vehicle use, boundary adjustments. These are all the immediate threats that the Wilderness Society points out that the NLCS is going to stop.

So we find that even the supporters of the legislation realize it is going to affect energy development, and yet our friends on the other side of the aisle say we are going to accept $3 gasoline, we are going to import from Hugo Chavez, and we are going to continue to import from the Middle Eastern countries that despise us and work against us. And they say they, as a majority, are not going to do anything. And in fact, they are going to pass this bill, which makes it more difficult for us to produce energy off of Federal lands. It just does not make sense in these times when it is a struggle for middle-class taxpayers to pay the bills of the family, to feed the family and then get the kids to the soccer games, to the classrooms and back, and we are passing a bill that has significant effects on the western lands of this country.

In many of my counties, we have 10 percent private lands. In many of my counties, the back will be broken of all economic activity as we undergo this management change, this way we manage our lands. Our western lands are managed well. Maybe the Bureau of Reclamation and the Forest Service could do a better job. But they are doing a good job. Instead, we are going to say we are going to treat all of the western lands like parklands where we have no economic activity at all.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is sadly misguided. And it is not without understanding. My office proposed an amendment for wind energy on these lands. And they rejected without debate the idea that we would not only want to have energy production, but also convert to renewables on public lands. They rejected that without debate, without discussion, because they know they do not want the footprint of any entity, not even oil and gas or renewable energy.

Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we turn this bill down flat because it is going to affect the future of all of our hardworking citizens. Just last year, Dow Chemical announced a $22 billion facility is going to Saudi Arabia. It is going because the price of natural gas is so high here. It took over 10,000 jobs with it when it went. We are seeing our jobs leave because of the policies that are being put in place by this majority. And this bill is just one more addition to those bad pieces of legislation of bad policy that is restricting oil and gas and restricting renewable development on the lands.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, again, I would point out that in committee we heard these same comments that we are talking in generalizations, half- truths, complete untruths. We were told then that the border is completely secured in the current legislation, and now we find that maybe there is a reason to kind of adapt the wording.

We also were told that there is nothing that would limit any sports, no hunting, shooting sports, that those assertions on the part of the minority were simply generalizations, half-truths and untruths.

So it's really amazing to me that those half-truths now are being incorporated into the bill by first the bill sponsor and then by another one of the majority Members.

The complete idea and argument that all of our discussions have been generalizations, half-truths and untruths, simply now rises to a level which we have to ask ourselves on which side do the generalizations lie, on which side do the untruths lie and on which side do the half truths lie, because we are finding the majority that is adopting and adapting the bill now in order to make it more secure if they did not blink, if they had not believed the arguments in committee, they would not be making these changes today, they would not be trying to work out deals behind the scenes to make this a little bit more, maybe, less risky.

I think if we all see what's going on, I think if we see the majority blinking in a big way here on the floor, it just tells us we should turn down the underlying language and turn down this offensive impact on our public land management.

I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding.

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

Mr. Chairman, today I'm offering a simple, straightforward amendment. It states, ``Specifically, inclusion in the National Landscape Conservation System shall not affect current grazing rights or operations.'' That's it.

This language is very clear. We're working to protect the ranching economies of our western States.

In the West, many of our communities depend on ranching as a traditional and an important way of economy. The West was settled by ranchers who brought with them little more than a few cattle, the clothes on their back and hope for the future. Today, America's ranchers still hold the dream of a better future.

In New Mexico and across the West, our ranchers are real conservationists and know how to protect the land they depend on every day. Their lands are often the backstop against growth, and they are the voice of preserving the rural nature of our lands.

However, in countries in the West, it's not uncommon that we find 30 percent, 18 percent, 6 percent or even 2 percent private lands. Therefore, our ranchers depend on public lands for their operations. These ranchers bring in millions of dollars of economic activity to New Mexico and the entire West. In many places, ranching is the single largest economic driver in our communities.

My amendment will ensure that nothing in this act cuts off the current operations of ranchers in the West. Without this amendment, it is entirely possible that the enactment of this bill will cut off millions of dollars in activity and devastate our western counties.

Supporters of this bill tell us that it will not stop the multiple use of our BLM lands. However, my amendment ensures that this legislation does not stop ranching.

