Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let it be clear, an overwhelming majority of the members of this House, including this member, strongly support extending the Wind and Solar tax credits. These credits will help begin new investments to create new jobs, establish new industries in this country and eventually create more energy for America.

However, in order to pay for these new investments, this bill will kill thousands of current manufacturing jobs by raising taxes and giving foreign companies a competitive advantage.

Are we willing to sacrifice jobs Americans have right now for the promise or opportunity for future jobs? I would say that we don't have to make that choice. Yet, the Majority clearly believes that is the only choice before us.

Instead of the massive new tax increases in this bill, we could open up development 44 miles off the coast of Florida beside the Chinese companies working with the Cuban government to drill 46 miles off the coast of Florida.

We could open up new opportunities off the coast of California where new rigs could drill for oil and serve as new platforms for generating renewable wind and tidal energy.

We could lease more areas in Alaska, where a sale last month generated $2.6 billion in revenues for America in lease sales and will generate tens of billions in royalties in the years to come.

If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign energy, this bill fails to accomplish that. I would rhetorically ask the Chairman how much of a tax increase in this bill is on oil companies based in Venezuela or Iran? The answer is none. How much of the tax increases in this bill fall on American companies working in Artesia or Farmington, New Mexico? One hundred percent.

We don't have to choose promoting new industries by destroying old industries. This is a case where we could have it all, new energy development and more energy development, unfortunately the Speaker wont let us make that choice.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the great accomplishments of leaders of Elephant Butte, New Mexico. Mayor Bob Barnes, Councilor Adrienne Podlesny, and Councilor John Van Gundy truly care about the city of Elephant Butte. Each proudly served since the city was incorporated and are so dedicated they worked out of their homes until the city had an office.

Councilor John Van Gundy served on a planning board for the first 2 years after the city was incorporated then became elected to the council and has now served 8 years.

Both Mayor Barnes and Councilor Podlesny have both worked for the city for 10 years, and Mayor Barnes in fact became the first and only mayor of Elephant Butte.

Through their tireless work and dedication, these individuals have made countless contributions to the community of Elephant Butte. Their legacy of diligent work includes improving city parks, developing a waste water system, and incorporating the city. Other accomplishments include widening and paving city streets, building an addition to the fire department, and numerous other improvements.

The progress and growth of Elephant Butte can be attributed to the diligent hard work of these 3 individuals. I know the people of Elephant Butte have gained many more opportunities and are now able to live better lives because of the leadership and hard work of Mayor Barnes and Councilors Van Gundy and Podlesny. I want to congratulate each of them for their achievements and wish them the best of luck in their future.

Mr. Speaker, once again we are here to vote on the majority's newest No Energy Act, and I stand in opposition to that when America is facing the highest energy costs ever. We are here today with a bill that mandates plenty, but has no new energy.

We are told that today is a turning point, and it absolutely is a turning point. Last night in that first turning point we took 2 trillion barrels of American oil off the market. Instead of closing off American jobs, we should be working to encourage American energy companies to expand their operations building U.S. jobs and cutting back on the money we send to the Middle East.

It is a turning point today if you need the muscle of an SUV or strong pickup. You just aren't going to have that if you are a rancher or maybe in the oil and gas industry or something in the mining industry. It is a turning point for biomass, because we in the West have many Federal lands, but we are restricted from taking off biomass from those Federal lands by this bill today. It is a turning point for conservation, because if you own a 20-room house, 10,000-room mansion like Al Gore does, you might be able to afford the new conservation techniques that are implied and required in this bill. If you are making $25,000 a year, in New Mexico, you probably can't afford that replacement furnace.

Our economy needs an expanded domestic energy supply. We need more clean domestic natural gas; we need to open our lands to renewable energy development, we need to utilize our domestic oil reserves; and we need to develop nuclear energy. And this bill is silent about nuclear energy. We need to make energy more affordable by making the supply greater.

Our largest competitor, China, has made that choice. They are building one new coal plant each week for the next 10 years. We are trying to stop those plants here. It is the most affordable of energy. China has doubled their domestic natural gas supply since 2000. How different would our economy be? This is a bad bill. We should turn this bill down and do what is right for the country.

Mr. Speaker, we heard a comparison today between December 7 and what we are passing today. December 7 began World War II in the Pacific, and if we read the history books, actually the war was lost by Japan and Germany because they ran out of oil. Japan was trying to keep us from interrupting their oil supplies and they ran out of oil. And we are absolutely disarming ourselves, taking away our own oil for the future here with this bill. I fail to see the connection that was being made earlier.

We have been told right now in this debate that we should consider what we are going to do about the problem before us. Now, the problem before us that I saw yesterday was that Dow Chemical began to ship its jobs overseas. Previously this summer they had announced $22 billion worth of investment in Saudi Arabia because the price of natural gas here is above $7, and it is below $1 there. They are simply choosing the economic choices that lie before them.

Mr. Speaker, when this bill first passed the House of Representatives, The Washington Post referred to it saying it would be legislation that is welcomed in Russia and Bolivia and other countries. The version before us today would still prompt the same comment, I am sure.

We should be working to expand our manufacturing. We should be working to encourage American energy companies to expand their operations by building U.S. jobs. But this bill, today's bill, hurts our domestic manufacturers by adding $21 billion in new taxes on Americans, but no new taxes on those other foreign oil companies. We are choosing foreign over domestic producers.

We should be working to help America's forest communities biomass plants. Instead, the majority's bill prohibits this. We are stopped dead in our tracks from taking biomass out of Federal lands, out of our national forests. The mandate is let them burn; we don't want to take biomass out of them.

We should be working to expand our domestic energy supply, but instead we are restricting future supplies of energy.

China has made its choices. They are building one new coal plant each week for the next 10 years. We are choosing to not have new energy. It is the wrong bill. I would recommend a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the body tonight about what we are facing in this country as we experience higher gasoline prices, higher energy prices. Today there is an article that I will submit for the Record today: Dow Chemical announced it is going to cut jobs and close plants in the United States.

Dow Chemical To Cut Jobs and Close Plants

(By Bob Sechler and Ana Campoy)

Dec. 5.--Dow Chemical Co. plans to cut 1,000 jobs and

shutter a number of underperforming plants, saying it will

put the savings into higher-growth opportunities.

The job cuts constitute about 2.3% of Dow's estimated

42,500 employees. The chemical company expects to incur a

fourth-quarter charge of $500 million to $600 million,

including costs for severance and asset write-downs.

The effort ``reflects our commitment to prune businesses

that are not delivering appropriate value and tackle tasks

more efficiently across the entire organization,'' Chief

Executive Andrew N. Liveris said in a statement.

Dow Chemical, based in Midland, Mich., has been struggling

with higher prices for natural gas and oil, the main

feedstock for chemicals, and lower prices for commodity

chemicals, or the basic building blocks for more complex

chemicals. Basic chemicals account for about 50% of the

company's revenue.

To reduce its costs, the company has been actively moving

its commodity-chemical production to places like Asia and the

Middle East, where raw materials are cheaper. It has also

worked with local companies in those regions to reduce the

amount of money it has to invest.

The company also is trying to expand its specialty-chemical

business, which is more profitable and less exposed to the

ups and downs of energy markets. Dow has been widely expected

to unveil a major joint venture or acquisition that would

reduce its dependence on low-margin commodity chemicals.

The company pegged the annual savings from the moves at

$180 million once complete.

Among the moves announced yesterday, Dow said it will exit

the auto-sealers business in North America, Asia Pacific and

Latin America, and explore options for the business in

Europe. The company will close an agricultural-sciences

manufacturing plant in Lauterbourg, France.

Now, it's not that it is cutting those jobs in the United States and simply lowering its production worldwide. What it is doing is cutting jobs in America in order to make more competitive changes to the company and have those jobs overseas.

This is a significant thing that we on the Republican side have been talking about for the last several years. It is time for us as a Nation to fight the economic fight that we are faced with. We cannot continue to ignore what other nations are doing and what our energy costs are or we are going to continue to see headlines like this today with Dow Chemical cutting jobs and closing plants.

Now, we had a precursor to this earlier this year. Dow Chemical announced that it was going to build a plant in Saudi Arabia that cost $22 billion, an investment that large in Saudi Arabia, and meanwhile they are going to also start in China another plant for approximately $8 billion, and they knew at that point that they would begin this transfer of jobs.

Now, we have to ask ourselves is it because Dow Chemical is just a bad corporate partner? Maybe they are just after corporate greed. They're going to make profits at the expense of the United States, because that's what we have heard. We have heard on the House floor that corporations are evil, that they don't have the interests of the country at heart.

As we look at it a little bit closer, we recognize that in the United States just today the prices for natural gas are quoted at above the $8 range. We have at the same point, and natural gas is a very key component of Dow Chemical's products; in other words, about 50 percent of their costs, if I am not mistaken, come from their raw material costs, of which natural gas is the key component. So there is a direct correlation between the price of natural gas and jobs in this country. Now, when we are paying above $8 for natural gas, what are they paying in Saudi Arabia? In Saudi Arabia the price is today about 75 cents. So almost one tenth, one tenth the cost for 50 percent of their raw materials in Saudi Arabia versus here.

