[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 92 (Thursday, June 5, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H4980-H4989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5540, CHESAPEAKE BAY GATEWAYS AND 
            WATERTRAILS NETWORK CONTINUING AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1233 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1233

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     5540) to amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to 
     provide for the continuing authorization of the Chesapeake 
     Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived except those 
     arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, and any amendment thereto, 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources; (2) the

[[Page H4981]]

     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, if 
     offered by Representative Bishop of Utah or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order (except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI), shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 5540 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). 
All time yielded during consideration of House Resolution 1233 is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1233 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 5540, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails 
Network Continuing Authorization Act. The resolution provides 1 hour of 
debate, controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources, and makes in 
order all amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for 
consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my freshman class 
colleague from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for his leadership on behalf of 
the Chesapeake Bay. Mr. Sarbanes has worked diligently and tirelessly 
in a bipartisan fashion to transcend partisan politics and ensure the 
Chesapeake Bay remains a vibrant recreational and economic network for 
many years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule and the legislation which it provides for 
consideration of will continue the important restoration and 
conservation of the Chesapeake Bay watershed by permanently authorizing 
the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.
  The Chesapeake Bay is our Nation's largest estuary. Many people often 
think of the Bay only as Maryland and Virginia, but the Bay's watershed 
covers 64,000 square miles in five States and the District of Columbia. 
In fact, the watershed's most northern part, or what we in upstate New 
York would call the starting point, extends into a significant portion 
of my congressional district and actually starts in Cooperstown, New 
York.
  As a result of its size and location, the Chesapeake Bay has played a 
role in the development of American history, from early settlement and 
commerce to military battles and transportation development, as well as 
recreational uses. It truly is worthy of preservation, both for its 
natural beauty and the impact on our Nation's cultural evolution.
  First established in 1998, the Chesapeake Bay Network is a 
comprehensive protection program for the Bay. The programs authorized 
serve to identify, conserve, restore and interpret the natural, 
historical, cultural and recreational resources within the watershed. 
These programs can also educate local communities on the significant 
sites in their region and how their community impacts the overall 
health of the Bay. The law requires the National Park Service to award 
grants to State and local agencies and nonprofit organizations with a 
full matching requirement for such projects.
  The resulting network is a system of over 150 parks, museums, 
historic communities, scenic roadways, watertrails and water access 
points located within the vast Chesapeake Bay watershed. Each of these 
sites tells a piece of a vast Chesapeake story while providing Federal 
support for the preservation and improvement of these sites, to enhance 
both the historical and recreational experience. The network is 
overseen by the National Park Service, but the Park Service only 
manages about 10 of the network's sites. Other gateways are managed by 
local, State and nongovernmental organizations.
  The Chesapeake Bay Network has always been a bipartisan program. The 
legislation that created it in 1998 passed the House on suspension by 
voice vote and was agreed to by unanimous consent in the Senate and 
signed into law by President Clinton. In 2002, a clean 5-year 
reauthorization received similar unanimous support in Congress and was 
signed into law by President Bush.
  The White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation headed by the 
Department of the Interior has called the network a success story. The 
legislation this rule provides for consideration of will permanently 
extend the authorization for this bipartisan program. It is worth 
noting that the National Park Service has also recommended permanent 
reauthorization of the network.
  I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this rule and the 
underlying bill and to continue to support the Chesapeake Bay Gateways 
and Watertrails Network.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 
30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives 
is currently spending 1 hour debating what rules will be used to 
consider the underlying Chesapeake Bay Watertrails bill. This is 
legislation that has passed the House in prior years with little or no 
dissent and without controversy. So the question must be asked, Mr. 
Speaker, why are the Democrat leaders going through all of this trouble 
of having the House consider this bill under this special rule? Why is 
the House going to spend 2 hours today discussing a bill that could 
have been handled in just 20 minutes under suspension and ultimately 
passed by an overwhelming number of votes in this House? And why, if 
the House is going to such lengths and dedicating 2 hours to consider 
watertrails on the Chesapeake Bay, are Members being blocked from a 
true, meaningful debate on the issue?
  This rule allows only one amendment to be offered, and that amendment 
would simply limit the extension of this existing Chesapeake Bay law 
for another 5 years, instead of extending it forever as the bill is 
currently written. If we are going to go through all the trouble of 
bringing this noncontroversial bill to the floor, why don't we have a 
real debate that allows every Member who has an amendment or an idea to 
improve this legislation to come to the House floor and have it 
discussed and voted on?
  When the Democrat leaders took control of the Congress after the 2006 
election, they promised the American people that they would run the 
House in a more open and honest manner. But ever since they made that 
promise, Democrat leaders have been doing just exactly the opposite. 
The Congressional Record shows that this Democrat Congress actually has 
the worst record, Mr. Speaker, the worst record on openness in the 
history of our country. In the past year-and-a-half, they have only 
allowed one bill, one bill, to come to the House floor and be debated 
under an open rule. As we see today on this Chesapeake Bay bill, they 
are even shutting down debate on even the most noncontroversial pieces 
of legislation.
  Now, I might point out also that the Democrat leaders today convened 
the House early. Normally when you get to work early it is either 
because you have a lot to do or you want to go home early. Let's 
consider that the only two things the House is scheduled to do today is 
to spend 2 hours debating watertrails and the Chesapeake Bay and one 
hour of debate on a final budget that was supposed to have been done, 
Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, and it is a budget that raises taxes by the 
largest amount in American history. At any rate, that is just 3 hours 
of time.
  So why did we convene early? What are we going to do the rest of the 
day? It seems pretty clear that the House didn't get to work early 
today because they had so much to do, but rather it

[[Page H4982]]

is, I believe, so the House can leave early and go home.
  Mr. Speaker, I have another idea, and that is that this House get 
serious about the rising price of gasoline in our country.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote no against the previous question when 
they bring that up at the end of the debate to allow the House to 
debate ``an amendment to a bill which the proponents assert if enacted 
would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon 
of regular unleaded gasoline.''
  Mr. Speaker, I first proposed this action on a similar previous 
question rule back on April 23. In the 44 days since, this liberal 
Congress has done nothing to address rising gas prices. According to 
information gathered by the AAA, the citizens of Washington State, my 
home State, who buy gas are paying the highest reported price for 
gasoline that has ever been paid in that State. It is at $4.19 per 
gallon.
  Speaker Pelosi promised the American people that Democrats had ``a 
commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Speaker 
Pelosi also said that the Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would 
``lower the price at the pump.'' Despite this promise of a plan and 
lower prices, since Democrats took control of the Congress, they have 
put forward no plan and prices have gone up, up and up to record 
levels.

