Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of dialogue in the last few weeks about this issue of Dubai Ports World controlling U.S. ports. What I would like to do with this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to explain what the Dubai Ports World issue is, and in the process, hope my colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment which strikes the section of the supplemental appropriations bill, the section 3011.

I would at first like to give some frame of reference as to what it means to be the Dubai Ports World, which basically has purchased P&O, a British firm, that works with scheduling for the loading and unloading of cargo at our Nation's ports.

The Baltimore Sun, which is a newspaper in Maryland that represents the Port of Baltimore, one of the largest ports in the United States, says the following: ``Potentially lost in this uproar is a clear understanding of what a stevedore company does.'' Stevedore, that is what the Dubai Ports World is going to do. They are going to employ stevedores.

For the record, its employees, of Dubai Ports World, do not touch any cargo. No employee of the Dubai Ports World touches cargo. They are not in charge of port security. They do not oversee shipping manifests. That means they don't know what is in the containers. Stevedores, which is what the Dubai Ports World is going to be, are the middle managers who tell longshoremen, who are Americans, who are employed by the ports, who are employed by the State and local governments that control the ports, the longshoremen are the ones that load and unload the cargo.

Dubai Ports World will be able to tell them when that ship is going to dock and how to unload it. USA Today, many foreign companies, including one from Singapore, China and Taiwan, are doing business today at U.S. ports, leasing some terminals, to schedule the loading and unloading.

General Tommy Franks, this is what General Tommy Franks says about this particular issue: I personally believe that we have no greater ally in seeking a resolution of problems in the Middle East, the Palestinian issue, the Israeli issue, than we have found in the United Arab Emirates.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this quote, and there are quotes from every major newspaper in this country, this is a quote from The New York Times: ``Dubai is not a democracy, and it is not without its warts. But Dubai is a bridge of decency that leads away from the failing civilization to a much more optimistic, open and self-confident society. Dubaians are building a future based on butter, not guns; private property, not caprice; services more than oil and globally competitive companies, not terror networks. Dubai is about nurturing Arab dignity through success, not suicide. As a result, its people want to embrace the future, not blow it up.

Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. We have a difficult, nearly impossible situation in Iraq, difficulties in the Arab world. Who do we need most to bridge the gap of the lack of knowledge? Who do we need most in the Arab world to connect and bridge that gap between the United States and that culture? It is the United Arab Emirates.

It is time for us to recognize that this is an ally that we need to integrate with the United States as far as global issues and global terror issues are concerned.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't feel like I am a sacrificial lamb, and I am not doing this for any other purpose other than to give our strongest ally in the Middle East, the United Arab Emirates, the dignity that they deserve. There are Americans that feel they can do this in a most positive fashion.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Chairman, this is what I would like to conclude with. Dubai Ports World will have no administrative authority over any ports. They will have no security responsibility over any ports in the United States. That is retained by the Federal and State governments, completely.

All the longshoremen will still be American longshoremen that load and unload these ships. The Dubai Ports World is an organization made up of American investors, and chief executive officers of the United States are officers in this Dubai Ports World organization. They are a strong ally. Let this vote signal dignity and worth to the United Arab Emirates. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to strike.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, just to support Dr. Bartlett's assertions on peak oil that he has so eloquently and scientifically presented here on the House floor for about a year now, Mr. Bartlett is looking at the security problems of peak oil, the economic viability problems with peak oil, and the environmental problems of peak oil. Dr. Bartlett mentioned a report from the Army Corps of Engineers in which it says in part that we are using or burning in decades, in about the last 50 years, what we have used as far as fossil fuel, especially where oil is concerned, for our transportation needs that it took nature millions of years to lock up.

What does that mean? That means that we are releasing into the atmosphere greenhouse gases, in this case specifically carbon dioxide in a few short years, what took the geologic forces of the planet to take out of the atmosphere in millions of years. Is there a potential for climate disruption as a result of that scenario? The answer is yes.

Human beings, in the last century or so, or in the Industrial Age, have become a factor in the heat balance of the planet. Heretofore, the only factor that could contribute to the heat balance of the planet, the greenhouse effect of the planet, the warming, the cooling, the various cycles, the storm cycles of the planet, were natural geologic forces. The oceans, the land mass, the tectonic plates, volcanoes, those kinds of massive, natural geologic forces have shaped the way the planet looks today.

What we are seeing, and what Mr. Bartlett is talking about in his discussions on energy usage, is that in the latter part of the Industrial Revolution, human beings and their activities are a geologic force, because we are putting into the atmosphere in decades what it took the natural forces millions of years to lock up. We human beings, in our activity, are a geologic force affecting the climate, affecting the atmosphere.

If we went back to James Watt in 1769, we would see through various scientific methods that there was about 280 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, 1769. About 100 years later, 100 years after that, 1895, partly because of natural warming, the climate has been warming since the Ice Age, there were 290 parts per million, 100 years after James Watt discovered the steam engine; and we know that the steam engine enabled us to burn coal in greater abundance than we had prior to that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Bartlett and I a few years ago traveled together to the Antarctic to

McMurdo Station and the South Pole. It is a fascinating, majestic place, a little harsh, but nature in the raw seldom mild.