Let me leave you with no doubt. This amendment will ensure that we do not cut off our ranchers from lands that they have used for years. In some cases, the same ranching families have administered these lands for more than 100 years.

Ranching is an important part of our economy, an important part of the history of the West, and passing this amendment will ensure that ranching has a part of the future in this West.

It's a simple amendment. It is endorsed by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, by the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, New Mexico Wool Growers and the New Mexico Federal Lands Council.

Mr. Chairman, I urge its passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I observe that we are hearing the same tired excuse that nothing in this underlying bill affects this. Yet I would simply point out to the ranchers of this land that now, under the majority, you don't rate as high as the sportsmen. You don't rate as high as those people who are concerned about border security, because we were told that same tired language that nothing in the bill affected them, but the majority's been willing to adapt the language here because they know that the underlying bill affects it. But they are not going to make one amendment in order that would protect our ranchers and protect and make sure that this language doesn't affect them.

It is really unusual that we're hearing such a diverse opinion from the sponsor of this bill right now. It says that nothing affects it. And then he reads all sorts of language in, and again for those people who are watching and listening, I would simply say again, read the very simple language: ``Specifically, inclusion in the National Landscape Conservation System shall not affect the current grazing rights or operations.''

And yet we've built all of these potentials that we have created for this language that we are, in fact, rewriting the entire way that grazing is done. Grazing is always done by cows walking out and munching on the grass. And it's a very simple operation. I think that maybe our amendment is being overcharacterized. I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona and his overcharacterization. But the truth is, we're simply trying to protect the ranchers in the West who use the public lands, and many times there are no private lands to graze off of.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the great achievements of Lt. Larry Furrow. In the 41 years that Larry has served the U.S. military and Government, he continually showed great dedication, knowledge, and skill. I greatly admire his dedication to his work. His many years of education and lifetime of experiences make Mr. Furrow a noteworthy man and an exceptional example to other people.

Mr. Furrow's service to his country did not stop in the military after he gained the rank of lieutenant in 1993. He went on to become the chief of public affairs for White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. These are all reasons to honor Mr. Furrow, but he is also admired for his great sense of humor that attracted people to him-- whether it was in the military, flying people around, or working in public relations for White Sands Missile Range.

Among his many respectable traits, Mr. Furrow is also an enthusiastic outdoorsman who likes to spend time snowshoeing, skiing, and running marathons. He is not only adventurous and dedicated, he is also a loving husband, father, and grandfather.

In all of the years that Mr. Furrow has been in the workplace, he has exemplified hard work, dedication, and commitment to duty and country. It is inspiring to know and a privilege to honor Mr. Furrow in his time of retirement. On behalf of the people of the Second District of New Mexico, I congratulate Mr. Furrow on his outstanding career and know that he will continue to inspire others with the intelligence, leadership, thoughtfulness and humor that he displayed to so many throughout the years.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize young scientists from the Cloudcroft Middle and High schools in my district who recently competed against over 3,000 students from across New Mexico in the New Mexico Science Olympiad. Each school placed third in the overall team awards. Leading to their third place finishes, these students from Cloudcroft were also recognized in almost all of the 40 different science categories. These categories range from those we are most familiar with like biology and chemistry, to the newer fields in science and technology like robotics and forensic science.

Just like the students before them who competed and raised the bar, these two teams from Cloudcroft have risen to the challenge, and in so doing, push future students to even greater success. As these teams continue to push the envelope and inspire other students, I have full confidence that future teams from Cloudcroft will soon find themselves at the national competition held each year in Washington, DC.

Among the highlights of Cloudcroft's showing at the NM Science Olympiad are the achievements of two seniors, Sean Henry and Ann Birch. These students received highly sought-after scholarships to the New Mexico Institute of Technology. Only 10 of these awards are set aside for top scoring students. I am pleased their talents have been recognized and wish them the best of luck as they continue their education.

New Mexico has a rich history of conducting cutting-edge science research and development, and these students embody the innovative spirit that we associate with science and technology in New Mexico. These talented students will play an increasingly important role in our society. They are the future of science and technology in our State and I am impressed with their accomplishments. On behalf of the people of the Second District of New Mexico, I congratulate these students, their teachers, and families for their tremendous achievement.