[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 118 (Thursday, July 17, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6697-H6710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DRILL RESPONSIBLY IN LEASED LANDS ACT OF 2008

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 6515) to amend the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act 
of 1976 to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an 
expeditious environmentally responsible program of competitive leasing 
of oil and gas in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, and for 
other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6515

         Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
     of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

         This Act may be cited as the ``Drill Responsibly in 
     Leased Lands Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA: LEASE SALES.

         Section 107(a) of the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production 
     Act of 1976 is amended to read as follows:
         ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct an 
     expeditious environmentally responsible program of 
     competitive leasing of oil and gas in the National Petroleum 
     Reserve in Alaska in accordance with this Act. Such program 
     shall include no fewer than one lease sale in the Reserve 
     each year during the period 2009 through 2013.''.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA: PIPELINE 
                   CONSTRUCTION.

         The Secretary of Transportation shall facilitate, in an 
     environmentally responsible manner and in coordination with 
     the Secretary of the Interior, the construction of pipelines 
     necessary to transport oil and gas from or through the 
     National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to existing 
     transportation or processing infrastructure on the North 
     Slope of Alaska.

     SEC. 4. ALASKA NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PROJECT FACILITATION.

         (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
         (1) Over 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves 
     have been discovered on Federal and State lands currently 
     open to oil and gas leasing on the North Slope of Alaska.
         (2) These gas supplies could make a significant 
     contribution to meeting the energy needs of the United 
     States, but the lack of a natural gas transportation system 
     has prevented these gas reserves from reaching markets in the 
     lower 48 States.
         (b) Facilitation by President.--The President shall, 
     pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (division C 
     of Public Law 108-324; 15 U.S.C. 720 et seq.) and other 
     applicable law, coordinate with producers of oil and natural 
     gas on the North Slope of Alaska, Federal agencies, the State 
     of Alaska, Canadian authorities, and other interested persons 
     in order to facilitate construction of a natural gas pipeline 
     from Alaska to United States markets as expeditiously as 
     possible.

     SEC. 5. PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS AND OTHER PIPELINE 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

         (a) Project Labor Agreements.--The President, as a term 
     and condition of any permit required under Federal law for 
     the pipelines referred to in section 3 and section 4, and in 
     recognizing the Government's interest in labor stability and 
     in the ability of construction labor and management to meet 
     the particular needs and conditions of such pipelines to be 
     developed under such permits and the special concerns of the 
     holders of such permits, shall require that the operators of 
     such pipelines and their agents and contractors negotiate to 
     obtain a project labor agreement for the employment of 
     laborers and mechanics on production, maintenance, and 
     construction for such pipelines.
         (b) Pipeline Maintenance.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall require every pipeline operator 
     authorized to transport oil and gas produced under Federal 
     oil and gas leases in Alaska through the Trans-Alaska 
     Pipeline, any pipeline constructed pursuant to section 3 or 4 
     of this Act, or any other federally approved pipeline 
     transporting oil and gas from the North Slope of Alaska, to 
     certify to the Secretary of Transportation annually that such 
     pipeline is being fully maintained and operated in an 
     efficient manner. The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     assess appropriate civil penalties for violations of this 
     requirement in the same manner as civil penalties are 
     assessed for violations under section 60122(a)(1) of title 
     49, United States Code.

     SEC. 6. BAN ON EXPORT OF ALASKAN OIL.

         (a) Repeal of Provision Authorizing Exports.--Section 
     28(s) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185(s)) is 
     repealed.
         (b) Reimposition of Prohibition on Crude Oil Exports.--
     Upon the effective date of this Act, subsection (d) of 
     section 7 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 2406(d)), shall be effective, and any other provision of 
     that Act (including sections 11 and 12) shall be effective to 
     the extent necessary to carry out such section 7(d), 
     notwithstanding section 20 of that Act or any other provision 
     of law that would otherwise allow exports of oil to which 
     such section 7(d) applies.

     SEC. 7. ISSUANCE OF NEW LEASES.

         (a) In General.--After the date of the issuance of 
     regulations under subsection (b), the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall not issue to a person any new lease that 
     authorizes the exploration for or production of oil or 
     natural gas, under section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act (33 
     U.S.C. 226), the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands Act 
     (30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.), the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), or any other law authorizing 
     the issuance of oil and gas leases on Federal lands or 
     submerged lands, unless--
         (1) the person certifies for each existing lease under 
     such Acts for the production of oil or gas with respect to 
     which the person is a lessee, that the person is diligently 
     developing the Federal lands that are subject to the lease in 
     order to produce oil or natural gas or is producing oil or 
     natural gas from such land; or
         (2) the person has relinquished all ownership interest in 
     all Federal oil and gas leases under which oil and gas is not 
     being diligently developed.
         (b) Diligent Development.--The Secretary shall issue 
     regulations within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act that establish what constitutes ``diligently 
     developing'' for purposes of this Act.
         (c) Failure To Comply With Requirements.--Any person who 
     fails to comply with the requirements of this section or any 
     regulation or order issued to implement this section shall be 
     liable for a civil penalty under section 109 of the Federal 
     Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1719).
         (d) Lessee Defined.--In this section the term 
     ``lessee''--
         (1) includes any person or other entity that controls, is 
     controlled by, or is in or under common control with, a 
     lessee; and
         (2) does not include any person who does not hold more 
     than a minority ownership interest in a lease under an Act 
     referred to in subsection (a) authorizing the exploration for 
     or production of oil or natural gas.