I will say it is an arduous trek, even in this day and age, to Antarctica. I want to compliment the gentleman for taking a second trip down there.

I will briefly conclude on the correlation of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere that has a direct effect on the heat balance of the planet. In the first 100 years of the Industrial Revolution, CO2 increased by about 10 points, 280 parts per million, to 290 parts per million. If you look at the third generation of the Industrial Revolution, which ends with us, about 100 years from 1890, the latest calculation in 2003 was 370 parts per million.

That is increasing. Look at the last 100 years of increasing CO2, which is 100 parts per million increase.

I would agree with the gentleman, we continue with a sense of urgency. We should continue with a sense of urgency, that efficiency is one of the components to stave off a really very difficult economic time period if we do not find alternatives to fossil fuel.

One last item about the chronology of increasing CO2. As CO2 increases, the temperature of the planet and the corresponding manner has also increased. And if you look at the increases in CO2, they cannot be shown with natural influences of the planet.

When you take a mathematical calculation as to the cycles of CO2 in the atmosphere and where it comes from, the natural process will add, and has been adding CO2, over the last 10,000 years. In a corresponding way, the temperature of the planet has continued to increase over the last 10,000 years.

But if you take the amount of CO2 with the natural influences, it does not account for the dramatic increase in CO2 that we have seen over the last 100 years. And so if we are looking at environmental conditions, energy independence, economic viability with a positive alternative energy source, there is a sense of urgency that I think Congressman Bartlett has brought to this House and to the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I want to thank Mr. Weldon from Pennsylvania and all those who have come down here this afternoon to honor just a great lady, a wonderful person. For as long as this building stands, Helen's Cafe will be an intimate part of the U.S. Capitol.

Emerson said heroism is the quiet obedience to the secret impulse of character; and whenever we walked into Helen's Cafe, we had that sense. We could look at Helen and our stress would wash away with her smile, our anxiety about partisan politics or legislation or not getting something done would somehow become a little bit more eased.

Her remarks at the Members leaning up against that counter talking about this or talking about that would be, ``Oh, Lord.'' I can still hear Helen saying ``Oh, Lord.'' Or if you made a comment about her sandwiches were too expensive, of course they were always a fraction of the price of what they would be anywhere else, but if you said something like that, ``Helen, this is a

little pricey, I only got a sandwich and a glass of water,'' she said ``Oh, Lord.''

Her stories about her family and her father and the perspective has been given here this afternoon. But can you imagine someone coming here while President Roosevelt was the President, Richard Nixon and Jack Kennedy were Members of Congress, and, it has already been spoken, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, conflicts around the world with the Middle East, the Persian Gulf war, right on up to the present conflict in Iraq.

Her advice to us, and we took it, was, ``You need your rest. Rest yourself.'' Can you hear Helen saying that? ``Rest yourself.'' Or if you had a sandwich and you did not want anything to drink she would go around and get you a glass of water. ``You have to wash that down with something. It is too dry. You need something to drink. You need your nourishment.'' How many times did we hear Helen say that? ``You need your nourishment. You work too hard.''

Mr. Speaker, we still talk about Helen in Helen's Cafe. And Miss Helen, Pat is doing a great job. She is following your suit. She is set in Helen's Cafe because of your gentle, serene example.

By the way, I have to say this through the Speaker, if you are heading across the Bay Bridge on that church bus and you are going to do what you like to do in Delaware, you have a standing invitation to stop at my house to play 500 rummy. Now, we might throw out a few pennies there, but there is a standing invitation from all of us.

Helen, we wish you Merry Christmas, the best of holidays, and your character, that secret impulse that you left us, will linger here for all time.

Thank you, Curt.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Hastings for helping bring this legislation to the floor, and I want to thank him for yielding the time. I will speak now for a few minutes explaining the legislation, and I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can have a bipartisan vote to move this task force along so that the myriad of issues that cover a broad range of committee assignments, both on the House and the Senate side, and a broad array of Federal departments and agencies can be viewed with a single entity, this task force, between now and June to understand the comprehensive magnificent work of the people under Admiral Watkins that put together this commission report.

The members on the commission are people who have represented and continue to represent the oceans, aquariums around the country, the port authorities, coastal studies, offshore oil drilling, the U.S. Navy, shipping and marine transportation, ocean ecology and fisheries, environmental interests and the banking industry, a broad array of individuals that were appointed by the President, the House and the Senate.

The scientists that represent the Ocean Commission Report that worked to develop the recommended policies are scientists from universities all across the country. Their expertise and diverse fields are in marine economics, coastal and estuarine issues, atmospheric issues, Gulf of Mexico issues and the whole array of problems with hurricanes, fishery science, coastal development, physics of ocean currents, oceanography. The list goes on and on and on.