Now, you don't have to be schooled in economics. You simply have to understand that you are not going to Wal-Mart and pay ten times the cost for something you buy when you could go down the street and get it somewhere else. You go to buy and get the best deal. Companies have to have the same incentive. If Dow Chemical stays here and pays ten times more, ultimately they become noncompetitive in the world. Someone else will set up the plant in Saudi Arabia with one tenth the cost of raw materials, and the jobs will come away from Dow Chemical and go to another plant. So all that Dow Chemical is doing is saying we have competitive forces that cause us to consider this move.

We have done nothing in this Congress to dispel those costs, to drive

those costs lower. And, in fact, it is this Congress that is mandating the switch nationwide from coal production, coal-produced energy, to natural gas-produced energy. Now, that's fine except you must realize when we drive that demand up as a regulatory agency, as a government, that we drive the demand up and we say you are going to convert for clean air purposes from coal to natural gas, you have a great increase in demand. It is simply a supply and demand problem. So we have the outcome today. We are seeing Dow Chemical ship jobs overseas.

Now, we have to then look at what the Congress is doing. Speaker Pelosi announced very early on that it was her desire to make this country independent of foreign companies. I will tell you that what we are finding now, we see this particular chart, and this is for the summer of 2007 and moving forward, we see the predictions that we have a 23 percent estimated increase in prices in the northwestern part of the country; in the middle regions about 30 percent increase; 19 percent on the eastern seaboard; in Florida we are seeing 21 percent; Texas, 32 percent; California, 29 percent. Now, when you are seeing increasing prices, you would say that we as consumers are not seeing this energy independence. If we are, it's not a helpful thing to us, that, in fact, it is somewhat hurtful when we see energy prices and our home heating increase by that much. We are told these are the forecasts right now, so we are seeing the effects not only in jobs but also everyday costs.

We have passed two bills, one back in January, H.R. 6, and then we also passed H.R. 3221, and those were to deal with the problem of higher prices, and yet they still have not come back from the Senate. We still don't have an agreement. And I will say that in the early stages, the things that we saw pass off this House floor were actually penalties to energy independence. They tax American companies but they don't tax Hugo Chavez.

Now, we must at some point ask ourselves why we have a policy that would tax American companies and American jobs, would limit the supply so that the cost goes up and we lose jobs. Exactly why are we doing this as a country? Why are we suggesting passing policy off the floor that is causing this particular effect? Those are things that we as Americans should be asking, and we are asking, and yet we don't have a good, clear answer.

It appears to me, because I am not involved in the conference, the discussions between the House and the Senate, it appears to me that special-interest groups have dominated those discussions and have said we are going to tax those high-profit oil companies because they are making $100 per barrel of oil, or maybe today it is only $85, but it seems like there are strong forces out there that say we need to penalize and punish these American companies because, according to some, they are obviously doing things that are harmful.

I would say that the harmful effects are not to be found. The harmful effects are not there. They're not documented. The oil companies are simply price takers. Exxon cannot set the price of oil worldwide. They simply take the price that's offered to them. They have a large production. They are making quite a bit of money, but they have also got a large investment in the offshore rigs. They have got a large investment in onshore production, large transportation costs. Their costs are about the same as any company worldwide. But we are not taxing worldwide companies in each of the energy bills; we are only taxing American companies. And we have to ask ourselves why. Why are we driving the price of natural gas up, sending jobs overseas, and why are we taxing American companies and not taxing Hugo Chavez?

These are the questions that we are here tonight to talk about as we move very close to a discussion of what might be in the energy bill when we close this week. We were told at the beginning of the week we will have an energy bill this week; yet we have not seen it on our side. We have said that we are going to discuss it. Tomorrow is the last day of business for the week, to my knowledge, and yet we still don't have a printed copy, we on the Republican side, and I don't think many Democrats have seen a written bill. But we do have in front of us what has been done earlier this year.

I am joined tonight by a colleague from Pennsylvania, a classmate of mine, Congressman Tim Murphy. He has concerns also about the direction that we are taking the energy policy in this country. We are facing worldwide competition, increasing pressure from the large states of China, India, the other competitive nations in the world, and at a time when we should be all looking outward and working, Democrats and Republicans alike, to protect the economic base of this country and understanding that energy is a key piece of the economic base of this country, that jobs are created around the cost of energy. At a time when we should be focused outward together, we instead have a, suggested policies that punish American producers, American oil and gas companies, and they give competitive advantage to other nations and other countries.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to talk about the nuclear, the coal, and the natural gas industries. He is from a coal-producing State and has good knowledge on these.

Again, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I thank the gentleman for his comments and recognize that we have a 15-year lead time before we build the first nuclear power plant. China is right now currently hiring our nuclear technology capability. They are hiring our people so that we first of all don't have young people going into the nuclear industry, those who are retiring are going to China because they have a commitment to build nuclear power plants. And as the gentleman said, we face a severe shortage of energy in the future. We are already giving up jobs. And we are doing nothing about it.

Now, I would like to show a difference in viewpoints. Up above the Speaker's dais is a quote by Daniel Webster. If I were to read that quote, it says, ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered.'' It begins, ``Let us develop the resources of our land.'' Daniel Webster.

Can we do something great that our generation might be remembered for? Now, I would go also to a quote from earlier this year from the chairman of our Resources Committee. Now, keep in mind Daniel Webster said, ``Let's develop our resources,'' but the chairman of our Resources Committee this year says, ``I see no reason, no reason whatsoever why good public land law should be linked to the gross national product.'' I'm sorry, the gross national product is our capability to generate jobs. And contrasting with Daniel Webster who says, Let's do everything we can to build a great country. Let's build this dream of American exceptionalism and let's fight to have the hope and opportunity that we as a country have and let's use our resources to do it.

Contrast that to this year, this year's energy bill, ``No reason, no reason whatsoever, why good public land law should be linked to the gross national product.'' Just earlier this week, I authored an article in Human Events magazine. If you want to go online, pearce.house.gov. Be sure and spell it p-e-a-r-c-e. If you spell it p-i-e-r-c-e, there are things on the Web site that come up on that that your mother would not want you to see. We simply need to go and look at energy policy. If you go to pearce.house.gov and look at the Human Events article earlier this week, we talk about the energy bill that was passed out of the House by the chairman who says, ``No reason why public law should be linked to gross national product'' and what they did in that particular bill, H.R. 3221, was they cut off 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from Colorado's Roan Plateau.

They cut off 2 trillion barrels of oil from shale oil. That is in Colorado. This, by the way, is twice the reserves of all known reserves in the world. We could be the Saudi Arabia of oil if we would simply harness those resources down there Webster talks about, that shale oil in Colorado.

The bill, H.R. 3221, dramatically expands the environmental study requirements on existing oil and gas pads. This provision alone is expected to reduce or delay onshore natural gas supply by approximately 18 percent. So at a time when Dow Chemical is investing $22 billion in Saudi Arabia because their natural gas prices are one tenth of ours, we are limiting supply by another 18 percent by our bureaucratic and regulatory requirements. It just does not make sense.

There are breaches in the legitimate legal offshore energy contracts between companies and the U.S. Government, in much the same way as Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin might install. That is a quote from some of our friends at the Washington Post earlier this year writing about H.R. 6.

It cuts off 10 billion barrels of oil from the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, and it cuts off the government agency's communication for oil and gas permitting activities, as they currently do under law.

Now, these are things in the bill that supposedly are going to bring us energy independence. It is a bill that we oppose. We as Republicans and we as conservatives say that we must first take care of the opportunity for our young people to have jobs and careers. We first want to defend our economy against those foreign countries that would take our living standard, that would take our jobs. And yet we are passing a bill where the chairman says there is no reason, no reason whatsoever, why good public land law should be linked to the gross national product. I find that quote to be stunning.

One of the provisions in the bill that is suggested that might come up, again, the Democrats are saying, Nancy Pelosi is saying we are going to have an energy bill this week, and one of the provisions in that is a provision to require renewable fuel standards.

Now, that is well and good, until one looks more closely. That part of the renewable fuel standard is ethanol from cellulose fibers. Those are wood fibers.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Utah, a good friend of mine, Representative Bishop, who heads the National Parks Public Lands Subcommittee in the Resources Committee, is knowledgeable about national forests and about the opportunity that we have to help lower energy costs by using renewable fuels as the technology exists or does not exist today.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

I thank the gentleman from Utah for his compelling arguments.

The situation is, again, there appears that there will be a requirement to produce ethanol from cellulose, which is a nice thing to think about. We have had testimony, though, that no technology exists to do that, and it could be 20 years before that technology exists.

Now, you would ask what are the circumstances in the bill that deal with this. What if there is no technology, but there is a requirement? That is fairly simple. There is up to $2 a gallon penalty, tax, fee, on the companies, the refiners, if they can't produce the minimum amount of ethanol from cellulose fibers. So, first of all, we are restricted from going into our national forests and stopping them from burning down. We have all seen the wildfires in San Diego and New Mexico. We had the Los Alamos fire back in 2000. We had the Kokopelli fire up near Ruidoso that burned 30-something houses. We have seen the devastating effects of wildfires in the West, and yet we are prohibited now by this law from going in and taking those fibers. One has to ask, where is the sense in that? Why are we doing that? I would say again, it is special interests, the extremists of the environmental movement who say we are not going to allow the Forest Service to cut one single tree. We are not going to allow any harvest.

