Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 92 (Thursday, June 5, 2008)

[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.

____________________