They presented this report to the U.S. Congress in September of 2004. In this report, there are 31 chapters. Seven of the 31 chapters come under the jurisdiction of the Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee on Resources. Seven of the 31 chapters come under my jurisdiction in this Ocean Subcommittee. We have held hearings on our part of the Ocean Commission Report. But 24 chapters lie outside the jurisdiction of that Fisheries Subcommittee. And it is important to get this task force so that all those other committees in this House can view this commission task force from the specific recommendations that the task force will assume from the ocean commission report.

What I would like to do is explain to my colleagues, the ocean commission task force makes recommendations in the following areas, which are outside the jurisdiction of the Ocean Subcommittee. Those are: The Congress should establish for better leadership and coordination a national ocean council and a non-Federal ocean council of advisors to view the full range of issues in the departments, the agencies and the executive branch and what goes on in the States and the tribes and the international arena regarding oceans.

They make recommendations to improve NOAA, EPA, the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Interior, USDA and the States in their regional coordination. Right now it is severely fragmented. They make recommendations to clarify offshore responsibilities as far as leasing oil and gas, aquaculture, bioprospecting, wind energy, fisheries, just to name a few. They recommend structural changes in NASA, the Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, the National Science Foundation, Aquaculture, Health and Human Services, Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Labor, Department of Transportation and the United States Agency for International Development. Can all of this be done with one subcommittee or fragmented throughout the course of this Congress? Promote lifelong ocean education, ocean stewardship, science literacy, future ocean leaders, helping to bridge the gap between scientists and educators, a need for qualified ocean science in the classroom, bringing the ocean to the vast array of students across this country. This is the Committee on Education.

Better financial technical institutional support for watershed management initiatives through existing Federal and State laws linking coastal and offshore ecosystems. Better financial technical institutional support for all these issues. Something that is dear to our hearts right now as a result of this past hurricane season, several chapters dealing with guarding people and property against national hazards such as hurricanes and floods. And a year ago, a year and a half ago, in the commission report they predicted, right down to the letter, what could and eventually did happen to New Orleans, to coastal Louisiana, to Mississippi. A vast array of information.

Managing sediment flows: 30 States contribute sediment in the Mississippi River that eventually goes through Louisiana, Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico.

How do we manage those sediment flows?

Techniques for cost benefit analysis is in this report. Marine commerce and transportation across the oceans, the estuaries, and the rivers in this country. Addressing coastal and water pollution, three major laws, statutes. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Total Maximum Daily Load Program, Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, those are outside the jurisdiction of resources entirely. Their recommendations are for dealing with wastewater treatment plants, septic tanks, industrial facilities, agriculture, urban and suburban runoff.

Addressing the atmospheric deposition problem: the single biggest issue

with many estuaries including San Francisco and the Chesapeake Bay is air deposition. Thirty percent of the problem with degrading the Chesapeake Bay is air deposition.

Watershed monitoring: in 1974 we had 500 stations across the country that monitored the quality of water. Today there are 32, from 500 down to 32. The lack of coordination between the State, the Federal Government, and the institutions is appalling.

Limiting vessel pollution and improving vessel safety: that is the EPA, the Coast Guard, and the International Maritime Association. How to deal with invasive species with ballas water, marine organisms, major problems in the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, and many estuaries around the country.

Connecting the oceans and human health: biomedical research, marine bacteria, contaminated seafood, harmful alga blooms, recommendations that can be gleaned from a single perspective with a single entity such as this task force and then legislative recommendations to the myriad committees that deal with these issues.

Creating a national strategy for increasing scientific knowledge in ocean science, technology, and understanding the oceans' ecosystem.

Collaborating with the international community and funding recommendations for how long this is going to work.

The Ocean Subcommittee under the Resources Committee does not have the time or the resources or the people or the jurisdiction to do this. We have dealt in that ocean subcommittee with our jurisdiction regarding the Ocean Commission Report, which is marine debris, fisheries management, marine mammals, coral reefs, agriculture, ocean observing system, coastal habitats, and so on.

This report by Admiral Watkins and many scientists around this country deserve to have the United States Congress, this institution, take a comprehensive view of this report, study it for several months, and then make legislative recommendations to this body.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the task force.

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

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

I would just like to respond to my colleague on the other side of the aisle. This issue did not pop up out of thin air. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know full well that we have been working on this. We have had numerous, numerous conversations since last May on this particular task force. Leon Panetta, who headed the Pew Ocean Policy Commission's report, is in favor of this task force. Admiral Watkins, who worked on the Oceans Commission's report, is in favor of this task force. As a matter of fact, both of those men, Leon Panetta and Admiral Watkins, are urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this.

Now, as far as my subcommittee that Mr. Pallone serves on dealing with these issues, this is a commission report that did cost a few million dollars, and it is worthy of our close scrutiny, not having staff make up a bill that we do not know the substance of that bill. This commission report is worthy of our attention, of our observation, of our analysis, of our critical understanding of it.