We passed the healthy forest initiative back about 2004, and yet this is the way that we gut the bills. We can say on the one hand we passed the healthy forest initiative, and then we don't quite tell the people of the country that the healthy forest initiative will not be implemented. We won't keep our forests healthy because we are going to prevent anybody from using those materials out of them. So it is going to be a sheer cost, a cost to the government, where we could get someone to pay the government.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit the article from the Human Events paper, ``America Does Not Need a San Francisco Energy Policy,'' for the Record.

America Does Not Need a San Francisco Energy Policy

(By Representative Steve Pearce)

When Democrats took control of Congress last year, they

promised to do something about energy prices. They have

delivered on that promise by driving the price of oil to an

all-time high of $99 per barrel and forcing families to

tighten their budgets. Apparently unfazed by this dramatic

increase, the Democratic leadership is poised to deliver

legislation that will drive prices even higher and make us

more reliant on foreign sources of energy.

Leaving Americans in the Dark

Behind closed doors, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.)

and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) are piecing

together an energy bill that they plan to unfold sometime in

December. In addition to violating procedural rules they

promised to uphold, this secretive process prevents both

Republicans and Democrats from heading off offensive

provisions that would otherwise receive public scrutiny. It

appears it is not just the majority's energy plan, but also

the process that leaves Americans in the dark.

The mad scientists behind those locked doors are using the

remains of two considerably flawed energy bills that came one

each from the House and from the Senate. Every objective

analysis of both bills concludes they will hurt the U.S.

economy. A recent study conducted by a highly respected

nonpartisan business consulting firm estimated that by 2030,

the House and Senate energy bills will cause the loss of five

million American jobs, a 4% reduction in gross domestic

product annually (more than $1 trillion) and an estimated

loss of $1,788 in spending power for the average household

each year.

Bureaucratic Hurdles

The House bill, in particular, is designed to increase

bureaucratic hurdles to domestic energy production from oil,

natural gas, wind, solar and biomass and punish American

energy companies for being in the business of making energy.

Here are just a few of the worst examples of how Democrats

would make energy more

expensive and less available to Americans. Their plan:

Cuts off nine trillion cubic feet in natural gas from the

Colorado Roan Plateau. This is enough clean-burning natural

gas to heat four million homes for 20 years.

Cuts off two trillion barrels of oil from oil shale

resources. This is twice the total proven oil reserves

available in the world.

Dramatically expands the environmental study requirements

on existing oil- and gas-drilling pads. This provision alone

is expected to reduce or delay our onshore natural-gas supply

by approximately 18%.

Breaches legitimate legal offshore energy contracts between

companies and the U.S. government in much the same way as

Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin.

Cuts off 10 billion barrels of oil from the National

Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, as though derailing production

of 10 billion barrels from the Artic National Wildlife Refuge

weren't enough.

Cuts off government agencies' communication for oil- and

gas-permitting activities as they do under current energy

law.

Raises the tax on American-made oil and refined products by

as much as 9%. This tax will simply be passed on to

consumers.

Dangerous Reliance on Foreign Sources

Since their plan will make domestic energy harder and more

expensive to produce, the majority's energy future creates a

dangerous reliance on foreign energy sources. They have

repeatedly prevented the use of energy resources in ANWR and

the Outer Continental Shelf and locked up a large portion of

our public lands that are rich in energy. Without access to

domestic sources, we will become increasingly reliant on

energy from ruthless dictators such as Hugo Chavez or from

highly volatile regions of the world like the Middle East.

This is not a good time to be experimenting with San

Francisco-style energy policies. Our fastest-growing

competitors for energy around the world are China and India,

who are expected to surpass the United States in economic

output within two decades. Both countries vaulted past

America at the beginning of this year as an exporter and have

since moved at lightning speed to eclipse Germany's once

insurmountable export machine. While China and India are

using every type of energy they can get their hands on, our

leadership in Congress is trying to severely limit our energy

options.

America needs energy to survive. If we have the means to

ensure that survival, we shouldn't lock it up and throw away

the key.

Mr. Speaker, now we should talk about the components of the bill that is suggested. Again, keep in mind that we are here talking about the future of the Nation. We are talking about the philosophical underpinning of where we are going in this country with our jobs, with our economy, with our future. This bill is at the basis, because the American economy is driven by affordable, cheap energy.

And what are we to say about the bill? We are having to speculate. We are told that it's coming up this week, either today or tomorrow. It's obvious that it's not coming up today. So one would say that it must come up tomorrow because we had that promise from the Speaker of the House. And yet we don't have the text of the bill that is dealing with our future as a Nation, our ability to make and create jobs, and we know nothing tonight so that we can not really talk in anything but speculative terms. But we feel fairly certain on those speculative terms because we have had leaks from behind those closed doors where this process is going on.

What are we to believe might be in that bill? First of all, there is going to be the renewable fuel standard, the RFS, renewable fuel standard, which says that we need to produce a certain amount of our energy, our gasoline, from ethanol. That is a worthy and acceptable thing if it's possible and if it doesn't stop us from implementing the Healthy Forests Act.

The second thing that is in the bill that we feel pretty certain about is that there will be some renewable portfolio. That is, we are suggesting that companies should produce electricity using renewable fuels. The only problem is that the suggestion up to now has been that they should produce 15 percent. Now, there's a delicate problem there because we have not yet seen the capability to produce from renewable fuels 15 percent. Again, one has to wonder about the penalty. Every major utility is against this provision because they know they cannot comply.

Every single one of us wishes that we were independent of Saudi Arabian oil and Hugo Chavez oil. But the truth is we are not. We made the wrong decisions 30 years ago, and the wrong decisions are causing us the problems that we have today. We did not make incentives in renewables 30 years ago. We made it harder to invest in nuclear power 30 years ago. Today, we are making it harder to invest in coal. We are requiring the conversion to natural gas, and that conversion to natural gas is pushing the price of natural gas up, which is causing Dow Chemical to say we are taking our jobs to where the price of gas is 75 cents, not over $8. It is a very simple process that we are engaged in.

So the bill, we think, is going to have a renewable fuel standard. It's going to have a renewable fuel standard that says we cannot take woody fibers out of our national forests, even when they are burning down, even when the trees are dead, even when they are at threat of burning down. There's going to be a renewable portfolio standard which says that you have to produce more energy than what is technically feasible right now in this country from renewable sources.

The next thing actually appears to be a good consensus from the auto industry on the CAFE standards. If the automakers say that we can hold American jobs and we can produce to those standards, again, we have not seen the exact standards, but if the automakers say we can keep American jobs, then that's one of the key pieces of the debate.

There is another thing in this energy bill that we are supposed to bring up tomorrow but yet haven't seen. But there is a component that we are assured is going to be there. That is $21 billion in taxes on American companies, $21 billion, and the truth is taxes are not paid by companies, taxes are passed along by companies. So that is $21 billion that is going to come out of the taxpayers' pocket. Every time you fill up with gas, $21 billion is going to come from the producer or from the taxpayer. It's going to the government and it's going to lower the capability for us to balance our personal budgets. So $21 billion in taxes in this bill that will be borne by consumers.

Now, the sad thing, and this is where you really must understand that there are elements of this tax provision that include a rollback of the section 199 manufacturers' deduction. That was a deduction that was passed in Congress back in 2004. It included oil and gas, but it was specifically there to encourage increased domestic production activities. We wanted to assure American jobs and we wanted to assure that American jobs were competitive with overseas countries, so we had a rollback in the 199 taxes. I'm sorry; we established the section 199 manufacturers' deduction but the bill that is coming before us, it has leaked out that it has a rollback in those incentives for producers.

Now, the difficult thing is that the rollback hits only the top five producers. It hits BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. Now if you are listening like I am reading, you're wondering who got left out of the list. Who's not going to see a tax increase? Citgo.

Now Citgo is owned by Hugo Chavez. I do not know if it is by design, but I can say that according to the information that is out right now, there is going to be a rollback in deduction for the top five companies so that they pay more taxes, and we are not charging Hugo Chavez any more tax. One has to wonder about the value system that says don't charge Hugo Chavez tax but do charge Exxon, do charge ConocoPhillips, do charge Chevron/Texaco, do charge Shell and BP.

Now, what you have been led to believe, if you listen to the people on the left, they want you to believe that ExxonMobil is an evil entity; that they by themselves are driving the price of oil up that they might profit. When we look at a world assessment of size of companies, we realize the falseness of that argument.

Let's look at this chart which begins to look at countries and companies. Many countries own their oil companies. Saudi Arabia by far has the largest oil company, you can see. It has about 10.3 million barrels per day. You go to Iran. It has a very large oil company. The Iraqi National Oil Company is actually quite large. Qatar, Kuwait, Venezuela, ADNOC, Nigeria. You notice we are not even yet to ExxonMobil.

And yet Hillary Clinton says, I am going to take ExxonMobil's profits and spend them. Nancy Pelosi has said the same thing, We are going to take

ExxonMobil profits and spend them. We haven't taken yet any profits from any of these companies, and they dwarf, they dwarf ExxonMobil. We go all the way down to this far on the chart before we find the first privately owned company, ExxonMobil.