                              {time}  1015

  And Democrats have blocked every try after try by Republicans to 
allow the House to debate, just simply to debate legislation to lower 
the price of gasoline. The only bill that Democrats have brought to the 
floor and passed was to file lawsuits against OPEC countries in the 
Middle East and to try to get them to produce more oil and to reduce 
prices. That is all, Mr. Speaker.
  Democrats may believe that suing Middle Eastern countries and raising 
taxes is a plan to lower gas prices here in America, but common sense 
says that is just wrong. It is Republicans that have a plan to produce 
American made gas and energy and it is the Democrats who are standing 
in the way of these solutions.
  Prices go up when demand goes up, and around the world the demand for 
oil and gas is going way up. Our country can either continue to sit 
here and be at the mercy of overseas Nations for our energy needs, or 
we as Americans can start taking matters into our own hands and start 
accessing the millions of barrels of known reserves right here within 
the United States. Our Nation's energy reserves have been put off-
limits, and Democrats continue to block even exploring the possibility 
of producing more energy here in America.
  With record gas prices at gas stations across the country, Americans 
can't afford to continue to rely on other countries in volatile parts 
of the world to sell us the gas and oil that we need. We need to 
produce this energy ourselves, Mr. Speaker.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against the 
previous question so this House can debate the serious issue of rising 
gas prices confronting Americans in our country and so we can start 
producing, producing, Mr. Speaker, American-made gasoline.
  If the House is going to spend 2 hours debating authorizing the 
Chesapeake Bay Watertrails law for 5 years or not, we certainly I 
think, Mr. Speaker, can afford to dedicate some time to considering 
ways to reduce the rising price of gasoline.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank my friend from Washington for his comments and 
just point out, Mr. Speaker, that on the one hand my colleague from 
Washington says that we are not allowing anyone to make any amendments, 
that we have closed the rule, and yet we have allowed every amendment 
in the Rules Committee that was offered including the one amendment 
from the gentleman from Utah. And then he criticizes in saying that we 
allow debate for 2 hours on this bill. You can't have it both ways. We 
have allowed debate on this bill, we have allowed for people to bring 
their amendments if that is what they choose to do and have an open 
Congress just the way we talked about.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of New York. I thank the gentleman from New York.
  In the Hudson Valley, in my district, gas prices have reached crisis 
levels where commuting is a daily part of life and small businesses 
need to move their products. The record-setting spikes in gas prices 
have been a drain on family budgets and our entire economy.
  There is, unfortunately, no silver bullet solution to our gas and oil 
challenge, but I am proud that Congress has taken aggressive action to 
provide desperately needed relief. We have passed a once in a 
generation increase in fuel economy standards, pushed for more 
development of cellulosic biofuels, and continue to advance legislation 
that would provide tax incentives for people to purchase fuel incentive 
vehicles and help us break the grip of OPEC on our economy.
  The need for relief is real and urgent, and we have also taken steps 
to provide near-term assistance. The House has passed a bill to beef up 
the Department of Justice's ability to pursue antitrust action in the 
oil sector, and we have also passed legislation that requires the 
President to stop taking oil off the market to put in the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, so that more supply is available on the market to 
lower prices. That was 70,000 barrels of oil a day that was being taken 
off the market that we passed in a bipartisan way. I am sure my friends 
across the aisle remember voting with us on that bill.
  When market relief does arrive, however, we need to make sure that 
the individual American driver benefits, not just the oil companies. 
There is the old proverbial question about whether a tree falling in 
the woods with no one to hear it actually makes a sound. I don't know 
about that, but I do know a drop in oil prices that doesn't cut prices 
at the pump is the same as no price drop at all.
  Unfortunately, that is what we have been seeing. Over the past week, 
the price of crude oil has actually dropped by several dollars per 
barrel, offering the hope that the edge would be taken off the record 
high gas prices we have been facing. One look at the local price 
figures at your gas station is enough to know it has not happened.
  On April 1, the price of crude oil was just over $100 per barrel and 
kept soaring, reaching $135 per barrel during trading on May 22. Over 
the same period of time, the national average price of gasoline rose 
from just under $3.29 to just over $3.83 a gallon. In New York, prices 
increased by over 60 cents from just over $3.40 to almost $4.02 a 
gallon.
  Despite the fact that as of 2 days ago crude prices had dropped below 
$123 a barrel, retail gasoline prices are still at record levels. 
Nationwide, the average price of regular gasoline stayed at $3.98, and 
in New York the average price remained at the astronomical level of 
$4.17 per gallon. These represent increases of about 15 cents per 
gallon at the pump during the same period in which crude oil prices 
were declining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Apparently, the old adage that what goes up 
must come down does not apply for the oil companies. That is a cause of 
great concern, and I have asked the Federal Trade Commission and the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission to investigate this disconnection 
between the price of oil on the world market and the price of refined 
product at the pump.
  Drivers are expected to share, in fact are forced to share, in the 
pain of oil and gas increases immediately, and they should have the 
expectation that they will also share in the relief just as quickly 
when the world oil price comes down. In a market this complex, it is 
imperative for the government to be an active protector of consumer 
rights and take swift measures to ensure that conditions are not 
exploited to the detriment of working families. By doing so, I believe 
we can make sure that any drop in crude prices will also mean real 
relief at the pump.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Washington State for yielding.
  The question today is about the rule dealing with the Chesapeake Bay. 
Well, this is a piece of legislation that is not

[[Page H4983]]