     SEC. 8. FAIR RETURN ON PRODUCTION OF FEDERAL OIL AND GAS 
                   RESOURCES.

         (a) Royalty Payments.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall take all steps necessary to ensure that lessees under 
     leases for exploration, development, and production of oil 
     and natural gas on Federal lands, including leases under the 
     Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), the Mineral 
     Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.), the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (30 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), 
     and all other mineral leasing laws, are making prompt, 
     transparent, and accurate royalty payments under such leases.
         (b) Recommendations for Legislative Action.--In order to 
     facilitate implementation of subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall, within 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and in consultation with the affected 
     States, prepare and transmit to Congress recommendations for 
     legislative action to improve the accurate collection of 
     Federal oil and gas royalties.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Pearce) will each control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that time for debate 
on the pending measure be expanded to 60 minutes.

[[Page H6698]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) 
each will control 30 minutes.
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our freshmen Democratic members 
and in concert with the Democratic leadership, I am pleased to bring to 
the floor today the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act, the DRILL 
bill.
  Let there be no mistake about it. As Democrats, we are pro drilling. 
I repeat that for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We are 
pro drilling. We are for drilling now. And we are for drilling in areas 
that bring near-term relief to the American public.
  As others put forth bumper-sticker energy policies, today, House 
Democrats are bringing forth prudent legislation aimed at unleashing 
the vast potential of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, this 
section to the far right on the map behind me. That is to be 
distinguished very clearly and separately from the ANWR, over on my far 
left.
  Where better to drill than in the National Petroleum Reserve? That is 
what it's for. The National Petroleum Reserve. That is why it was set 
aside. The National Petroleum Reserve.
  Now, my colleagues, the National Petroleum Reserve, situated on the 
North Slope of Alaska--this reserve is no pipe dream like ANWR way over 
here, which is a bumper sticker approach to our energy woes--the 
National Petroleum Reserve is open for leasing. It has been. It will 
be. Twenty-three million acres. The National Petroleum Reserve is open 
for leasing, open for business, now, today, 23 million acres containing 
an estimated 6.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil. There is more than 
over here in ANWR, which is not even open for leasing at this point in 
time. It is a pipe dream over here in ANWR.
  Far more than ANWR, the National Petroleum Reserve, as I said, has 
much more recoverable oil than ANWR. And if ANWR were fully open, we 
still would be 20 years before we could have any oil in production. The 
Energy Information estimates show that the only effect on the price at 
the pump would be 1.8 cents 20 years from now.
  As opposed to that, we have the National Petroleum Reserve set aside 
for drilling. In Alaska, 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas has been 
stranded. Think about that: 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas 
stranded over in the National Petroleum Reserve because there is no 
pipeline available to bring it to market over here being the major 
pipeline. For oil only, I might add.
  Elsewhere, there are 68 million acres of land onshore and offshore in 
the Outer Continental Shelf in the lower 48 under oil and gas leases 
that are not producing. They may be subject to speculation. They may be 
purely being warehoused. We don't know.
  I say here today, drill. Drill. Drill. Drill here in America. Drill 
now. Let's drill.
  The DRILL Act, Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act, would unleash 
the vast potential of the National Petroleum Reserve by requiring 
annual Federal oil and gas lease sales and by facilitating the 
construction of pipelines to connect the NPR-A with the existing 
central North Slope arteries that will bring it on down to the American 
consumers in the lower 48. That includes Prudhoe Bay, connecting it 
over here to Prudhoe Bay, the transportation infrastructure and trans-
Alaska Pipeline that comes down here, we do need still a gas pipeline. 
There is, of course, already existing an oil pipeline.
  But it makes as a matter of Presidential priority, the DRILL Act 
makes the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline a priority so 
that stranded gas, that stranded gas in the National Petroleum Reserve, 
can be transported to the lower 48.
  It requires project labor agreements be entered into for construction 
of these pipelines so they would be good-paying American jobs. It 
requires that the trans-Alaska Pipeline, the NPR pipeline that 
connects, that is right here, a 5-mile segment connecting NPR over to 
the existing oil and gas leasing being done in the Prudhoe Bay area, 
that they be maintained and operated in an efficient manner to ensure 
an uninterrupted flow of oil and natural gas. And the DRILL Act 
reinstitutes the ban of the exportation of Alaskan oil to other 
countries so that this Alaskan oil, American oil, can be used by 
Americans for their relief.