ExxonMobil is owned privately by you, the shareholders, the stockholders. You can buy it every day. ExxonMobil is going to be charged taxes. It's going to make them less competitive worldwide. We are going to do away with more jobs so that these companies, these state-owned companies might have an easier time to take our jobs. I wonder at the thought process that went into that. I wonder what compelled policymakers here, the Speaker of the House to say we are going to tax American consumers, we are going to tax American companies, and we are going to let Hugo Chavez, we are going to let Nigeria, we are going to let Kuwait, Saudi Arabia go.

We also have other considerations. In the bills that we have passed, the bills that we have passed out of this Congress so far about energy, we have done kind of sort of a tricky thing. There is much discussion about Enron. That was the large power company that became synonymous with tricky dealings, double dealings.

What did they do? One of the things they did in defrauding the consumer, one of the things they did in defrauding the shareholders is that they did things called round-trip sales. If they needed their balance sheet to look better on a certain day, they would maybe buy or sell a lot of energy, maybe a specified amount of energy, and then they would simply buy it back, sell it to their own selves in a different company, and buy it and sell it, buy it and sell it, round trip, so that nobody was actually giving them money, but it looked like money coming in, and no one could ever see their balance sheet to see that they were actually paying out the money to themselves. It was coming in. The sales looked really good until some day you simply have to have the cash in hand. Those round-trip sales became synonymous with Enron and their double dealing.

But let's look at what this Congress, the new majority, who said they are going to do things in such an ethical fashion, let's look at what they have done. They have used the same taxes on offshore oil and gas in the gulf coast, the gulf region. They used those as on offset because we in Congress say we can't spend money without providing for it; the PAYGO provision. So they use those same taxes in H.R. 6, and, by the way, I am calling these the Enron tax provisions because they are kind of like those Enron round-trip sales, those ways of stating things so you have to check both sides of the ledger before you understand, but there's really not anything there.

So our friends on the other side of the aisle used those offshore taxes, those 1998/1999 leases to offset, to be the PAYGO in H.R. 6. They used it in H.R. 2419. H.R. 6 we passed back on January 18. H.R. 2419, we passed July 27. They used them again on August 4 in H.R. 3221. And they used them again in H.R. 3058, which still has only passed committee but yet has not passed the floor.

When we as policymakers begin to do round-trip sales, it's no wonder that we have the reputation that only 9 or 10 percent of the American public really trusts what we are doing. We are doing things that do not make sense for our economy. We are doing things that are creating a false illusion about our potential to pay for things that we are saying we are going to do. We are watching our jobs leave and go away, all because we in this country need affordable energy, and yet we are doing things that hurt the chances of providing affordable energy.

Again, the point that we object to in this coming bill, the energy bill we are talking about this week, are the renewable fuel standards that are not achievable and keep us from implementing the healthy forest initiative so that we don't burn down our forests. It's objectionable that a renewable portfolio standard is being set that we cannot reach. It's objectionable that we are raising taxes by $21 billion to American consumers. It's objectionable that we are using a tax that is going to be punitive to American companies but will not tax foreign oil companies, will not tax Hugo Chavez. At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves exactly why. Why is it that this majority is taking these stances that harm Americans so much? I don't know an answer to that.

I would like to submit for the Record a summary of the report, the Charles River report. In that, Charles River is suggesting that we are going to lose jobs, almost $5 million from the energy policies that are being suggested right now by this Congress. We are going to lose 5 million jobs. The average American household's purchasing power could drop by $1,700 by 2030. Aggregate business investment in the U.S. could drop by as much as $220 billion by 2030. Our gross domestic product could decline by more than $1 trillion by 2030. The costs of petroleum products could more than double by 2030. If you take a look at that report, you will see the damaging effects to your future, your children's future, and your grandchildren's future. The Charles River report is nationally respected and says: Please, please reconsider what you're doing in Congress, what the majority is doing in Congress right now to affect energy prices in the wrong way. We need lower costs of gasoline at the pump, lower costs of heating oil. We need policies which will implement those, not drive them up. We need them to be driven lower.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time that you have yielded me tonight. I thank my friends from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy). This is a very important consideration that we are talking about tonight.

The Economic Impacts of Proposed Energy Legislation, Charles River

Associates International, November 2007

A report by a respected economic analysis firm examines the

economic impacts of seven major energy legislative provisions

being considered by Congress. If adopted, these provisions

would mandate that American families and businesses replace

proven energy sources such as oil and natural gas with

unproven high cost sources, likely leading to higher energy

costs. The study reveals the following:

Almost 5 million jobs could be lost by the year 2030. The

impact would likely be felt even sooner, with an estimate of

more than 2 million jobs lost by the year 2020, and about 3.4

million jobs lost by the year 2025. These estimates take into

account jobs that would be created by the nearly five-fold

expansion of the biofuels mandate.

The average American household's purchasing power could

drop by about $1,700 by 2030. Higher energy and non-energy

costs estimated in the study would likely mean that consumers

must spend a larger percentage of their income to maintain

their current level of consumption. This could force

Americans to make lifestyle changes, as significant

quantities of energy would be needed to produce and transport

many goods and services.

Aggregate business investment in the U.S. could drop by as

much as $220 billion by 2030. Higher energy costs place

upward pressure on manufacturing costs, and businesses have

less capital to absorb the impact. As household and business

consumption fall, demand for goods and services weakens.

Our national GDP could decline by more than $1 trillion by

2030, relative to the baseline. This estimated 4 percent

decline in GDP would be the result of energy supplies

declining and energy sources becoming more expensive. The

economy as a whole likely would suffer, but the impact would

resonate strongest in the following sectors: commercial

transportation, electric generation, motor vehicles, and

manufactured goods.

Costs of petroleum products could more than double by 2030.

The impact would likely be felt sooner, with a roughly 44

percent cost increase by 2020. In addition to refined fuels

and home heating oil, this would likely impact the many

products that have oil or natural gas components, including

toothpaste, cell phones, infant seats, and pacemakers.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007.

Every year, over half a million people are sold into slavery and transported across international borders worldwide. Of those, more than 15,000 are brought into the United States. These individuals are sold into horrible living conditions which most often include forced labor and sexual slavery for many young girls and women.

The inhumane practice of involuntary servitude and sexual slavery must be stopped in the United States and victims should have proper protection from their captors. This deplorable treatment of human beings is intolerable. The idea of forced slavery is one which most Americans would find repugnant but unfortunately, it is all too often a reality.

Congressional action on this matter is woefully deficient. We must recognize the importance of stopping, monitoring, and capturing individuals as they illegally enter the United States. Fighting human trafficking at the borders would limit the trade of sex slaves in America as well as combat terror, crime and drugs to preserve American safety and quality of life.

Recent news reports have stated that Al Qaeda has been using our vast and poorly defended Southwestern borders to smuggle enemy combatants into the U.S.

Congress must find a way to stop smuggling of human beings across our borders. We must find a way to stop involuntary servitude and sexual slavery worldwide and we must find a way to help all people understand that America is the beacon of light and freedom that we all know it to be. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 3887) will help us stop this terrible trade, give victims the ability to be free and face their accusers, and help America shine our light around the world.

Madam Speaker. I rise today to welcome a brave American soldier home to New Mexico. SSgt. Scott Lilley is returning to his family in Roswell, NM, after spending 7 months recovering from a serious wound in battle which left shrapnel lodged in his brain.

Staff Sergeant Lilley served his country bravely for 6 months before he was injured when his convoy in Iraq was attacked by small arms fire on April 15, 2007. In the face of enemy fire, he displayed the utmost courage while defending his fellow soldiers. Despite suffering a life threatening wound, Staff Sergeant Lilley continues to be an example of bravery and strength in his recovery.

Over the course of his career the medals and awards collected by Staff Sergeant Lilley included: The Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, Air Force Combat Action Medal, Meritorious Unit Award, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, Air Force Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.

Staff Sergeant Lilley was treated by military doctors and transported to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany, where he received further medical treatment. Now, 7 months after what could have been a fatal injury, Staff Sergeant Lilley has returned home to be with his family and continue the healing process. Welcome home Scott and God bless you and your family.

Madam Speaker, I submit the two letters I referred to in my 1 minute this morning.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, October 4, 2007.

Office of the Senate Majority Leader,

U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader Reid: We write today to ask you to

keep the Senate in session the week of October 8, to help

pass this years' veterans appropriations. Now that we are

already into the new fiscal year, it is imperative that the

House and Senate reach a prompt agreement on the conference

report on the FY2008 Military Construction and Veterans

Affairs Appropriations Act (H.R. 2642).

It is unfortunate the Senate has been unable to act upon

many of its Constitutionally mandated appropriations bills.

While the House continues to wait upon the Senate to complete

its work, we call upon you to quickly move veterans

appropriations through conference so a final version of the

bill may be passed and presented to the President. We believe

that veterans issues rise above the partisan divisions of

Washington which is evident by the passage of the FY08

MilCon-Veterans appropriations with overwhelming majorities

in both Houses, 501-3 combined.