controversial. The House can deal with this measure very quickly and 
move on. Instead, the Democrat leadership has chosen a very cumbersome 
process that locks out amendments, that locks out new ideas dealing 
with the Chesapeake Bay, and takes up a significant amount of time in 
the people's House.
  What we should be spending our time on, however, in this House of 
Representatives is not a piece of noncontroversial legislation which 
will take up over 2 hours of our day. Instead, we should devote this 
time to bringing down the cost and the price of gasoline at the pumps. 
That is what the American people want. That is what my constituents in 
Western North Carolina are demanding, that we take action on high gas 
prices.
  We have a need and necessity for oil in this country. It is not 
something that I sought, but this is a life I was born into. We have 
had our economy powered by oil for about the last 100 years. It is just 
a fact. I think there will be a day when we can move to some other type 
of power to move our automobiles and trucks and planes. I am hopeful 
for that day. That day will happen and I will be fighting for policies 
to bring it about. But until that time comes, we must have sources of 
American energy, and we must be energy independent in America. We can't 
be beholden to the Saudi royal family for our price at the pumps; but, 
unfortunately, we are.
  And why is that? Well, it is because of a significant number of 
policies that this Congress has put in place, very cumbersome 
regulations that we need to streamline when we come to the issue of 
building new refineries. And let's face it, we need new refineries to 
get diesel and unleaded fuel to the pumps. That also equals jobs. 
Unfortunately, in this country we have to import refined products. That 
means we have outsourced jobs. That means we have also sent our wealth 
overseas to these Nations that are refining product.
  But beyond refineries which we must build, we also have to increase 
domestic production, American energy sources. And we have got 
significant American energy resources. The known reserves that we have 
in this country of oil will power 60 million automobiles for 60 years. 
Now, that is not a long-term solution, but it is certainly good for the 
next 60 years while we are building alternatives and different types of 
power sources.
  So we also need that American energy production, whether it is oil, 
natural gas, coal. We have more coal in this United States, enough 
power source out of that coal than Saudi Arabia has. Actually, we have 
three times the amount of coal in this country as Saudi Arabia has oil. 
So these are not perfect solutions, but they will work in the short 
term.
  But why are we at this state? Why are we at this place where we are 
paying almost $4 at the pump?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McHENRY. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. KINGSTON. You mean to tell me that the American middle class is 
continuing to suffer with record high gas prices, prices that have 
nearly doubled since the Democrat regime took over Congress, and we are 
still not dealing with it today? Is that what I am hearing from the 
gentleman?
  Mr. McHENRY. This is what I am talking about, and I appreciate the 
gentleman from Georgia asking. The reason we have high gas prices is 
because there is inaction by Democrat leadership. They don't want new 
refineries. They don't want American energy production. They want to 
simply conserve our way into energy independence. That is not possible. 
The American people know it is not possible, and I ask the Democrat 
leadership to yield to common sense and ask us to create more American 
energy so we can be energy independent.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my colleague from 
North Carolina talks about inaction. And he would have the American 
people believe that inaction means not drilling. They are two 
distinctly different things. Just simply because I don't advocate 
drilling doesn't mean that I am not for alternative energy. We cannot 
drill our way to energy independence. It just doesn't make sense.
  Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARCURI. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. McHENRY. What pieces of legislation have been brought up this 
Congress to increase American energy production? Name one.
  Mr. ARCURI. Reclaiming my time, it is not about drilling. That is 
what some people in this House want to talk about. It is not. It is 
about developing alternative energy. In my district, we are developing 
cellulosic ethanol. In my district, we are developing geothermal power. 
We are heating schools, we are heating buildings, we are heating 
offices with geothermal. It is about developing alternative energy. It 
is not about drilling, drilling, drilling. Because in the end, what is 
going to happen is in 10 years or in 15 years we are going to defer 
this problem to our children. It is not something that we should just 
dump on their laps by just moving the problem to them.
  We can drill today, we can drill tomorrow. And then in 10 years and 
in 15 years our children and our grandchildren will have to deal with 
this. It is time to deal with it today. Mr. Speaker, it is time to deal 
with it today and to deal with it now, not to defer it to our children. 
That is not what a good parent does.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Before I yield to the gentleman from 
California, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
McHenry) to respond.
  Mr. McHENRY. I appreciate the gentleman from Washington yielding me 
time so I can answer the gentleman's question.
  I think this is a very interesting argument, alternatives. Well, so 
far in our power resources in the United States, 1 percent of our 
current power is produced by the types of things the gentleman is 
talking about. They are very expensive currently. The technology is 
very expensive.
  So the gentleman is saying we can take that 1 percent, and let's say 
we can double it in the next 10 years, which is an ambitious proposal 
that some on your side have advocated and actually I am for. That takes 
us to 2 percent of American energy production.
  What we need while we are doing that is actually reasonable 
solutions, and that means increasing supply.

                              {time}  1030

  The American people understand basic economics, unlike some on the 
other side of the aisle. They understand basic economics, that it is 
supply and demand that control price.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to 
my friend from New York, I don't have any geothermal cars in my 
district. Perhaps the gentleman does in New York.
  For me to answer the folks back home that are saying what are we 
going to do about gas prices with well, we're studying geothermal, 
frankly, it just doesn't cut it.
  You know, I remember the week before we got out for Memorial break, 
that we had 55, 55, count them, 55 suspensions in 2 days. I can't 
recall all of them, but when I had a tele-town hall this last Sunday in 
my district, I had 4,200 people on the line, and not one of them asked 
a question about one of those 55 suspension bills.
  What did they ask about? They asked about what are you in Congress 
going to do, not just about gas prices, but about increasing energy 
production in this country?
  So I come back here this week anticipating legislation that perhaps 
will deal with those kinds of issues. And what do we have?
  The first 2 days, we had 22 suspensions; supporting National Men's 
Health Week, a worthy cause, but not a single person asked me about 
that. But almost everybody asked me about gas prices.
  We recognized the State of Minnesota's 150th anniversary, a worthy 
goal. But not a single person asked me about that. Not one of the 4,200 
people asked me about that. But many of them asked me about gas.
  We supported the goals and ideals of Arbor Day Foundation and the 
National Arbor Day, a nice thing to do,

[[Page H4984]]

but not a single person asked me about National Arbor Day. Many asked 
me about gasoline prices.
  We designated a post office to be named after someone in Portland, 
Oregon. We designated another post office to be named after someone in 
San Gabriel, California, again a nice thing to do, but not a single 
person of the 4,200 that were on my tele-town hall asked me about that. 
But they did ask me about gas prices.
  We had the Federal Food Donation Act of 2008, not a bad idea, but not 
a single person asked me about that. But they asked me about gas 
prices.
  We had the Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act on the 
floor that we talked about and passed, but no one asked me about that 
back home. They all asked me about gas prices.
  We had the Telework Improvements Act of 2008. No one asked me about 
that, but they asked me about gas prices.
  We voted on the Federal Agency Data Protection Act this week. Not a 
single person asked about that. But almost everybody asked about gas 
prices.
  We had the Government Accountability Office Act of 2008. No one asked 
me about that, but they asked me about the accountability of this 
Congress in not doing a single thing for more energy production.
  We had a bill authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 
Greater Washington Soap Box Derby. That's like mother and apple pie. 
But no one asked me about the Soap Box Derby in Greater Washington. 
They all asked me about their cars which don't run downhill by gravity, 
but they do run on gasoline. And they said, what is Congress going to 
do about that?
  We authorized the use of the Capitol Grounds for a celebration of the 
100th anniversary of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority. Now, I'm sure that's a 
wonderful sorority, but not a single person of the 4,200 that were on 
my tele-town hall asked me about that sorority. But most of them asked 
about gasoline prices.
  We had the James Ashley and Thomas Ashley United States Courthouse 
Designation Act. And I remember Tom Ashley, a good man. But nobody 
asked me about him on my tele-town hall. But they almost all asked 
about gas prices.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for an 
additional minute. I would need about 4 minutes to go through all the 
other suspensions we got through this week, this week, that is 
legislative time that we have spent on this floor, those without rules.
  Now we're going to have a rule on this bill, the Chesapeake Bay 
Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act, probably 
a worthy act. But, believe me, I know it may surprise the gentleman 
from New York, but not a single person in my district asked me about 
that. But they asked about gas prices.
  And perhaps the reason why the gentleman from New York is loath to 
talk about this is that on every single vote we have had over the last 
number of years on increased oil production, 91 percent of the 
Republicans have voted for increased American energy production, 
American energy production, and over 85 percent of the Democrats have 
voted against it.
  What has resulted from that? A stalemate in which the American people 
are held hostage because we will not allow, yes, drilling. I know 
that's a dirty word over there. Drilling. That's usually how you bring 
oil up out of the ground.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has again expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Usually you have to drill to 
bring the oil out of the ground because that's where it is. It may be a 
dirty word in the gentleman's district, but frankly, you have to drill 
before you refine, before you have it available so that you can 
increase supply so that people can have their prices go down so they 
can drive to work and drive to recreational facilities, not in 
thermoenergy, geothermal cars, but actually in cars with gasoline, 
which is what happens in my district. Perhaps the gentleman from New 
York's district is different.
  Maybe we should take some attention from the concerns of the American 
people and do something about gas prices here.
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank the gentleman for the history lesson and for the 
lesson on what drilling means. I really appreciate that. I know we 
don't have a lot of domestic oil in New York, but I appreciate having 
him tell me what drilling means.
  But when people in my district talk to me about what are we doing 
about gas, and we get those very same questions, I tell them that we 
have done some things. We have passed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
Fill Suspension Consumer Protection Act. I tell them we've passed the 
Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act. I tell them we've passed the 
OPEC and big oil companies accountability bill. I tell them we've 
passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. I tell them 
we've passed the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act. I 
tell them we've passed the Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act. I tell 
them we've passed the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act. I 
tell them we've passed the Energy Market Manipulation Prevention Act.
  Mr. Speaker, America is tired of the same old rhetoric. They want new 
solutions. When I talk about geothermal projects that we have in our 
district, when I talk about cellulosic ethanol plants, when I talk 
about wood pellet plants, that is new strategies. Those are new 
philosophies. Those are the kind of strategies that we need in this 
country for real, long-term change in direction, the kind of direction 
that will make it easier for our children and our grandchildren to live 
and to function and not to be dependent on foreign oil.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, it's so interesting listening to this 
debate this morning. And I think that the gentleman was rattling off 
some bills that they have passed. The problem is they're all talk and 
no action. They don't do anything to get the price down at the pump; 
don't actually accomplish the goal of producing any more oil.
  What the American people want to see is not right now a debate on a 
bill which could go through on a voice vote, the Chesapeake Bay 
Gateways and Watertrails Network. What they want is for us to take the 
time to address the price at the pump and the cost of energy.
  My constituents in Tennessee ask me every week, what did you all do 
to address the price at the pump? They know that we, as Americans, are 
the greatest innovators that there are. American ingenuity can solve 
all sorts of problems. They know that we have the resources on American 
soil to address this issue. They also know that we need a short-term, a 
mid-range and a long-term strategy.
  Now, to my colleagues, I will say no is not an energy strategy, and 
no is not an energy policy. No is a roadblock to a sustainable, 
predictable energy source.
  Now, we can go in and look at what was happening with the price of a 
barrel of oil, and we're using about 21 million barrels of oil in 
America today to get the 420 million gallons of gasoline that you are 
pumping when you go to fill up your car.
  Now, when the Democrats took the gavels in the House and in the 
Senate, and they're the ones that are setting the legislative agenda, 
they are the ones that are saying no to getting this price down, they 
are the ones who are making decisions that continue to drive it up. 
$123.85 a barrel. That's where it was yesterday. That is where it was.
  What has caused this to happen?
  Mr. Speaker, I would say it is because of the history of action. When 
you look at ANWR exploration, House Republicans have supported this 91 
percent of the time. House Democrats have opposed it 86 percent of the 
time.
  Coal-to-liquid. There's another innovative source. 97 percent of the 
Republicans have supported it. 78 percent of the Democrats have opposed 
it.