My subcommittee has been dealing with the issues that have come under our jurisdiction. We are working on the marine mammal recommendations, marine debris recommendations, coral reef recommendations, Magnuson Act recommendations. We are doing that and passing that through the subcommittee. But 24 chapters are outside those issues. They deal with the Science Committee, the Transportation Committee, the Agriculture Committee, the International Relations Committee, the Education Committee, the Financial Services Committee. We think, instead of fragmenting this all over again because 30 and 40 years ago we went through this with the Stratton report and there was not any single entity in the House of Representatives that took a critical and analytical view of the Stratton report, we want to do that now. Now is the time to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I will tell you this, Mr. Farr: The aspects of Oceans- 21 in your bill that is subject to the jurisdiction----

The parts of your bill that comes under my jurisdiction--

We have held hearings on those issues. We have. And we have developed from your bill legislation that is moving through the subcommittee, that many of them have already passed the subcommittee and the full committee and are awaiting floor action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the first paragraph, because there has been a lot of mention around here about delay and the cost of the ocean commission report. I want to read the first paragraph of the ocean commission report: America's oceans and coasts are priceless assets, indispensable to life itself. They also contribute significantly to our prosperity and overall quality of life. Too often, however, we take these gifts for granted, underestimating their value and ignoring our impact on them. Then our use of the oceans becomes abuse and the productive capacity of our marine resources is diminished.

In 6 months, June 30, this bipartisan task force, made up as a reflection of the ratio of Democrats and Republicans in the House, which is standard practice for all committees, will issue its comprehensive report, legislative recommendations, so that each one of the fragmented committees will not have to deal with these issues that they have very little expertise with in any way.

This is a bipartisan task force that is funded with its own staff separate from any other committee or influences from any other committee to deal with the issue of oceans, which determine the climate, determine the weather, determine the air we breathe, the food source for billions of people. This is an issue that we can get together on, have a bipartisan working relationship and put aside our partisan bickering, because the oceans are priceless. We have some work to do, and we can accomplish that by June 30.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

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

Mr. Speaker, this task force creates an opportunity to bypass, eliminate the bureaucracy and fragmentation of the myriad of jurisdictions of this body. This task force creates a new dynamic. It brings people in, Democrats, Republicans. It brings the public into the process. It brings scientists into the process. It brings people who work in all the various marine industries into the process to evaluate, to analyze in a very clinical manner the ocean commission recommendations.

This is about specific recommendations coming out of a bipartisan task force with the idea that we eliminate bureaucracy; we eliminate the committee jurisdiction problems and hand to these various committees the specific recommendations that we have evaluated over this 6-month period of time.

The subcommittee is moving legislation with the recommendations from the ocean commission report and the Pew Commission report on oceans. We are dealing with what to do about sanctuaries, marine protected areas, coral reefs, marine debris, Magnuson issues, ecosystem management of the fisheries. All of these things subject to our jurisdiction and the rules of the House are being moved through that subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the task force.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Member what the focus of our attention should be: David Branning, Dale Burger, Robert Guy, Jason Mileo, Adam Mooney, Bryan Nicholas Spry, William Allers, Samuel Bowen, Jarrett Thompson, Patrick Adle, Neil Prince, and Keith Mariotti.

They are the dead,

short days ago they lived,

felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

and now they lie in Flanders Field,

from my district.

What are they asking us with a sense of urgency for the living? What are the quick and the dead asking us to do: Know more than they did.

Why are our troops successful in harm's way? Because our troops bond together with an integration of integrity bound with trust.

Let us debate how to finish the war, not how to continue to fight the war.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his initiative to give us an insight into the world of peak oil and all its ramifications. I just wanted to speak briefly tonight in support of the gentleman's effort to bring this information across

the board to the administration, to Members of Congress, and to the country as a whole so that all of us can understand what is transpiring over the next couple of decades to have an enormous impact on not only our Nation's economy but on the world's economy.

The question that I would pose that I think everybody should think about is what is at the bottom of the bottomless well. I think most people think that oil will go on forever, that there is plenty of reserves out there, that they will never dry up, they are not a finite resource, they are there for the foreseeable future, and that nature is not dynamic, but it is static.

Well, I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is bringing to the forefront that what is at the bottomless well is not oil; and if it is not initiative, ingenuity, and intellect, we are in for a lot of problems in the very near future. If, at the bottom of the bottomless well is initiative, ingenuity, and intellect, we will take the next logical step in cultural evolution.

We all used to burn wood for thousands of years. People burned wood for energy, for heat to make their communities whole. Then we discovered coal, and coal was a lot more efficient. It burned a lot better, and our industries prospered, plus we had better uses for wood than just to burn it. Coal was then, to a large extent, supplemented by oil, and oil was more efficient. Our industries could prosper even more, and it increased the ability to advance technology.

Now, coal has more hydrogen than wood. Oil has more hydrogen in it than coal. And then we discovered natural gas, which was even more efficient than oil or coal, and that expanded our markets for our economic progress even more, and natural gas has more hydrogen than oil.

We are running out of oil, and I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) said we have about 2 percent of the known reserves in the United States. Many people say it is a little bit more than that; but whether it is 2 percent or 3 percent or 4 percent or whatever, it is a limited resource. In 1970, we produced in the United States 11 million barrels of oil a day, in 1970. In the year 2004, we produced 5 million barrels a day. We produce less than half now than we did 30 years ago, and yet we are burning a lot more. We burn 20 million barrels of oil a day. Now, if we compared what we have done in the last 100 years in BTUs as far as oil energy use is concerned, we can put it into the number quadrillion. This is what a quadrillion looks like.