The Senate cannot allow this critically important funding

to continue to fall victim to the usual partisan wrangling

which occurs all too often in Washington. If tragedies such

as the recent revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center

are to be diverted in the future, we must pass veterans

funding now. From FY 2001 the total VA budget rose from $48

billion to approximately $70 billion in FY 2006, a 46 percent

increase. This year, the House voted to increase funding by

$6 billion dollars over FY07, one of the largest in the 77

year history of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Because

we have asked so much of or brave men and women in uniform

during the War on Terror we must uphold our commitment to

veterans upon their return home.

Earlier in the year, the new Majority agreed they would

continue the trend of significant increases in veterans

funding begun by the Republican Congress. We ask you to honor

that agreement and see the commitment we made to our veterans

is upheld.

We must never forget the sacrifice of our veterans. As

members of Congress, we have a solemn obligation to fulfill

our promises to them. We ask you to look past the heightened

partisanship of our times and unite us on this issue by

making it a first priority to bring a stand-alone veterans

appropriations bill through conference so the Congress may

present the President with a bill no later than October 12,

2007.

Sincerely,

Steve Pearce, Tim Walberg, Jean Schmidt, Darrell Issa,

Jim Saxton, Don Young, Scott Garrett, Jeff Miller,

Trent Franks, Duncan Hunter, Jo Ann Davis, Pete

Sessions.

Phil Gingrey, Phil English, Thelma Drake, Jeb Hensarling,

Ginny Brown-Waite, Peter Roskam, Vito Fossella, Lincoln

Diaz-Balart, John Carter, Dan Burton, K. Michael

Conaway, John Kuhl.

Tom Feeney, Tom Price, James Sensenbrenner, Gus

Bilirakis, Wally Herger, Doug Lamborn, Greg Walden,

Gary Miller, Michele Bachmann, John Kline, Tom

Tancredo, Geoff Davis.

Adrian Smith, Paul Ryan, John Doolittle, John Peterson,

Rick Renzi, Mark Souder, Louie Gohmert, Michael McCaul,

Randy Neugebauer, Wayne Gilchrest, Jim Gerlach.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, September 17, 2007.

Office of the Speaker,

U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Madam Speaker: We write to urge you in the strongest

possible terms to reach a prompt agreement on the conference

report on the FY2008 Military Construction and Veterans

Affairs Appropriations Act (H.R. 2642). Few issues are more

important than adequate funding for our nation's veterans.

The leadership in the House cannot allow this critically

important funding to fall victim to the usual partisan

wrangling which occurs all too often in Washington.

Veterans should not be used as tools for political

bargaining and gamesmanship. Both the House and Senate passed

the FY08 MilCon-Veterans appropriations with overwhelming

majorities because our commitment to veterans rises above

partisan squabbling. Tragedies such as the recent revelations

at Walter Reed Army Medical Center must never be repeated.

The findings of insufficient care at Walter Reed and other

facilities should be seen by Congress as a mandate to finish

the work and live up to the promises we have made to our

veterans.

After decades of flat funding, total VA budget rose from

$48 billion in FY 2001 to approximately $70 billion in FY

2006, a 46 percent increase. This year, the House voted to

increase funding by $6 billion dollars over FY07, one of the

largest in the 77 year history of the Department of Veterans

Affairs. Both the Senate and House versions received

overwhelming majority support passing by a vote of 409-2 in

the House and 92-1 in the Senate.

Earlier in the year, the new Majority agreed they would

continue the trend of significant increases in veterans

funding begun by the Republican Congress. We ask you to honor

that agreement and see that the commitment we made to our

veterans is honored.

We must never forget the sacrifice of our veterans. As

members of Congress, we have a solemn obligation to fulfill

our promises to them. We ask for you to look past the

heightened partisanship of our times and unite us on this

issue by making it a first priority to quickly bring a stand

alone Veterans appropriations bill through conference so the

Congress may present the President with a bill by October 1,

2007.

We stand ready to assist you in reaching this goal.

Sincerely,

Steve Pearce, Gus Bilirakis, Thelma Drake, Pete Sessions,

Louie Gohmert, Jean Schmidt, Jim Saxton, Dana

Rohrabacher, Mario Diaz-Balart, Sue Myrick, Tom Feeney.

Jon Porter, Rick Renzi, Marilyn Musgrave, Michael

Burgess, Michael Conaway, Mark Souder, Tim Walberg,

Steve King, Ron Lewis, Jeff Miller, Tom Tancredo.

Steve Buyer, Peter Roskam, John Mica, John Kline, Paul

Ryan, Greg Walden, Tom Price, Mary Fallin, Randy

Forbes, Mary Bono, Spencer Bachus.

Dean Heller, Barbara Cubin, John Shimkus, Jim Gerlach,

Jeb Hensarling, Geoff Davis, Scott Garrett, Adrian

Smith, Mike Ferguson, Don Young, Ginny Brown-Waite.

Madam Speaker, 40 years ago I won the lottery. That was the draft lottery and I was able to serve in Vietnam because I did win that. An entire generation of young men and women did the same; yet today the majority is playing games with our veterans, who sacrificed so much back then.

Today marks the 37th day past the fiscal year that Congress has failed to pass veterans funding. We are losing $18.5 million a day.

I hold two copies that I will insert into the Record. These letters were signed by 89 Members and asked the Speaker and majority leader in the Senate to put aside partisan gamesmanship and bring a stand-alone veterans bill to the floor. Since I wrote these letters, weeks have passed, a fiscal year has run out, and our veterans are still waiting on us to finalize a bill to provide the funding for their benefit.

Madam Speaker, it is time for us to do our job. Let's fulfill the promises we made to our veterans. Let's remember those who have served honorably, and let's treat them honorably.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the many people who have come to the floor tonight to talk about National Bible Week.

My earliest memories are of Mom reading the Bible to us six children. We grew up basically in the oil field, in the very low income strata of the oil field. My dad was a roustabout. My parents gave us those values of faith, family and freedom from the earliest age. And when my wife observes the truism that she read recently of the hand that rocks the cradle steadies the Nation, it applies in my particular life.

I've been a Christian from an early age, and so it was about 10 years ago that my wife observed that, you know, we profess to be Christians but we don't necessarily read the Bible every day, we don't have a discipline, and we began at that point to do that.

Now, my daughter says it best, that what we find written in the words in the Bible give context. They give us a way to perceive. It's a perception that we gain.

I would like to share a couple of things that stay with me constantly. One is in Micah, Micah, the sixth chapter, where the question comes up rhetorically, when we have done wrong, what should we do? And the writer asks: With what shall I come before the Lord and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with 10,000 rivers of oil? Shall I offer my first born for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? And then we get the answer from the writer.

He has showed you a man that is good and what does the Lord require of you? To act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

This kind of a verse calms me down when things are urgent, when things are chaotic, and when I'm out of step.

Another significant verse is in Psalms 11. When, again, we have fears, the Psalms 11 addresses that. It's actually written by David, and he asks: How can you say to me flee like a bird to your mountain, for, look, the wicked bend their bows. They set their arrows against the strings to shoot from the shadows at the upright and heart.

And the significant question then comes: When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?

The answer is given almost immediately: The Lord is in his holy temple, for the Lord is righteous, he loves justice. Upright men will see his face.

Again, we are not so consumed by the fears of the moment, by the perils of the circumstance.

We have a bipartisan group; it's called the Congressional Prayer Caucus. I was one of the people who helped found that group. We meet every Monday night in the context that we meet under to pray for the Nation comes from Second Chronicles 7:14: If my people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will I forgive their sin and will heal their land.

Now, these words are spoken to those people who believe. It's not necessarily an instruction to those who don't share the belief, but simply a truism.

Today one of the deepest pleasures that I get is doing the same thing Mom did with me. I see my two grandchildren, Preston and Olivia, and were able to read the Bible with them in the mornings. They both are intent, listening, one 6, one 3. My daughter trains them daily. Again, I am remembering, the hand that rocks the cradle steadies the Nation.

I give thanks for those people who are dedicated to a belief system. I appreciate my belief system. I know there are others that other people rely on. But, for me, this Christian belief, this belief in Jesus Christ has been what has saved me.

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

I thank the chairman for his work on this bill and rise in opposition against that bill. There are no Third World countries. There are simply overregulated countries; there are overregulated economies. The debate that Members of this House are about to engage in will be passionate because the positions that we are fighting over are polarizing.

Mr. Chairman, it did not have to be this way. We all agree on the same principles, hardrock mining on Federal land should pay a royalty, should continue to operate in the most environmentally responsible manner in the world, and protect the health and financial security of the miners who bring the world's minerals to the surface.

As I mentioned earlier, if given a fair hearing, we would have agreed on these goals. Instead, right now at this moment the stock market is plunging in this country because of the rising energy prices. Oil hit $94. Our stock market is reacting. The price of our dollar has fallen. We are doing things in this body that will punish domestic jobs and domestic industries. They will not touch the mining industry outside of this country. Outside countries will have better access to our markets because of the things that are occurring in this legislation.

So, yes, we are passionate about our position, and, no, we do not listen to the arguments, no matter how well-conceived from the other side, because they are simply arguments; they are not truths. We are here to fight against a bill brought forth by the chairman which will send some of the highest paying jobs in the West overseas by making mining in the U.S. uneconomic.