[[Page H4985]]

  Oil shale exploration. House Republicans have supported it 90 percent 
of the time. House Democrats have opposed this American solution to 
American resources and American energy 86 percent of the time.
  The Outer Continental Shelf. We know that Cuba is letting China drill 
50 miles off our shores. What are we doing with the Outer Continental 
Shelf? 81 percent of the time House Republicans support that. Democrats 
oppose that 83 percent of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional 
seconds.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. 
Rhetoric is what the Democrats have given us on the issue of the price 
at the pump, on the issue of home heating oil.
  The American people want answers and they want solutions. And what 
they are getting from the Democrat leadership is prices that are going 
up and up and up and up, in my district, from $2.20 a gallon to $3.99. 
$3.99. That is what Democrat leadership of this body has given you.
  Mr. ARCURI. I'll reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much 
time remains on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York has 18 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire of my 
friend from New York if he has any further speakers.
  Mr. ARCURI. We have no further speakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and wanted to point 
out that yesterday we passed Soap Box Derby Appreciation Day. And I 
guess that's fitting because that must be the Democrat idea to conserve 
oil and look for alternatives, because at the rate gas prices are 
going, we will all be driving soap box cars that are powered by feet.
  Look at the gas prices. When the Pelosi regime took over the House of 
Representatives, gas prices were $2.33 a gallon. Now, they promised to 
reduce those prices; yet a funny thing happened on the way to the pump. 
It is now about $4 a gallon. Well, I guess if that's indicative of the 
promises that the Democrats keep and the way they deliver it, maybe 
it's right that yet again today we are ignoring any serious legislation 
that would address gas prices.
  You know, it's interesting. It's been over 10 years since President 
Clinton vetoed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Now, I 
want to put this in perspective for you. Remember, Alaska is twice as 
big as Texas. The reserve area is the size of South Carolina. The 
potential exploration area is about 2,000 acres.
  Now, a word picture would be that if the Arctic wildlife reserve was 
a basketball court, the proposed exploration area is a business card. 
And yet, the radical extremists in the liberal community are afraid to 
drill there.
  I just got back from a bipartisan trip to the Middle East. We met 
with oil ministries from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. And 
you know what they said?
  How dare you Americans come to the Middle East and demand that we 
reduce oil and gas prices when you won't even drill on your own lands.

                              {time}  1045

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. KINGSTON. You have the audacity to come to us and tell us to 
drill more and yet you won't even unlock your own lands. What kind of 
hypocrisy is that? Instead, you know what the Democrats do? They make 
it easier to sue OPEC. Well, that sounds good, but the reality is what 
they told us is, Hey, the higher the cost of doing business in America 
is the less willing we are to do business there. And guess what? China 
and India are willing to buy our product as is. You increase the price 
of doing business in America, China and India will step in that void. 
Keep that in mind.
  One more day the Democrats are ignoring high gas prices.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I find the testimony from 
the gentleman from New York interesting. He mentioned pellet stoves, 
one of the new future heat. 800,000 Americans now heat their homes with 
a pellet stove. There's 30 or 40 pellet mills sprung up around the 
country but with no government incentive.
  Now, we ought to be incentivizing people to be able to heat their 
homes with woody biomass. Woody biomass has been the fastest growing 
energy but without government incentives. We need to be incentivizing 
that.
  He also mentioned cellulosic ethanol, which is from woody biomass or 
garbage or sweetgrass. That's in the laboratory. We're all for that. 
But it's in the laboratory. There is no refinery producing that kind of 
energy today at any scale at all. In fact, we have not yet designed the 
first refinery. It's future.
  The only thing in all of the bills he mentioned that produced energy 
was we stopped using 70,000 barrels a day in the Strategic Reserve, and 
that's when we use 21 million barrels a day for the country, we save 
70,000. That's the only production that's been passed.
  As we look to my left, we have a chart that shows offshore locked up. 
Oil and gas out there proficient. Lots of it. Locked up. Well, if we 
want to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, there's a way to do that. The NEED 
Act, H.R. 2784, my bill does that by producing offshore, putting a part 
of the royalties. We have 32 billion for carbon capture, 32 billion for 
renewable energy, 100 billion for the treasury, 150 billion for 
producing States, 20 billion for the Chesapeake Bay.
  Now, these are at old gas prices. This is gas. Natural gas was $12.50 
when I left my office. Last year at this time it was $6.50. That's the 
gas we were putting in the ground for next winter. Americans are going 
to get whacked this winter because we're putting gas at almost twice 
the value in the ground for winter storage than we did last year.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Folks, if we're serious about cleaning 
up the Chesapeake Bay, we can get affordable energy for America by 
producing offshore. Every country in the world produces here. We're the 
only country that doesn't, and we can have $20 billion, which is 
exactly what the Chesapeake Bay people need to clean up the Chesapeake 
Bay, and we can have affordable natural gas and oil for America.
  Folks, we need to have supply.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, this is not an either/or match. This is not 
either alternatives or crude oil and natural gas. This is both. The 
issue is how do we transition from where we are today to where we all 
want to get to, and how do we afford that transition.
  If you simply cut off crude oil as part of that solution today, then 
you're going to have exactly what we've got: rising gasoline prices, 
soaring electricity prices, natural gas prices are going to go up, home 
heating costs are going to go up. And in an ironic twist of fate, the 
commonsense plan to lower gasoline prices includes being allowed to sue 
OPEC to increase their production. I'm anxiously awaiting reaction in 
the OPEC countries to allow OPEC citizens to sue America to force 
America to produce her own energy.
  This is not either/or. It is both.
  Let's turn down the rhetoric and begin to work toward both a current 
short-term solution as well as a long-term solution all of us embrace.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of my friend