In 1910, our BTU energy output from oil was 7 quadrillion BTUs, 7 quadrillion. In 1930, it was 35 quadrillion BTUs. In 2004, it was 100 quadrillion BTUs. The point here is that as supplies go down from this finite resource, demand goes up exponentially.

And what are we going to do? I would just like us to think about a couple of things. Oil is not going to last forever. The horizon is seeing to its completion in a number of decades, and so the transition to find alternatives to that type of fossil fuel is now.

There are a number of alternatives that some of the other Members will talk about, whether it is solar or even hydrogen or using soybeans or corn or wind or other technologies, advancing nuclear. The idea that we need to transition and find alternatives to our transportation needs is vital.

The second thing is we have the technology right now to more than double our efficiency across the board. The technology exists right now to more than double what you can get out of an automobile, from 20 miles a gallon to 50 miles a gallon. We have the technology to make all of our appliances way more efficient.

When we burned coal, we found a lot better uses for wood. If we know what uses there are for oil, other than burning it, we would be astounded. Our whole economy, our medical field, our industry, our clothes, our trinkets, the things that we have in our house, it is all a byproduct of oil.

So we have better uses for oil than putting it in, pardon the expression, a gas hog, so we can run off to the 7-Eleven and buy a cup of coffee and maybe some item that is made in some other part of the world.

So think about peak oil. Think about energy efficiency. Think about alternatives. These are not 100 years away. And think about your own lifestyle and how that fits into the mix.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, thank you very much for joining us. You mentioned gas hog. The other day my wife read a new definition for SUV, it was a suddenly useless vehicle with the high gas prices we have now.

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) mentioned conservation and efficiency. I just wanted to come back for a moment to this chart to point out something that is quite obvious when you think about it.

If we are here, and I am going to call next on my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). And I see he has the same article that I started with. But here we have a curve that shows that as we approach peak oil that our demands for oil are going to exceed the supplies of oil. What that means is that there will not even be enough oil to fuel our present economies.

And if we are going to have any oil to invest, any energy to invest in alternatives, we are going to have to reduce our use of oil. Now we have blown, if you will excuse the term, 25 years. We absolutely knew in 1980 that M. King Hubbert was right about his 1970 prediction that we would peak.

By the way he predicted the world would peak about now, and we knew in 1980 that he was right about our country. Should not we have assumed that maybe, just maybe, he was right about the world and we ought to do something about that? We did absolutely nothing about that except grow an ever more and more lavish lifestyle that used ever more and more oil.

And so now just emphasizing what this curve tells us is if we are going to have any energy to invest in the renewables, we should have been investing for the last 25 years at least. We were not doing it. If we are going to have any to invest now, we would like to use this much oil, only this much is available totally so we cannot even use that much for ordinary activities, we are going to have to reduce that so that we have something to invest in the alternatives.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I hope I am wrong. I hope all of these experts are wrong. Because if we are not wrong, the world and the United States mostly, because we are the biggest consumers of energy, are in for a very rough ride.

Let me turn now to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of this rule. I also want to compliment the chairman of the Committee on Resources. He has been in Congress for seven terms. He has worked very hard on the things that he believes in. He has been relentlessly patient to deal with a number of issues that have affected his district and those in the western areas of the United States, and he has presented to us today a bill that will reform, refine, and reauthorize the Endangered Species Act.

Now, I do not agree with everything in the chairman's bill or his approach, but I want to state here this morning that I respect his courage and his relentless patience to take years to bring something to the floor that he believes in.

The substitute which I support, and I hope my colleagues in this body will support, is not a whole lot different than the base bill. We went through the base bill hour after hour after hour, members and staff; and we changed a few words here and there that we feel will present the approach to protecting endangered species in the appropriate way. Most people who are concerned about the Endangered Species Act either are concerned because, like the

chairman here from the Committee on Rules stated this morning, if you see a dam and it creates deep water and you can get your barges down with your grain, you appreciate the fact that the dam is there. So you have some concern about that.

Or if you are downstream and you want more coho salmon and you believe the dam is degrading the habitat for coho salmon or other species of salmon, you are less likely to appreciate the dam; but both sides look at the Endangered Species Act as either reducing their economic viability or reducing species viability. I think we need to do a number of things that we have done in the substitute. We have taken the words out of the base bill. We create a scientifically acceptable procedure, look on page 2 of the substitute, methods, practices and procedures that are acceptable science.

We have made a requirement for making a determination for what species are listed. Look at page 4 of the substitute, five specific criteria before you can list that species. We are reviewing all species every 5 years to see if the change of status is there, page 5. We repeal the critical habitat requirement in the base bill and replace it with a slightly different recovery plan.