                              {time}  1330

  It is a commonsense approach to our near-term energy woes. We know 
very clearly we must transition ourselves from oil dependency. We must 
wean ourselves from oil addiction. Alternative fuels, coal-to-liquids, 
carbon sequestration, other noncorn-based alternatives, renewables, all 
of the above should be on the table. It is the only way to secure 
America's energy independence from foreign crude.
  But in the near term, we need to drill. We are saying in this bill 
today drill, drill, drill. Drill it now. Drill it here. Drill it where 
the oil is and where it is already available, not wait 20 years from 
now, as the President proposes to lift some moratorium on the OCS and 
up here in the ANWR that, as I have already said, won't affect any 
near-term relief at the pump for American consumers.
  Let me observe that there are those who display a fundamental 
misunderstanding of parts of this legislation. We do of course 
incorporate the use it or lose it that has already been passed by a 
majority in this body which requires the diligent development of 
Federal oil and gas leases during their primary term, which is normally 
10 years. What that means is during that period, we are requesting that 
the oil companies do something with these leases to explore for energy. 
If a discovery is made, and we hope that it will be, apply for the 
permit.
  Now, I understand drilling. I think most of my colleagues know I am 
from the State of West Virginia, by golly, the great State of West 
Virginia. We know something about energy woes in that State. We are not 
a NIMBY State by any stretch of the imagination. We do not shirk from 
our responsibility to contribute to the Nation's need for energy. We 
have mining. We have drilling.
  I understand that complications can take place while trying to 
develop a lease, environmental challenges, bureaucratic delays, but 
this constitutes due diligence. This constitutes the development of a 
lease. This constitutes moving toward meeting our energy woes. Diligent 
development does not mean the lease is producing, I understand that. It 
means that a company is doing something with the lease to determine 
whether it can be brought into production or not. That is a good thing. 
That is diligent development.
  I understand it is a lengthy process, but I am saying to Mr. Big Oil, 
please do something on these leases. Do something. If you have to go 
out and buy a Black & Decker drill to drill it to move forward, do 
that.
  Vote for this legislation. A vote for this legislation will mean that 
we are trying to bring energy immediately to the American people, that 
we are voting for American good-paying jobs, and that we are voting to 
prevent American energy from being exported to foreign markets.
  As I conclude, I say, drill, drill, drill. Drill here. Drill now. 
Drill so we can meet our energy supply-side demands here with American 
resources.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided, misdirected 
legislation. After seeing this bill defeated just 2 weeks ago, I quite 
honestly am surprised that we are back for one more attempt at it. It 
is really heartwarming to find my colleague from West Virginia, the 
chairman of my committee, saying ``drill America now.''
  The only thing is I am wondering why the chairman did not allow us to 
have amendments that would allow us to drill now. If he would allow us 
the amendments that would stop the litigation that is stopping us from 
drilling now, maybe we could work through some of those 68 million 
acres, if he would allow us to have amendments

[[Page H6699]]