[[Page H4986]]

from New York if he's the last speaker still.
  Mr. ARCURI. I have no further speakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leaders today have put a noncontroversial 
Chesapeake Bay watertrails bill on the House floor, but what is first 
and foremost on the minds of Americans is gas prices, as we have talked 
about today. And it's also a huge concern in the Chesapeake Bay 
communities.
  I venture to guess the citizens and families living around the 
Chesapeake Bay don't wake up in the morning worried about watertrails 
but they do worry in the Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake basin about 
the price of gasoline.
  I would like to submit, Mr. Speaker, for the Record, several news 
releases here talking about the price of gasoline. This is from WJZ, a 
local Maryland station. And it says here, ``Watermen Feeling Pain At 
the Pump.'' It talks about the beautiful weather, but it also says that 
the price of gas is doubling and the price of seafood is going down, 
and that's a bad combination.
  Here is another one: ``Gas prices force business owners to clamp 
down.'' And there's talk about a gentleman who has to spend $4,000 a 
month on gasoline.
  And here is another one regarding the Chesapeake Bay community. It 
says, ``Gas prices fuel dip in fishing.''

           [From WJZ--a local Maryland station, May 30, 2008]

                   Watermen Feeling Pain At The Pump

                          (By Alex DeMetrick)

       The weather is beautiful on the Chesapeake Bay. But things 
     are downright ugly at fuel docks.
       Alex DeMetrich reports gas prices are soaring and that's 
     having an impact on those who depend upon boats and the bay 
     to make a living.
       Naming a work boat the ``Last Penny'' may have been a stab 
     at humor once, but it's striking a little too close to 
     reality at fuel docks around the bay. Diesel is at $4.50 a 
     gallon and climbing.
       ``The gas is doubling and the price of seafood is going 
     down,'' said Waterman Bucky Murphy.
       Working the water takes constant moving. But with crabs 
     spotty and fuel high, watermen are trying to conserve.
       ``They're hurting us bad. Its almost double in the past 
     year, so it's taking a right good bite out of us.'' said 
     waterman Wendell Lednun.
       Joe Spurry buys crabs on Tilghman Island, but his truck 
     might carry them as far away as New York.
       Right now, crabs are selling for around $90 a bushel 
     dockside. By the time they get to a seafood market in 
     Baltimore, they could cost around $200 a bushel.
                                  ____


                    [From the Capital, May 13, 2008]

             Gas Prices Force Business Owners to Clamp Down

                          (By Adriane Watson)

       Tom Campbell is spending $4,000 per month on gasoline.
       The gas budget for Mr. Campbell's business Short Hop Moving 
     Inc., an Annapolis-based moving company, increased $2,500 
     since the price of fuel reached an uncomfortable high. The 
     company has since taken a financial hit because of the spike 
     in gas prices.
       ``In the past year, we cut our business literally in 
     half,'' he said.
       Skyrocketing gas prices forced Mr. Campbell to reduce his 
     fleet from seven moving trucks to three, and to close a 
     satellite office in Laurel.
       The small-business owner said he can no longer give his 
     employees company credit cards to use at the pumps. Instead 
     he fills up the trucks himself each morning to monitor what 
     he's spending on gas, which is inching toward $4 per gallon.
       Gasoline prices have shattered previous records, reaching 
     an average high of $3.72 per gallon in Maryland yesterday, 
     said Ragina Avarella of the AAA Mid-Atlantic division.
       Mr. Campbell said the strain of gas prices has extended 
     beyond his business and into his personal life, as well. His 
     daughter now walks to visit friends, and he and his wife cut 
     down on driving by using only one of their vehicles, he said.
       ``It's changing everything,'' he said. ``It's changing the 
     way we do business completely.''
       The pain at the pump isn't limited to transportation with 
     tires. Elevated prices are causing some charter fishing 
     captains to want to jump overboard. Alex Schlegel, owner of 
     Hartge Yacht Yard in Galesville, said he is selling gas for 
     about $4.20 per gallon at his fuel dock and has noticed fewer 
     small powerboats on the water.
       Capt. Joe Richardson, of Dancer Sportfishing Charters, said 
     he is trying to spend as little time at the pump as possible, 
     and that means changing the way he does business. He said he 
     isn't able to take his charters out as far into the 
     Chesapeake Bay as he did previously as a means of conserving 
     gas.
       ``You have to change your game plan; you have to raise your 
     prices, and you're afraid to price yourself out of the 
     game,'' he said.
       Mr. Richardson said he noticed people calling to make price 
     comparisons more this year than ever before.
       ``We might just end up sitting at the dock if the prices 
     get too high,'' he said, explaining that bookings for his 
     charter boat are already down from last year.
       Capt. T.J. Johnson, owner of Tracy Lynn Charters out of 
     Edgewater, said he has tried to stay at the same price for 
     years. But this year, that's proven difficult as he was 
     forced to raise rates by $25 for this fishing season because 
     of fuel costs.
       He said he fears raising rates too much will put him out of 
     business.
       ``If you go up too much, you're gonna be sitting at home 
     every day and not doing any charters at all,'' he said. ``It 
     makes it tough.''
       To conserve gas and save money, Mr. Johnson said he has 
     taken advantage of fishing areas closer to his Edgewater 
     dock, but will have to double the distance he travels from 5 
     miles to 10 or 15 miles later in the season.
       ``I can't just take them out for sucker laps,'' he said.
       Mr. Johnson said that before fuel cost went through the 
     roof he ran between 85 and 90 charters a year. Last year, 
     that number fell to 60 charters, and this year he said he has 
     only taken about 10 trips out, half as many as this time last 
     year.
       Even regular clients are reducing their bookings already 
     this season, he said.
       Otis Elevator Co., a national elevator, escalator and 
     moving walkway manufacturer, booked about 38 charter trips 
     with Mr. Johnson last year. This year, Mr. Johnson said the 
     company has cut back to 25 dates from now through October.
       Though he couldn't name a specific reason why the company, 
     among other regular clients, has reduced their charter trips, 
     Mr. Johnson said he suspects it is combination of the 
     sluggish economy and higher transportation costs that have 
     people spending less across-the-board.
       And the lack of business has affected how he and his wife 
     use fuel at home, he said.
       Mr. Johnson, who maintains the family vehicles himself, 
     said he tries to keep oil changes up-to-date and has begun 
     filling his tires with more air, sacrificing a smoother ride 
     for better gas mileage.
       ``I'm just gonna try to ride it out and do what I can. I 
     ain't got much choice,'' he said. ``I'm doing a lot of things 
     now that I never had to do 20 years ago.''
       For others, it's business somewhat as usual.
       Sandi Latham owns Sandi's Flower Shop on King George Street 
     and offers delivery services to her clients. So far, she 
     said, she has ``absorbed the loss'' in hopes that the cost of 
     gas will begin to drop.
       Ms. Latham has taken the hit from all sides since the cost 
     of her trash removal and delivery from wholesalers has spiked 
     to make up for the increases at the pump.
       She hasn't increased her own delivery rates, which she said 
     are now hovering at about $10 for local deliveries. Ms. 
     Latham receives her wholesale flower deliveries from 
     companies in Baltimore and Washington, D.C., that charge from 
     $9 to $12.50 to deliver flowers to the downtown florist. 
     While she said those prices are ``very reasonable'' for the 
     distance of the trip, the rate increases are becoming too 
     much for her to absorb.
       Ms. Latham said she fears raising delivery rates greater 
     than $10 because she feels her customers will find anything 
     higher ``frustrating.'' But she said most people are willing 
     to pay for the convenience of delivery. Still, she wants to 
     wait out the competition.
       ``You hate to be the first guy that raises their rate,'' 
     she said. ``But you also hope your customers will come to you 
     for your product.''
       In the meantime, she said she is reviewing her own costs 
     and considering mark-ups across-the-board for flower sales to 
     make up for the steady increase in gasoline prices.
       ``It's bearing down on me and I've tried not to raise it, 
     but I'm just going to not have a choice,'' she said.
                                  ____