Members from western States, like mine, will fight fiercely to keep these jobs because the West cannot survive off tourism alone.

I have a chart here that shows the relative wages in the mining industry. We have had hearings about the evolving West and what they hope the West looks like, but we in the West want these good, high- paying union jobs that exist now in the mines. The jobs in tourism do not pay nearly as much. That is what we are fighting for today.

By making mining in the U.S. uneconomic, the chairman's bill will give competitive advantage to countries like China and India. We Members who like the U.S. being number one and who don't like the current value of the dollar are fighting against that. I favor American exceptionalism.

By making mining in the U.S. uneconomic, the chairman's bill will compromise the readiness of our military because the military will have to further import the strategic minerals and materials it needs from hostile nations. It would be a sick twist of fate if the U.S. had to start importing uranium from Iran.

In order to defend the bill against job loss, the economic security and military security, you are going to hear some rhetoric that simply amounts to whoppers, the whoppers about the 1872 mining law on the House floor today, and I think it is important to set the record straight.

First, you will hear the law was passed in 1872, and at 135 years old it needs modernizing. I wonder where the chairman is when it comes time to modernize Yellowstone National Park, which was also created in that same year. But I will tell you that the chairman would be the first to argue against any changes in the acts that created our national parks, and Yellowstone in particular. Maybe the leaders back then believed that we needed to protect areas, but we also needed to use some of our lands to supply the materials for a growing Nation, because they understood we needed those materials. Maybe our politicians of today do not care if America's economy grows or not.

Secondly, you will hear that the law allows public lands to be purchased for $2.50 an acre, the ``price of a snack,'' I think were the words that were used. And yet I do not see any of our people in this Chamber or across the Nation standing up to say let me have some of that land for $2.50 an acre. Because the truth is that you have to mine that land to get it for $2.50 an acre. Maybe it is just not that easy to prove up on the mineral assets, on the mineral claims, as the chairman caused us to believe here.

Third, you will hear that energy companies pay 12 percent or more in royalties for coal, oil and gas on Federal lands; mineral mining companies don't.

Now, that seems fair, doesn't it? But you have to understand that many of our energy companies also tried to buy mining claims and tried to do mining, and they gave up on it because they simply could not do it. They did not have the economics right. They didn't understand how to do it. And no more than you and I can buy a claim for $2.50 and make a mining claim work, even our biggest oil companies could not do it. And these are the kinds of misinformation points that we are asked to believe today on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I tell you, please, my friends, do not believe it, because we are about to export these jobs, these good high-paying jobs. We are going to export jobs.

Fourth, you are going to hear that the Mining Law needs modern environmental laws. The mining industry today is well regulated. The mining industry itself, the BLM, the regulatory agencies used to have mines that looked like this top chart; and this mine under current law, under current environmental regulations, has now looked like this. We had testimony to this in our committee, but the majority just decided that they didn't need to listen to what is going on already. They wanted to create new overlapping legislation.

Currently, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and all other Federal regulations apply to the mining industry. But you would believe, if you heard our friends on the other side of the aisle, that we are simply out here digging holes in the ground and we are polluting the streams with no oversight. It is just not true.

So, my friends, as we engage in this argument, listen to the passion from the West, because you will know that our jobs are at stake, our livelihoods are at stake. There are people who want to make the West simply the vacation ground for the rest of the country. And I am saying from the West, we just want jobs, good jobs. We want not only jobs, but careers for our families. We want careers for our kids. And the legislation today here is designed to take away the careers from the West.

Look at it very carefully, because today the stock market is plunging amid fears of high energy prices and unavailable access, no access to drilling lands to increase the supply; and our dollar is falling because the world believes that we are going to give away our economy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, my good friend from California said we want to get the facts right; and if I heard him correctly, he said this bill is a work in progress. Now, we've had 135 years, according to him, to work on this bill, and we're going to rush it while it is still in progress. I really don't understand why we're going to take such a serious step as risking all the jobs in mines with work in progress. I think those were the words used and the facts used.

The truth is we have a severe difference of opinion. I will quote from the chairman of the committee: No reason, no reason whatsoever why good public land law should be linked to the gross national product. That was in our markup hearing, and yet I would submit that energy production, timber production, water production, mineral production, they all affect the gross domestic product, and they are public land law.

So I really just believe that we have a complete disconnect in the committee between the majority and minority.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman again, the gentleman from California said let's talk about the facts. He said we do not have rare Earth. We do have rare Earth minerals; we don't have rare Earth mines. Those were shut down by the EPA due to lawsuits. U.S. companies developed the uses for rare Earths, and now we import them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali) who has done great work on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would recognize the comments by the gentleman from West Virginia earlier about the administration, and I appreciate his praise.

Although I don't always agree with the administration, I would say that the same administration he was praising has issued a veto threat because there is a constitutional abridgement that's possible in this bill, a takings violation, from the royalty structure. That would be a violation of the fifth amendment of the Constitution.

I believe that this work in progress should be sent back to the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller) who has done great work on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, in order to, again, stick with facts that I think one of my colleagues mentioned we should, I would note that when we just heard the comment that no fees or dollars were taken from the mining industry, actually, $55 million was paid in claim maintenance fees.

But if we are to have this discussion about what effect this royalty is going to have, I think we should look at other circumstances. Again, these facts were presented in committee, in the committee hearings, but, somehow they did not get integrated into the bill, the knowledge, and again, it's the reason that we are passionate here on the floor about our points of view.

We had testimony from British Columbia that instituted a 2.5 percent royalty. Now we are looking at an 8 percent, almost three times as much.

Now, if, as our opponents claim, there is no effect, that we can expect nothing, then you would think nothing happened in British Columbia. Yet, after they instituted, in 1 year, 1 year, revenues from the mines didn't increase because of this royalty; it decreased from 28 to 15, almost a 50 percent decrease.

Exploration, likewise, fell dramatically from 38 to 15, far more than a 50 percent drop. That was in 1 year. The tax was repealed the next year because they found out exactly what we are claiming, that jobs were lost, 6,000 jobs were lost in 1 year. In 1972, the number of claims fell by 85 percent.

So when our opponents say there is not going to be any effect here, it's only right, we are asking them to pay the same amount that you pay for a snack at the grocery store. British Columbia did one-third of the tax that we are proposing. British Columbia found that they had to undo the tax because it was so destructive to the industry.

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

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, again, just sticking with the facts, we had one of my colleagues talk about fluorspar, that's what's used to make toothpaste, as if there were no strategic minerals; yet when I look at the list of imported minerals, I see that we import 72 percent of titanium, which is used in jet aircraft, fighter jet aircraft, 72 percent.

I think when we are discussing these facts, we should be talking about the critical facts, as I am sure that the gentleman was correct that we do import fluorspar, and it probably is used on toothpaste, but we probably should be talking about the domestic security, about the security of our Nation, about the willingness of our industry and the capability of our industry to provide the instruments to defend this country.

We are at a time when terrorists are trying to overcome us, al Qaeda, radical jihad. The terrorists are trying every way they can, and we are going to put the source of critical minerals that are necessary for our Nation's offense outside the Nation's borders. It simply doesn't make sense. It actually does feel like a work in progress. It feels like we should have done more.

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

I have no additional speakers. I will close if the gentleman is ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, when I look on the walls of this Chamber, I see the quote by Daniel Webster up above the Speaker's chair, and it says: ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered.''

Worthy to be remembered. I think our Founding Fathers had it right. They visualized a nation of tremendous promise, where the wealth of the Nation and the protection of the Nation would come together in the production of its resources and in the taking care of its land.

I don't find it unusual at all that the same generation protected Yellowstone and yet gave us the capability to create these mines, which take billions of dollars to promote and to produce. I don't find that unusual at all.

But what I do find unusual is that our friends on the other side of the aisle are not listening to their own testimony coming in their own hearings. We heard testimony from both Democrat and Republican witnesses alike saying 8 percent royalties are unprecedented. They are damaging, destructive, they will hurt. Those are the things that we heard in the committee.

I would suggest that we send this work in progress back to the committee and finish our work before we try to change 135-year-old policy.

Mr. Chairman, I include a letter for the Record from Governor Palin of Alaska, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and others, all in opposition to the legislation proposed here.

Department of Natural Resources,

Anchorage, AK, September 28, 2007.

Hon. Nick Rahall,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rahall: The State of Alaska has completed a

review of H.R. 2262,

the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007. I attach the

resulting position paper for your consideration.

While we acknowledge the need to revise some of the same

federal laws that H.R. 2262 modifies, we believe the

legislation would unjustifiably harm the domestic mining

industry, and the Alaska mining industry in particular.

Our state produced almost $3 billion of minerals last year,

four percent of the nation's total. We can continue and even

expand this contribution indefinitely, but not without

predictable access, on reasonable fiscal terms, to the

federal domain in Alaska.

Your legislation, H.R. 2262, would create several obstacles

to such access and terms. Specifically:

Prohibiting mining exploration and development on lands

identified in the 2001 Forest Service ``roadless rule'' and

in other ``special areas'' would place millions of acres off

limits. These prohibitions are far too broad, particularly in

Alaska where the federal government owns so much land, yet

already offers so little of it to mineral exploration.