The recovery plan has a number of significant and important elements: a time frame for that recovery plan; objective measurable criteria; a description of where the site should be, and the emphasis is on Federal land and not private land; and an estimate of the cost and time it will take to recover that species. Look on page 20.

There are a number of changes that we have made here to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) which I think improves on the bill. Support the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I, too, come from a rural area. The two major industries in my district are agriculture and fishing. So we know the landscape and people cooperate. The present ESA, maybe it is because we are on the east coast, the present ESA bill is working fine. I know we need to tweak it because it does not work the same way all over the place, but I would urge my colleagues to support the substitute. Here are some reasons why:

In the substitute, there are specific criteria for science laid out. Members want good science; the methods, procedures, and practices are laid out. What species should be determined endangered, there are five criteria laid out on page 4 of the substitute. Members should review all species that are designated every 5 years.

We have repealed the critical habitat designations, but we have replaced it with recovery plans found on page 20 of the substitute. It has time frames and objective, measurable criteria. It has a very specific description of where that species should be recovered, and the emphasis of where that species should be recovered is not private land; it is public land. The emphasis is on public land; but whenever you go on private land, there should be some restitution, some sharing of Federal dollars with those private landowners; and 10 percent of the appropriated amount on an annual basis of this substitute will go for that very specific purpose.

What if livestock are endangered or threatened by a reintroduced species? That is taken care of. Landowners are going to be reimbursed for that lost livestock.

What about national security? Take a look at the substitute. There is a very specific exemption. Page 43 of the substitute, there is a national security exemption.

I urge my colleagues to vote for a specific, balanced ESA bill. Vote for the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I think we are here in some sense, past all the clutter of people articulating their most emotional feelings, is a bill set aside some 30 years ago to have an understanding about how we as Members of Congress, the government, can restore the prodigious bounty of God's creation. How do we understand nature's design? How do we use our intelligence to understand the facts behind how nature sustains itself?

Well, in the real world, well, actually, in the real world which is nature, but in the reality of the human condition, we have a lot of other little things that we have to take into consideration. How do you afford an Endangered Species Act? What do you do about private property rights? Do you get enough science? Is the recovery plan appropriate? Do you deal with farmers that have a problem with reintroduced species on the property eating their sheep or their cows?

All these things have to be taken into consideration so that we create a policy that protects private property rights, that brings individuals on those farms and that landscape into the process and helps pay for their contribution to the process, that brings Federal agencies in so they can view the landscape, not from just one small little fly or tiger beetle or some other particular species, but upon which the landscape that supports that species, supports clean water, supports clean air, supports the whole ecosystem including human beings, including us as a species.

We are not separate from clean water. We are not separate from clean air. We are part of nature's design. We are part of this bounty of God's creation. So how do we clarify all these different perspectives and views based on different things that happen in our districts?

Well, we come up with the best available science. We come up with the best available recovery plan. We come up with the best policy for not only the species but for private property, and we come up with the funds that are appropriate to deal with all these issues.

I would tell my colleagues that I feel strongly this is the best policy change, the best reauthorization plan that we can use to deal with the Endangered Species Act that will deal with nature's design and man's impact on nature's design, which includes private property rights, which includes reimbursements for helping to preserve endangered species, and by the way, in this substitute is a provision to pay those private property individuals.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for the vote on passage of H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005. If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me this time, and I thank him for bringing this supplemental to the floor this evening. I am also encouraged that I am sure all of my colleagues will vote for this today.

I want to make sure that another voice is heard. I am a veteran, as there are many veterans on this floor. I have been in Navy hospitals, I have been in veterans' hospitals, and I have gone through the veterans' health care system.

I also want to say that in the last 10 years, in my district, there have been three health care clinics for veterans built just in those 10 years that provide excellent care. We have a veterans' hospital for the psychiatric problems that veterans often experience that go from Alzheimer's to posttraumatic stress syndrome from Vietnam and other conflicts, to people with schizophrenia. Nothing is perfect. There are no utopias on the planet. We need to provide this supplement until the end of this fiscal year, and make sure we do not make the same mistake in the next fiscal year. But we have done a great deal, and we will continue to work hard for the veterans of this country, and we have.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to ask the chairman to engage in a colloquy.

While I applaud the appropriation subcommittee's overall efforts to contain the Federal budget, I have some concerns about ocean issues. And when we talk about ocean issues, these are critical issues crucial to the survival of humans on the planet when we consider the extent and the complexity of the oceans and life on the planet.

The over-500-page report of the U.S. Ocean Commission emphasized the need to take action now to invest in ocean and coastal programs to ensure conservation and the sustainable use of resources for future generations. The Ocean Commission report called for doubling the investment in the coastal and ocean science and to provide an additional $500 million to $1 billion in assistance over the next several years to support ocean programs and fisheries management.

In April of this year, I joined over 100 House Members deeply concerned about the health of our oceans and coastal areas to request support for additional funding for key National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration programs, or NOAA. After considering other competing priorities, the subcommittee approved the NOAA budget of $3.43 billion, almost $500 million below last year's level.