                    [From the Capital, June 1, 2008]

  Outdoors: Gas Prices Fuel Dip in Fishing; Charter Operations, Bait 
                      Shops Feeling Economic Pinch

                            (By Bill Burton)

       It's the economy, stupid.
       So said Clinton aid James Carville in that future 
     president's first and winning campaign against George H. W. 
     Bush. It turned out he was right. Bottom line: It is the 
     economy.
       Anglers who don't daydream of skippering a charterboat or 
     guiding once they retire are as scarce as drivers of big SUVs 
     pleased with their fuel mileage. But, believe me, these days 
     their pipe dreams would be nightmares. That is if they got 
     any sleep at all. And no psychiatrist would be needed to 
     interpret their dreams.
       It's the economy, stupid.
       This time around, Izaak Waltons can't blame fisheries 
     administrators, regulations, publicity about blemished 
     rockfish or the shortage of fish available. Repercussions 
     from the escalating price of fuel are felt everywhere, 
     sportsfishing is no exception. Neither is the business of 
     chartering, headboating or commercial fishing.

[[Page H4987]]

       The same applies to businesses associated with fishing; one 
     big tackle shop proprietor told me the other day, ``I've got 
     four people and myself working right now--and not a single 
     customer in the shop. Haven't seen one in 10 minutes.''
       On weekdays, charter fishermen tell me they've never seen 
     so few chartercraft on the Chesapeake; even worse is the 
     number of private boats they encounter. If they see a dozen 
     recreational boats during a trip that's a lot. Meanwhile, the 
     fish appear to be staging for a good summer season.
       The black drum, a few of which were caught earlier in 
     Tangier Sound down Crisfield way, are now moving in at the 
     Stone Rock off Tilghman Island; some fishermen are using 
     white perch to catch stripers via live-lining, and the 
     Norfolk spot arrival is picking up despite the bay's chillier 
     waters. As soon as the bay gets a few degrees warmer the 
     perch will leave the tributaries--and at the ocean, the big 
     bluefish, tuna and sharks are already moving in.
       Sorry, the same can't be said for fishermen, recreational 
     or charter. No matter how they fish, they all share the same 
     woe; the cost of fuel. A gallon of diesel can cost more than 
     $5. A charter skipper can hike his price 25 bucks and what's 
     he got?
       He's got five more gallons of fuel, that's all he's got. 
     And that won't take him far in a big charterboat. That's what 
     Capt. Ed Darwin runs out of Mill Creek, Annapolis. His Becky-
     D purrs on gasoline, which is a bit less costly than diesel, 
     so after considering the overall economy, he decided on only 
     a $25 increase--and already finds fuel costs are outpacing 
     him.
       ``I raised my price $40 and the way fuel is rising, I 
     already lose $20 every day,'' said Bruce Scheible of 
     Scheible's Fishing Center at Ridge in St. Mary's County. ``No 
     way can I get over the hump in fuel costs--not only that 
     we've got good fishing, but less customers. Fortunately we've 
     got bluefish (2- to 3-pounders) in the Potomac along with 
     rockfish and with hardheads moving in--and that can save us 
     money. We don't have to run all the way down the Potomac to 
     the bay then to the fishing grounds below there. We have 
     charters, but certainly not near as many as usual.
       Fred Donovan, dockmaster at the Rod 'n Reel Docks, 
     Chesapeake Beach, played a hunch. He didn't raise prices at 
     one of the biggest fishing centers on the bay figuring it 
     would give him a competitive edge and it worked in the always 
     popular trophy season when everyone wanted to go. Now the 
     dollar figures whirl by so fast on fuel pumps, soon his 
     regular customers who haven't already booked their dates can 
     expect a letter informing them prices are going up $50. He 
     will honor lower agreed prices made in early bookings.
       Fred's got a few other problems. Much of his clientele come 
     from long distances, Pennsylvania and Virginia or further 
     away, and it's getting so they now have to figure into 
     expenses the driving costs to Chesapeake Bay. And, what to do 
     about headboat prices? The big fuel thirsty headboat Lady 
     Hooker has started headboat service out of the Rod 'n Reel 
     with varying success (cool bay waters have slowed perch'n) 
     and it's no longer financially feasible to sail with less 
     than 15 customers aboard at $55 a head plus the dozen 
     bloodworms each angler gets with the ticket.
       Some trips have already been canceled like the one on the 
     day I called when only 11 fishermen showed. The Lady Hooker 
     sails at 8 a.m. and returns to the docks at 3 p.m., no more 
     night trips. Perch, spot and hardheads are the usual catches 
     with blues and stripers other possibilities. One has to be 
     careful about raising headboat prices; headboaters are more 
     cost conscious than charter fishermen. Fred advises anglers 
     to call ahead at 800-233-2080 to inquire of the likelihood of 
     sailing on a given weekday.
       The economy isn't good, so they don't want to raise prices 
     for fear losing customers, yet if they don't they can lose 
     money by running. And like the rest of us, they have no idea 
     how high fuel costs will peak. There has to be a limit, but 
     where? Fuel prices impact every aspect of sportsfishing as 
     they do everything else.
       Others who cater to the fishermen are also in a bind. Rick 
     Warren of Warren's Bait Box, Glen Burnie, is concerned about 
     his business. His customers no longer shop; ``they know what 
     they want when they come in--and that's what they buy, they 
     don't look around to shop for anything else. Rising fuel 
     costs, whether in vehicles to get them to fishing areas, fuel 
     for boats to fish from and higher headboats or charterboat 
     fees have them strapped for cash, there's little to spare,'' 
     said Rick.
       ``Higher end and more profitable tackle items like the 
     better rods and reels aren't selling like they used to,'' 
     said Charlie Ebersberger, proprietor of Anglers Sports Center 
     just off of Route 50. ``Fishermen check prices carefully, 
     they've become more cost conscious and now look for lower-end 
     and mid-priced merchandise to save money for fuel-associated 
     costs. I hope it changes when the fishing gets hot--and they 
     still just have to go regardless of cost.''
       Capt. Stu Burgoon Sr., who with his son Stu Jr. fish a few 
     charterboats out of Happy Harbor in Deale, have started to 
     fish for black drum at the Stone Rock before or after they 
     get their rockfish have made some changes in gears to their 
     boats to increase fuel efficiency, but the longer run for 
     drum is still costly. Once the expected live-lining at the 
     False Channel gets hot in a few weeks, it will be a long run 
     out of Deale to load up on stripers.
       Capt. George Prenant, past president of the Maryland 
     Charterboat Association who skippers the Stormy Petrel out of 
     Happy Harbor, says the charter skipper who gets four or five 
     bookings a week is quite lucky.
       ``Customers have become `somewhat' timid,'' said George who 