A flat royalty on gross revenues will cause unnecessary

mine shutdowns and job losses during periods of low prices.

The government should adopt a flexible royalty that adjusts

for high and low returns.

The proposed new permitting system would unnecessarily

duplicate existing laws while also creating great uncertainty

and thus great risk for mineral exploration and development.

We believe it could end exploration and mining on federal

lands.

Thank you for considering these views and the attached

position paper as Congress works to reform the nation's

mining laws.

Sincerely,

Tom Irwin,

Commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment and would yield back our time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is actually quite simple. It deletes the new definition for ``undue degradation.''

H.R. 2262 changes the current standard contained in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act from unnecessary and undue degradation to just undue degradation, which is defined to mean ``irreparable harm to significant, cultural or environmental resources on public lands that cannot be effectively managed.''

The new definition is dramatically different from the existing regulatory definition of unnecessary and undue. Under current law, unnecessary and undue degradation means impacts greater than those that would normally be expected from an activity being accomplished in compliance with current standards and regulations based on sound practices, including use of the best reasonable and available technology.

The definition now in this H.R. 2262 reinstates a Clinton-era change to regulations governing hardrock mining on Federal lands that was rescinded in 2001 after a very open, public review of the Clinton regulatory scheme.

The Clinton-era definition for undue degradation was specifically rejected. It was rejected by the Bureau of Land Management Environmental Impact Statement that reviewed the Clinton regulations and declared it to be too vague and too subjective. The BLM EIS process included scoping for the EIS, which included a formal 81-day comment period and 19 public meetings in 12 cities; placing the proposed regulations, draft EIS and related documents on BLM's Internet Web site; and finally, two public comment periods for the EIS, including 29 public hearings in 16 cities.

After this very thorough process, the BLM found that this definition was, essentially, an opportunity for the Secretary of the Interior to deny a mining company an operating permit, even though the proposed mining operation

would be in full compliance with Federal and State laws govern hardrock mining. This is what some people refer to as the ``mine veto.''

The BLM found that the requirement to avoid irreparable harm to significant resources values which cannot be effectively mitigated has the greatest potential for affecting mining activities, both large and small. In some cases this provision could preclude operations altogether.

The Clinton-era regulations were spearheaded by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and Solicitor John Leshy. During the Elko, Nevada, field hearings this past summer, majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, made the following statements regarding the outcome of the changes to the regulation: ``Bruce Babbitt is a friend of mine. But for the mining he was awful.'' That's what Harry Reid said this year. It was in one of the hearings that we've referred to today.

``He had people there that--John Leshy . . . He tried to destroy mining. Really . . . he didn't believe in it. He wanted it gone. And that created uncertainty.''

This new definition for ``undue regulation'' is a lawyer's dream creating ambiguity fighting about whether we mine instead of how we mine. We don't need more litigation; we need more common sense.

This definition brings so much uncertainty to the regulatory process that we will see a further decline in investments and the exploration and development of our domestic mineral resources. And there is a potential when mines that are in production today transition into the new system outlined in title III or are in the permitting process to expand their operations that those operations could be denied a license to operate, leaving billions of dollars of infrastructure idle.

I can guarantee you that the coal industry, which has played such an important role in the economic well-being of the chairman's district, would not be able to operate under this definition.

This definition alone will drive more companies offshore, making us more dependent on foreign sources of mineral resources and adversely impacting the economic vitality of mining-dependent communities in the West, like Silver City, New Mexico.

Keep in mind that the mining industry pays the highest nonsupervisory wages in the country. It provides benefits including health care, retirement programs, college scholarships, and assistance for employees and their families. Tourism and recreation jobs cannot compete with these high-paying family-wage jobs.

I would urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, keeping the current standard, protecting American jobs and access to domestic mineral resources.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.

Again, speaking today, we are wondering if the bill that we are talking about has an effect in all districts. And I would say we have a chart here which shows that rising commodity prices are driving people to stealing copper, stealing our minerals, and it is occurring in many of the districts, including the gentlewoman's district in California, where there has been a prosecution. And we have got 80 of these. We have a chart, but I won't show that.

The concept of cleaning up abandoned mine lands is one that we are deeply encouraged by and associate ourselves with, and especially as it affects watersheds. Nowhere are watersheds more important than in the West, and especially New Mexico, because so little water exists throughout the West. Anything we can do to clean up watersheds in general, but, again, the abandoned mine lands is something that we are very supportive of from this side. It relates back to the comments that we have made in our opening statement that I don't think that on the core issues that we are very far apart at all, that we could have gotten where we all would agree with the bill. So we would accept the amendment and congratulate the gentlewoman for her work on this in abandoned mine lands and watersheds in general.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start talking about first what this amendment is not. First of all, it is not a cost increase. CBO has said there will be no cost associated with it. Also, it is not an effort to reestablish the Bureau of Mines at the Department of the Interior. Congress abolished the Bureau of Mines before I came to Congress; but a key component of that agency, the Minerals Information Team, was entrusted to the U.S. Geological Service. Unfortunately, USGS has not recognized the critical nature of this program or the importance of the information the MIT produces.

Today, at USGS, the Mineral Commodity Function is five steps below the USGS Director, and eight steps below the Secretary of the Interior. In contrast, the Energy Information Administrator is only one step below the Secretary of Energy. At DOI Minerals Information, it's just about like being a janitor; you have about that much access into the system.

The Resource Origin and Commodity Knowledge, ROCK, Act, takes the mineral commodity information function away from USGS and creates and funds a stand-alone agency using DOI resources. It restores and funds the function Congress sought to retain and protect in 1995.

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

Mr. Chairman, the hearings did occur last year on this bill, and I would remind the gentleman from West Virginia that existing resources inside DOI would be used. That is the reason the CBO said that no additional cost would be required.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that we did get into the discussion of the CBO here and the additional cost that would be implemented under this act. The underlying act actually has been scored at $441 million by CBO over 5 years, almost $100 million a year. I share the gentleman's concern about increasing expenditures, increasing bureaucracy, and would again request that we reconsider the

entire thing. But at the moment I would suggest that we do want to realize that two recent National Research Council reports stress that we are increasingly dependent on foreign nations for minerals critical to America and that we need to have an independent agency as called for in this ROCK Act amendment.

My amendment will establish the independent Minerals Commodity Information Administration and the Minerals Information Team to collect, analyze and disseminate information on the domestic and international supply of and demand for minerals, materials critical to the U.S. economy, and our national security.

U.S. businesses operate in a global economy, and virtually every manufacturing sector from aviation to textiles relies on the unbiased, comprehensive data reported by the MIT. This information enables American companies to use domestic resources effectively, forecast worldwide market conditions, develop informed strategic business plans, and respond effectively to short-term fluctuations and long-term trends in minerals prices, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is an honest, straightforward and commonsense motion which should be accepted unanimously. Its acceptance would help restore America's confidence in this body.

This motion addresses two issues Americans expect their elected representatives to address. Americans want more alternative energy sources so we are not dependent on people who hate us for our energy supplies. Americans want to make sure that their government does not take actions which destroy American jobs. The supporters of this bill promise it will not hurt jobs. My motion guarantees it will not hurt jobs.

They constantly promise that they want more clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign supplies. My motion guarantees this clean energy.

Much of the controversy about this bill is about the importance of minerals and the jobs they support. Some say the bill will cost the kind of jobs this country needs and leave us begging other nations for the minerals necessary to produce cleaner energy right here at home. Others argue that it doesn't. My amendment resolves that question.

If adopted, my motion would ensure that the government is not taxing American production of important minerals used for solar power and nuclear power.

That makes sense. The government should not be taxing our efforts to produce more clean domestic energy. The last thing that we need to do is become more dependent on others for energy sources we plan to use to get off of dangerous foreign energy supplies. That's just common sense.

Secondly, my motion applies the ``first, do no harm'' standard to this bill as it relates to jobs.

As we have said here today, minerals mining jobs are the best nonsupervisory jobs available in the country today, according to government reports. This motion says that the government has to certify that this bill will not cost American jobs before it goes into effect. That's the least this country can do for working Americans, make sure that we don't lose their jobs because of our actions.

The supporters of this bill say it will not cost jobs. This gives them a chance to vote to ensure that it doesn't.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard today on the House floor that this is a work in progress, that H.R. 2262 is a work in progress. I am saying that the Nation's security depends on our good work today and we should not submit a work in progress to the other Chamber. I hope that the supporters of this bill will take this olive branch and guarantee jobs to Americans, not just make more promises to Americans.

We have heard promises this bill won't hurt jobs; this motion guarantees it. We hear promises about more clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign supplies. This motion guarantees it.

My motion turns a promise into a legal guarantee. I urge its adoption by all Members of the Chamber.

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his leadership on this.

We are discussing extremely important things. For instance, in the mining bill, which will be coming to the floor, a heated debate really arises

about what does it matter. What does it matter if we add an 8 percent royalty on to the price of minerals?

At one point yesterday in the debate, the chairman of our Resources Committee, Mr. Rahall of West Virginia, said, I see no reason, no reason whatsoever why good public land law should be linked to the gross national product. Now that is, to me, a stunning statement because I think policy should always consider the jobs in America. It should consider our standard of living, and it should consider the ramifications for our communities.