Now, I understand the Federal budget constraints, and I understand the constraint of the subcommittee and the appropriations process; but I would ask the chairman to consider looking at these issues as we move this bill through to the conference.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his consideration; I thank the chairman for his effort to balance the budget and to allocate the funds equitably to all the various programs. I look forward to working with the chairman in the future on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I want to compliment the gentleman from California on this amendment and I understand the gravity of the situation. I just wish the money did not come out of NOAA. If we look at NOAA's budget this year, it is millions of dollars below where it was last year.

Let us take a look at what that section of NOAA has to deal with: the effect of oceans on climate; the effect of oceans on the air we breathe; weather patterns that direct where the forests, deserts and agriculture are going to be; the effect on aquaculture and fish farming on the natural environment in the ocean; ocean currents that distribute the heat and the balance of the planet.

The ocean currents right now are beginning to slow down in the North Atlantic because of a redistribution of salt and fresh water in the ocean. The magnitude of the impact on that on the northeastern parts of the United States and Western Europe, if you look at London, on the same latitude as Labrador, the climate is like the State of Maryland. Finally, red tides, poisonous, deadly to humans, but do not impact the shellfish.

The huge magnitude of the research that is lacking now as a result of our lack of understanding of oceans on life on planet Earth is staggering. NOAA should be at the same level of funding and have the same understanding in our educational institutes as NASA.

So I compliment the gentleman in trying to fix this terrible problem with our border crossings and the criminal activity that results all across the United States, but the issue of our oceans I do not think is adequately being addressed.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, I would like to say that the oceans are an important aspect of funding, but I want to say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) have a very critical issue that needs to be addressed as well.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 243) recognizing the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the National Safe Boating Council for their efforts to promote National Safe Boating Week.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 243 was introduced by my colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and recognizes the work of the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and the National Safe Boating Council in promoting boat safety.

I represent a district in which recreational boating plays a huge role in the lives of many of my constituents. Sailors, waters sports enthusiasts, and fishermen enjoy recreational boating on the Chesapeake Bay and the ocean side of my district.

Recreational boating is one of the Nation's most popular pastimes, and while the number of recreational boating fatalities has declined by more than half since 1970, many lives are still lost each year. More than half of these lives could be saved with the proper use of boating safety equipment. This resolution highlights the importance of safe recreational boating, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for sponsoring this piece of legislation as well. I would like to reiterate some of the comments that the gentleman made about boat safety, and that is when you get in a boat, it is like getting in a car. Do not drink and drive; do not drink and boat. Snap your safety belt in the car; put your life jacket on in the boat. Respect the people in your boat and respect other people in their boats; and respect the ecosystem that you are now treading on.

When you go out in a boat, enjoy yourself, enjoy the people that you are around, and enjoy the pristine nature of that particular environment. Boat Safety Week hopes to motivate people to understand the nature of their responsibility when they step in a boat, whether it is one with a big, powerful engine; whether it is a small motor boat; or I would recommend you try a kayak and canoe.

Of course, wear your life jacket regardless, respect yourself, respect your passengers, respect other boaters, and respect the pristine nature of the water.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time, and urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 243.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for the fascinating discussion mixed with science, history and a little poetry there, I think. Mr. Speaker, I hope many of our constituents across the country are listening to this most important topic.

My colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), began to speak about energy as not something that you can see or touch, and very few people think about that or think about where energy comes from. It comes from that fuel tank that you lift to fill your car. It comes from someone delivering it to your house. But I would suspect that many Americans and many of our colleagues here in the house feel that energy is a resource that will last forever.

I would like to pose a question tonight to follow on with what my colleague from Michigan was saying, and that is: Is energy infinite? Is energy a bottomless well? And if we look at the bottom of the bottomless well, what do we see?

If we are to have a cohesive energy policy in this country and in this world, in fact, we need to know what that is at the bottomless well, because I happen to think there is no bottom to the resource of energy. But we have to know what that is. What is that resource? What energy source can we rely upon for the unforeseeable future, for generations to come?

The modern world right now is dependent, the industrialized world and the new industrializing world are enormously dependent on an energy source known as fossil fuel. That is coal, natural gas and oil. We also know that the demand is increasing as the supply is diminishing, dramatically. The U.S. oil reserves peaked in 1970.

What is at the bottom of the bottomless well? I think it is initiative. It is ingenuity. It is intellect, and it is logic. Oil, or natural gas, is not at the bottomless well. Oil or natural gas or fossil fuel are finite, and they will not last forever. So we are in a transition period, because the demand is increasing dramatically, and the supply continues to decrease.

The gentleman from Michigan gave us a history lesson about transitions from one energy source to another over a long period of time and showed how our cultures, our industry, our economy, and our cultures have changed. We know that coal in this country some time ago replaced wood and actually saved the forests. Coal was actually more efficient and better for burning or for heating in those earlier years because we stopped burning our forests. Our forests create habitat for wildlife; it is an environmental issue. So coal replaced wood. Oil supplemented coal and oil is more efficient than coal and it is actually cleaner burning. Natural gas supplemented oil. Natural gas is cleaner than oil.