     endured the Kepone scare, Tropical Storm Agnes that muddied 
     waters for weeks on end and other economic woes in his long 
     career. ``Trophy season was good, but now that they've 
     (customers) have got cabin fever out of their system, who 
     knows what lies ahead. We'll just have to wait and see.''
       Most who board charterboats these days can expect to pay 
     about $500 for a half-day trip, $700 to $750 for a full day--
     and that's at the moment. If fuel prices keep rising (lately 
     they've been rising a few cents a day), expect to pay more. 
     The prudent fisherman will book now at a given price and hope 
     there are no additional surcharges for fuel as there well 
     might be.
       Meanwhile, more than a few marinas and fishing centers have 
     vacant slips as some have decided not to use their boats this 
     year. Some will fish selectively and charter--get a gang 
     together--to save on bottom-line expenses. One yacht club 
     always filled has 14 vacant slips. The expected run of 
     bluefish aplenty could help a bit, blues spread out 
     everywhere, which should mean shorter runs and small boats to 
     catch fish, but 'most everyone demands rockfish. Close by 
     perch, hardheads and spot are other alternatives.
       No matter how one looks at it, fishing is going to cost 
     much more this year--and at a time when the outlook is for 
     great catching. Everything depends on priorities. Though 
     dyed-in-the-wool Izaak Waltons place fishing high on their 
     priorities, there's a limit. The vehicles they drive to work 
     also need fuel in their tanks. A budget can be stretched only 
     so much--and everything costs more because to transportation 
     charges.
       If you think things are bad in the bay, how would you like 
     to be an offshore charter skipper trying to book parties for 
     billfish and tuna in the distant bluewater canyons. The cost 
     of fuel alone can be $1,000 to $2,000 depending on size of 
     boat and canyon targeted what with diesel prices for many 
     charterboats already above five bucks a gallon for those 
     obliged to buy their fuel at the docks they fish from. If you 
     have to ask the price for a charter you can't afford to go.

  Mr. Speaker, it is really time for the House to debate ideas for 
lowering gas prices. I'm going to ask my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question, and I will move to amend the rule to allow that any 
amendment be made in order on the underlying bill that would have the 
effect of lowering the national average price of gasoline.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge again my colleagues 
to defeat the previous question so this House can get serious about 
rising gas prices and so we can start producing American-made energy 
and gasoline.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is a person in America 
today that hasn't been affected either personally or through their 
business by the high cost of energy, by the high cost of gas. You know, 
we all go to the gas pumps. Just last weekend when I was home, I was 
pumping the gas, and you could see the look on people's faces as they 
watched the amount and as they went inside to pay the bill. And we all 
know, whether you're in New York or whether you're in the State of 
Washington or whether you're in Texas, no matter where you are here in 
this country, we all know and experience the same thing.
  However, the strategy of finger-pointing and blaming just will not 
get this country to where we need to be. We talk about here whose fault 
it is. We constantly have people pointing the finger. The fact of the 
matter is in 2002 when this President took over in the White House, the 
price of oil was $25 a barrel. Today it's nearly $130 a barrel. The 
cost of gas per gallon has tripled.
  We could point the finger. We could blame. We could do a lot of 
things. The fact of the matter is we cannot drill our way to energy 
independence. And people here would have you think that there is no 
drilling and there is no exploration going on in this country. Right 
now in my State, in fact, in my district, in the southern part of New 
York State, the northern part of Pennsylvania, there are huge amounts 
of exploration going on for natural gas.

[[Page H4988]]

Huge natural gas fields there. They are looking for gas. They are 
searching for gas. They are finding it in this country. It is going on. 
The American people will have all of the energy that they need.
  However, if we are going to get to where we need to be as a country, 
we cannot depend on a finite resource. We can't depend on gas and oil. 
It will be gone. It will eventually deplete, and our children will be 
right where we are now paying double, triple, quadruple what we are 
paying now for energy.
  It is time to look toward alternative energy, and that's what we 
advocate; Not stopping drilling. No one wants to see us stop drilling 
or stop exploration. Just to be practical in terms of how we develop 
our alternative energy in the next step that we take.
  Mr. Speaker, allow me to bring us back here to the discussion, just 
for a moment, of the real reason that we're here today, and that is the 
reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. 
I think it's sad that this bill seems to have been trivialized today 
because this is a very important bill. This means a great deal to many 
people that live in the States that the Chesapeake Bay watershed is in 
but more importantly to this country.
  It is such an important part of our history and a critical part of 
our future. This is a program that did not have even a single Member of 
Congress oppose its creation or its subsequent reauthorization. Over a 
decade that the program has existed, it has been heralded as a success 
by the administration and Congress alike.
  The program was unanimously reauthorized by Congress 5 years ago. The 
legislation this rule provides for consideration would now permanently 
extend the authorization for this bipartisan program. And the National 
Park Service has recommended this permanent reauthorization of the 
network. Everyone agrees that the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
Watertrails Network is a good program. That's had a positive impact on 
the preservation and recreation within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
  I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that we on the Rules 
Committee have made every amendment on this legislation submitted by 
the Republican minority for consideration. This will allow for both a 
full debate and a vote on every item of legislation with which the 
Republican minority has issue.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question and on the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1233 
and the underlying bill, H.R. 5540--Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act. I believe this is a 
fair rule that provides ample time for debate on this important matter 
and also makes in order the only amendment that was submitted to the 
Rules Committee on this bill.
  But I also want to take this opportunity to set the record straight 
on the claims made on energy policy during this debate by the other 
side of the aisle. I would like to submit for the Record the following 
statement released by Speaker Pelosi talking about the significant 
action taken by this Congress to address the energy concerns of our 
Nation and also about the recordbreaking profits of oil companies in 
these times of rising fuel prices.