Communities in the West, where mining occurs on public lands, will be affected most by this new royalty that is being suggested by the majority party.

Now, we had comments at a field hearing, and we find the comments are very similar from the Democratic witnesses to the Republican; in other words, both sides agree. There's a James Otto, ``8 percent is excessive,'' he says.

``I'm only aware of a single royalty that is as high as the royalty proposed in the bill, just one in my 20 years of practice. An 8 percent royalty would really be ruinous,'' says James Cress of Washington on 10/2/07.

``I am particularly concerned about the potential impacts of the 8 percent net smelter return royalty called for in the last legislation. All the royalty costs will be absorbed by the mining companies, and this will be a direct adverse impact on the amount of mining tax revenues that flows into the State and to the counties.''

We had testimony from one country, and I think it was British Columbia, that increased their royalties and saw a tremendous decrease in their net tax revenues because companies simply moved out.

Today, companies can move their mining assets; they can move their mining investments by simply a flick of the computer. If it's that easy, then we should be very cautious. We should be concerned about the gross domestic product before we jump into these very significant arguments.

One of the letters that I have, and I would like, Mr. Speaker, to submit this as a part of the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, October 16, 2007.

Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rahall: This is to request that the Committee

hold additional hearings regarding our country's mineral

policy as it relates to military and economic security before

we convene a mark-up of H.R. 2262. Notwithstanding the

amendment in the nature of a substitute discussion draft

circulated late last week, we are very concerned that H.R.

2262 moves our country's mineral policy in the very opposite

direction of recommendations outlined in the two recent

National Research Council (``NRC'') reports:

(1) Managing Materials for a 21st Century Military and

(2) Minerals, Critical Minerals and the US. Economy.

We are entering a challenging time for our nation which is

only now beginning to become clear. China and India are

consuming huge amounts of energy and minerals which they are

willing to secure from parts around the globe and with which

they are fueling unprecedented economic growth. At current

rates of relative economic growth, one or both of them will

surpass the United States in economic output within two

decades. We are in a race. Now is not the time to rest. We

must examine closely the consequences. . . . intended and

unintended . . . of our actions. We owe nothing less to our

children's future.

I. Mineral Policy and America's Military Security

One of the most fundamental functions of the Federal

government is to provide for the common defense and our

national minerals policy is inextricably linked to providing

for that defense. It was America's natural resources--and the

ingenuity and strong backs of American workers--that made us

``The Arsenal of Democracy'' that supplied the tools of

victory in World War II. In many ways, minerals are the

foundation to a strong modern military.

Requiring our military to import the strategic and critical

minerals it needs from hostile foreign nations puts our

military on its knees before the battle begins. It will make

the United States military the ``paper tiger'' China's Mao

Zedong wished for in 1956 when he coined the phrase.

Attachment 1 provides examples of strategic and critical

military materials upon which our military already relies on

foreign sources for. If we rush to create a minerals policy

that further discourages a domestic minerals industry that is

already shrinking because of the existing regulatory

constraints, we will have left a grave legacy that is

threatening to our long term stability.

As discussed in the NRC's report, restarting or jump-

starting a U.S. mining operation in response to supply

interruptions would be very time consuming, expensive and in

all probability, impossible. Consequently, the mineral policy

moved by this Committee must take into account military

needs. To this end, we request joint hearings with the House

Armed Services Committee so that this issue can be fully

understood by the Committee.

II. Mineral Policy and America's Economic Security

Mineral availability is a cornerstone to robust economic

activity because minerals support the broadest range of

manufacturing and industrial businesses, including

transportation, defense, aerospace, electronics, energy,

agriculture, communication, construction, and health care.

According to the NRC's report, ``current lifestyles in the

United States require per capita annual consumption of over

25,000 pounds . . . of new minerals . . . to make the items

that we use every day.''

While our reliance on foreign sources of minerals may be

less visible than petroleum, Attachment 2 illuminates the

gravity of America's exposure in this regard. Our country is

rich with minerals; however, the ``political availability''

compromises our independence on foreign sources of minerals.

The NRC's report describes ``political availability'' as a

significant part of mineral availability. The concept of

``political availability'' encompasses (a) legislation, rules

and regulations that influence investment in mineral

exploration and development and (b) the risks and results of

change in these policies. While God has blessed our Nation

with a rich natural resource base, it appears that the common

sense with which He endowed our policy makers has not been

used by its recipients.

We are concerned that H.R. 2262 will adversely affect both

of these ``political availability'' components. We are

unaware of any witness in the three legislative hearings held

by Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources thus far who

testified that H.R. 2262 will increase domestic mining

activity. Rather, several witnesses testified that H.R. 2262,

as drafted, will be devastating to our domestic production of

minerals, will be crippling our economy and will send more

jobs overseas. We believe that moving H.R. 2262 out of this

Committee in advance of an analysis of its impact on the

overall U.S. economy is premature.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the continued politics being played with this year's veterans funding by the majority party. Last week, 44 Members of Congress sent a letter to the Speaker urging her to immediately bring a conference report on veterans funding before the House. Our goal was to pass this funding and avoid the political gamesmanship of the appropriation process. Earlier this year,

the House and Senate both passed veterans funding with overwhelming support. The fiscal year ends on Saturday.

Unfortunately, it has become clear that the top Democratic aides intend to hold our veterans hostage. A spokeswoman for the House Appropriations Committee called our letter and efforts to pass veterans funding immediately just ``a cute diversion.''

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing cute about withholding funding for veterans benefits. There is nothing cute about withholding funding for veterans health care. There is nothing cute about Democrats using veterans as political pawns in their appropriations strategy.

I urge my colleagues not to let veterans funding be held hostage any longer. Our veterans are saying, don't betray us. Pass the fiscal year 2008 appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the unnecessary delay in passing this year's veterans appropriations.

This year's veterans appropriations passed with an overwhelming majority in both Houses, 409-2 in this body and 92-1 in the Senate. This kind of bipartisanship makes it clear to all that Congress takes its obligation to our Nation's veterans very seriously.

I sincerely believe America's veterans want to see a final version of veterans funding quickly passed so they may receive the desperately needed funding. However, I feel this will not be the case. Last week, one Democratic aide, asked about this year's veterans appropriations, was quoted in Roll Call saying, ``These bills constitute the little bit of leverage we have.''

Mr. Speaker, the sacrifices that our young men and women are making in Iraq and Afghanistan are not leverage. The tragedies that occurred at Walter Reed are not leverage. Veterans health care is not political leverage. We must recognize that veterans funding is critical and should not be used for partisan politics.

I urge my colleagues to rise above the partisan bickering and pass this. Our veterans are demanding: Do not betray us.

Mr. Chairman, just as a disclaimer to the chairman of the committee, I did vote against this bill in committee and am still talking against the bill. Mr. Chairman, that is always a shock to you, and I'm just trying to settle your nerves down here at the beginning of my comments.

I am supportive of the TRIA concept in general. I understand the market is not yet where it needs to be. As I explained in committee, our company was one of the companies who had to renew our insurance 30 days after 9/11. On October 11 every year we had to renew insurance. So we were some of the first to encounter the problem that some insurances simply weren't going to write insurance if we did not have some solutions. So I understood the concept. But we put into place some legislative changes that were slowly moving the marketplace to where it needed to be.

And the market was responding. The marketplace was increasing the deductible percentages. The trigger limit was raised between the first two versions of the TRIA bill, and the industry retention level was raised, the Federal co-share was lowered, and those were all positive signs because we all recognized that the last thing we want to do is have, say, an agency like the Postal Service in charge of risk insurance. It does not meet the standards for a very mobile market.

So in the long term, we would like to have the private sector handling this problem. It's where the responsibility then would fall on the people who are getting the benefit.

As it is written, this bill begins to move us far beyond that concept. It begins to increase the mission, providing what should have been a temporary solution making it into a 15-year solution and with decreasing amounts of private sector employment or utilization. So responsibility in the end should be borne by the people who are buying the insurance and the insurance companies.

And, again, I would speak against the bill, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act of 2007. My amendment takes one critical step forward in writing insurer participation back into

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Chairman, I find the comments very strange from the opponents of the amendment. They say that my amendment will stop rebuilding and let Osama bin Laden tell us where to rebuild.

Currently the rate of insurance deductible is at 20 percent. The rebuilding is going on quite well, frankly, and they have sustained 2.5 percent increases through the past 6 years. What we are simply saying is we are going to start at 5 percent and increase 1 percent a year over 15 years back up to the 20 percent level. Yet we are being told that regardless of what is being built now, something is going to change in the equation and the people are going to stop rebuilding if we go up and go to this one-half percent increase.

I find it heartening to know that we are within a half percent of stopping the entire economy of the U.S. on a one-half percent deductible and giving over our independence to the terrorists based on this one-half percent, when the truth is the last 6 years showed us that the industry will sustain 2.5 percent increases and continue to build exactly where they want to build, and in fact the industry will sustain on its own at least up to 20 percent. If we are estimating something above that, that would be unchartered territory. But I do find the arguments somewhat stunning.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers and would just urge Members to support the amendment so that we can convert this public program back into a private program over a long course of time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.