If we looked at it a little bit closer from a chemist's perspective, we would show that there is more hydrogen in coal than there is in wood. There is more hydrogen in oil than in coal. There is more hydrogen in natural gas than there is in oil. So we are moving up the ladder of a better understanding of what sources of energy are important. But all of them are finite. And as our demand increases, our supply diminishes, and we need to begin to rethink our energy sources.

In 1910 if we look at BTUs, British thermal units, if you buy a heater of almost any sort, it will have the number of BTUs that it puts out, the energy output. If we are to measure BTUs from the perspective of how many BTUs the United States uses, what is our energy output, it is measured in quadrillion. If we looked in the year 1910 as an example of BTUs, the United States burned 7 quadrillion BTUs. That is a 1 with 15 zeros. Seven quadrillion BTUs in 1910. If we looked at 1950, we burned 35 quadrillion BTUs. If we looked in the year 2005, it is up to 100 quadrillion BTUs.

The demand is increasing exponentially. In 1970, the year we peaked in our oil, we produced, the United States, 11 million barrels of oil a day. In 2004, we produced 5 million barrels a day. In 2005, we burn roughly 20 million barrels a day of oil. We import about two-thirds of our oil, and that will continue actually to worsen, and we have about 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, or less, and our demand is increasing while our supply is diminishing.

We are actually beginning to see the end of cheap oil in the United States. And burning this resource, burning oil, is not the best use of that resource. We use it, as the gentleman from Michigan said, for a whole range of things, for heating our homes, for air conditioning, for airplanes, for electric lights, for clothing, much of the clothing that we wear, for plastics, for fertilizers, for modern agriculture, for asphalt to maintain our roads. Can you imagine the interstate highway system if we did not have oil to make the asphalt to maintain those many millions of miles? Surgical devices, hip replacement, national defense, all of these things come from oil. It is an integral part of our economy.

Should we really be burning it as fast as we can, as if oil were at the bottom of the bottomless well? Are there other better uses for burning oil? There are. Can we improve our resources here in the United States with something other than fossil fuel? If we continue to rely on fossil fuel, we will never be energy independent and our security will be reduced because most of the oil we import right now comes from areas of the world that are not very stable.

We should begin to seriously think about three things and think of these three things in the way that we use our initiative, our ingenuity, and our intellect to understand what lies at the bottom of the bottomless well. The first thing is fuel efficiency. That is one of the first things we can actually do, tangible things we can do. We have the technology right now to double fuel efficiency. We should start immediately, because it takes about a decade before

you see any results. We could save billions of dollars, reduce our trade deficit, save oil supplies so they last longer. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that we have 25 years of oil left with present demand. That is not with any increase in demand. Is demand going down? Will we burn less than 100 quadrillion BTUs? I do not think so. What will we do about importing the millions of barrels of oil every day? So doubling our efficiency with oil and natural gas will spread these supplies longer and offer us that transition period between a new fuel economy that we desperately need.

The second thing are alternative fuels. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and I know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) will mention these. There is solar. It is a small piece, but it is a piece. There is wind. It is significant, but it is a small piece of the pie. There are biofuels, a whole range of biofuels from corn to soybeans to poplar trees, to certain grasses, to a range of things that we have already mentioned here tonight; but they are a small piece.

There is hydropower. There is hydrogen which does offer us some hope. It is not a fuel. You can produce it from solar, from wind, from nuclear, from coal. What we have here is a membrane; it excites the molecules and you produce electricity without combustion. But we do not have the technology to mass produce hydrogen to take the place of oil. There is methane from landfills and livestock. There is nuclear power, which is cleaner. The storage of fuel rods is difficult and also, even though it is nuclear, it is a finite source.

We have to start now to make the transition to a new energy source smooth and not disruptive. We must understand the dynamics of this from an economic standpoint, a geopolitical perspective, and cultural life- style.

The third thing is life-style. Our lives, our culture right now, dependent on fossil fuel, our lives are filled with things, things and more things. Look around your home. Where do these things come from? What are they made of? And how do they get delivered to us? The world is dependent on fossil fuel, mainly oil, to make those things, transport those things, and bring them to your home. We import them from all over the world. Oil is related to every aspect of production, distribution, marketing, and consumption of the products you get from megaretailers like Wal-Mart and Sears to McDonald's and Burger King. Our culture.

What will replace oil to keep this kind of economy ever expanding? We talk all the time about a growing economy. How will it expand without oil? We should start talking in terms of a dynamic, sustainable economy without oil. Without oil, our life-styles, in conclusion, our communities, are likely to be smaller and more compact. Our farms are likely to be smaller and more diverse. There will be fewer expanding suburbs wholly dependent upon the automobile. Solar, wind, biofuels can accommodate smaller communities. Nuclear at least for the time will be more significant.

But if we use what is at the bottom of the bottomless well, ingenuity, initiative and intellect, we will have cleaner energy sources, more jobs, drastically reduced trade deficits, more of our own goods will be produced here, a stable economy, more security.

What does the future hold for us? Look deeply at what is or should be at the bottom of the bottomless well. We need the time to transition to this new economy.