             Oil Companies Reap Billions in Royalty Relief

       Americans are paying record high prices at the pump and the 
     price of oil continues to skyrocket. But thanks to energy 
     policies put forward by President Bush and the previous 
     Republican-led Congresses, oil companies are making tens of 
     billions of dollars in record profits. According to news 
     reports, a new draft report from the Government 
     Accountability Office estimates oil companies will avoid 
     paying roughly $53 billion in royalty payments to taxpayers 
     for deep water drilling contracts on public lands in the Gulf 
     of Mexico. These contracts were awarded between 1996 and 2000 
     after the Republican-led Congress passed the ``Deep Water 
     Royalty Relief Act'' in 1995.
       $17.82: Price of barrel of oil in 1995 [EIA, Historical 
     Tables, 11/8/95].
       $124.33: Price of barrel of oil yesterday [6/3/08].
       598%: Percent increase from 1995 to today.
       $1.07: Gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in 1995 [EIA 
     Historical Tables, 11/8/95].
       $3.98: Gallon of regular unleaded gasoline today [AAA, 6/4/
     08].
       272%: Percent increase from 1995 to today.
       $123.3 billion: Oil Company profits, 2007.
       $36.9 billion: Oil Company profits--1st Quarter this year.
       For years, Democrats in Congress have fought to roll back 
     some of the royalty relief given to Big Oil companies, while 
     Republicans have blocked these efforts. In the first 100 
     hours of the New Direction Congress, the House passed H.R. 6 
     to require oil companies, which have not paid royalties for 
     deepwater drilling contracts in the Gulf region as a result 
     of the 1998 and 1999 leases, to pay their fair share in order 
     to be eligible for new federal leases for drilling. That 
     provision was also included in the House version of the 
     Energy Independence bill but did not make it into the final 
     House-Senate passed package due to Republican opposition.
       This ``holiday'' from paying royalties was supposed to end 
     when the price of oil reached about $40 a barrel. Instead, 
     the Bush Administration has continued to provide royalty-free 
     oil from public lands, as the price of oil has now risen to 
     over three times the intended trigger.
       The New Direction Congress is committed to bringing real 
     relief to hardworking Americans struggling with high gas 
     prices and putting the needs of families before the interests 
     of the oil companies. Below is a list of action the 
     Democratic-led Congress has taken so far:


                           passed this spring

       Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer 
     Protection Act--Congress has enacted legislation to suspend 
     the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, starting June 
     30th and through the end of the year, as long as the price of 
     crude oil remains above $75 per barrel. This is a critical 
     first step for hardworking families, businesses and the 
     economy, which in the past has brought gas prices down. The 
     President, who was previously opposed, suspended shipments 
     and signed the bill because of overwhelming bipartisan 
     support in Congress.
       Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act--This legislation 
     will extend and expand tax incentives for renewable energy, 
     retain and create hundreds of thousands of green jobs, spur 
     American innovation and business investment, and cut taxes 
     for millions of Americans. These provisions are critical to 
     creating and preserving hundreds of thousands of good-paying 
     green collar American jobs. A recent study showed that 
     allowing the renewable energy incentives to expire would lead 
     to about 116,000 jobs being lost in the wind and solar 
     industries alone through the end of 2009.
       The OPEC and Big Oil Companies Accountability Bill--This 
     bill will combat record gas prices by authorizing lawsuits 
     against oil cartel members for oil price fixing, and creating 
     a an Antitrust Task Force to crack down on oil companies 
     engaged in anticompetitive behavior or market manipulation. 
     President Bush has threatened to veto this bill.


                          other recent action

       Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007--Historic 
     energy legislation with provisions to combat oil market 
     manipulation, increase fuel efficiency to 35 miles per gallon 
     in 2020--the first congressional increase in more than three 
     decades, and promote the use of more affordable American 
     biofuels. The initial version of this bill included a 
     provision to rollback the royal relief given to Big Oil 
     companies for deepwater drilling contracts in the Gulf 
     region. Unfortunately, this provision did not make it into 
     the final House-Senate passed package. Signed into law on 
     December 19, 2007. Under new requirements in the Energy 
     Independence Law and pressure from Congress, the FTC 
     announced in May it would begin the rulemaking process to 
     implement-the market manipulation provision.
       Reduces our dependence on foreign oil--cutting our 
     consumption of oil by 2.9 million gallons per year in 2030--
     more than what we currently import from all Persian Gulf 
     countries combined.
       Lowers energy costs for consumers with oil prices projected 
     to decline from more than $100 per barrel to $57 per barrel 
     in 2016 (in 2006 dollars) in part due to the new energy law.
       The new fuel standard for cars and trucks will save 
     American families $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump.
       Reduces global warming emissions by 2030 by up to 24 
     percent of what the U.S. needs to do to help save the planet.
       Building, appliance, and lighting efficiency standards will 
     save consumers $400 billion through 2030.
       Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act--This 
     legislation would end unnecessary subsidies to Big Oil 
     companies, invest in clean, renewable energy and energy 
     efficiency, and help reduce global warming. The bill includes 
     provisions that will generate hundreds of thousands of green 
     jobs including an estimated 70,000 solar energy jobs, more 
     than 20,000 biodiesel jobs, and protect an additional 75,000 
     wind industry jobs. President Bush has threatened to veto 
     this bill
       Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act--This bill will provide 
     immediate relief to consumers by giving the Federal Trade 
     Commission (FTC) the authority to investigate and punish 
     those who artificially inflate the price of energy. It will 
     ensure the Federal Government has the tools it needs to 
     adequately respond to energy emergencies and prohibit price 
     gouging--with a priority on refineries and big oil companies. 
     President Bush has threatened to veto this bill.
       No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act--
     Legislation to enable the Department of Justice to take legal 
     action against foreign nations for participating in

[[Page H4989]]

     oil cartels that drive up oil prices globally and in the 
     United States. President Bush has threatened to veto this 
     bill.
       Energy Market Manipulation Prevention--The new Farm Bill 
     increases Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight 
     authority to detect and prevent manipulation of energy 
     prices. President Bush vetoed this bill, but the Congress has 
     overridden that veto.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1233 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution or the operation of the previous question, it 
     shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which 
     the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of 
     lowering the national average price per gallon of regular 
     unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For 
     purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a 
     statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 
     by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration 
     shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. ARCURI. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________