which would stop the regulatory process that is delaying unnecessarily 
and is of no benefit to the American consumer, maybe we could drill 
now. But I find the chairman's comments just hard to believe.
  In the context of the discussion today, I would invite the chairman 
to sign on to a letter with me. The letter is from myself and several 
other Members asking just in one area, one area where we find 
bureaucratic delays, 7 years in Utah, the BLM has not issued the 
resource management plans that are required in order to develop just 
that.
  If the chairman of the committee is intent on drill, drill, drill, as 
he says today, let him just put his one signature beside mine, and we 
will send it to Nancy Pelosi and send it to the President of the United 
States from Nancy Pelosi and us in the House and the Members of the 
Senate.
  One place where we have some of that 68 million acres, 1 million of 
the 68 million acres, and let's just work one block at a time to figure 
out exactly what the roadblocks are because I believe, I believe in my 
heart that the majority does not want to drill today.
  I believe that they understand that it is not the oil companies who 
lack the diligence, but it is instead roadblocks by people who have 
hijacked the energy policy of this country.
  In my section of the debate we will talk about the reason the 68 
million acres lie unused, and it will go from regulatory process to 
litigation. It will go into the problems of seismic that are being 
blocked up along the northern end of this country. We will talk about 
the delays one step at a time.
  But let's talk just a little bit about the bill before us today. It 
is several sections.
  The first section I want to talk about directs the sale of the 
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, the NPR-A. Now that is curious 
that the Democrats on the floor of the House today do not want to open 
up ANWR, 2,000 acres. They have been concerned about the environmental 
degradation of the 2,000 acres of ANWR, and yet today they are saying 
that they are going to open up 23 million acres to environmental 
degradation. There is not one bit of infrastructure. There are no 
roads. There are no drilling pads. There are no pipelines. They are 
hundreds of miles away from where they need to be for the market. Yet 
with ANWR, with a 74-mile pipeline, it is sincerely believed that we 
could get production down to the continental United States within a 
year.
  The Trans-Alaska Pipeline, 800 miles long, took 3 years to have it 
built and full of oil because this Congress, at that point in time, 
realized that they could make a difference and they did make a 
difference by saying that this pipeline is not going to be delayed by 
litigation.
  If the gentleman from West Virginia says drill and drill now, then 
let him make the equal commitment that we will not allow our production 
to be delayed by litigation which is going to come from every sort of 
environmental group, either in the NPR-A or ANWR or the Outer 
Continental Shelf.
  It is really difficult to believe that the majority is sincere when 
they say drill today, and on the other side of the spectrum we see all 
sorts of delaying mechanisms from people who contribute money to them.
  I was interested in the last debate to find that oil companies 
contribute money to Republicans and therefore there is some scheme. 
When I look at the bill in front of us today, I see groups, I see an 
alliance with groups that contribute a lot of money to Democrats. I see 
over $670 million in the last several years from trial lawyers. There 
is new language in this bill which will be litigated probably for 
decades.
  I see a section in this bill, section 5, that requires project labor 
agreements, and I see that the unions have given to the Democrats over 
$1 billion.
  And then I find the continuing language which says that there are 
going to be protections in place that satisfy environmental groups; and 
again, environmental groups have invested over $1 billion in Democrat 
candidates.
  So when I hear from the other side their observations about the 
special interests, I think we should look at the bill. Section 2 
requires again the direction that any leases be environmentally 
responsible. That is new language.
  Sections 3 and 4 deal with pipeline requirements that companies tell 
me that they have to currently comply with already, so it appears to be 
a duplication.
  The project labor agreements are brand new. These are things where 
private companies are directed that they will, before they can work on 
any private project, have labor agreements in place.
  Then we have a ban that is reinstated on exporting Alaskan oil. Keep 
in mind that it was Democrat President Bill Clinton that opened up the 
Alaskan oil to be exported. So again, we find now the flip-flop in that 
position on their part. The ban was originally in place, and President 
Clinton decided he would relieve that ban. And now we find it being put 
back in place.
  The issuance of new leases, use it or lose it, frankly is already in 
place in law. There is language that currently states that if you do 
not use a lease, you lose it.
  So either this bill is simply to try to convince the American people 
that we are doing something when we are actually not, or it is even 
worse than that. I believe that we have no purpose for this bill. I 
believe that this bill is not going to increase the amount of domestic 
energy one bit. I think that what it is going to do is to start anew, 
it is going to start new processes and are going to delay even by 
months the process in place for the NPR-A.
  So while it is telling us we are going to drill now and drill in the 
NPR-A, actually it is doing the exact opposite. It is instituting new 
rules that will have to go through a completely new process.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 17, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Roy Blunt,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker, Minority Leader Boehner, Majority 
     Leader Hoyer, and Minority Whip Blunt: In the last month, 
     through various legislative proposals and public comments, 
     Majority leaders in Congress have accused oil and gas 
     companies of refusing to drill. We think many times idle 
     acres are caused by factors beyond these companies' control. 
     In many cases, Congress and the bureaucracy create roadblocks 
     that shut down companies' access to the lands.
       Your rhetoric over the last few months leads us to believe 
     we have finally reached a consensus in Congress. In order to 
     start drilling on idle acres where regulatory burdens exist, 
     we request Congressional leaders act now to remove these 
     obstacles on a case by case basis. We also request that you 
     join us in sending a joint letter to the President urging him 
     to issue an Executive Order systematically removing barriers 
     on a case by case basis from lands under development that, 
     due to regulatory burdens, remain blocked from development.
       We suggest starting with the permanent delays and lawsuits 
     preventing drilling in Utah. Please join us in sending a 
     letter to the President asking that he open drilling in Utah 
     by issuing the final Records of Decision (RODs) on this 
     state's Resource Management Plans (RMPs)--Vernal, Price, 
     Moab, Richfield, and Monticello--which authorize oil and gas 
     activities in Utah. These plans were to have been underway 
     for over 7 years. In our letter we will ask the President to 
     order the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to issue the RMPs 
     by August 31, 2008.
       Additionally, we ask you insist that the RODs authorize the 
     Preferred Alternatives in each RMP without the adoption of 
     new Wilderness Characteristics Areas (WCAs). Removing 
     bureaucratic roadblocks to these 955,000 idle acres will 
     ensure that development starts immediately. This would enable 
     the oil and gas industry to effectively tap into over 5.2 Tcf 
     of natural gas and 334 million barrels of oil. This energy 
     would heat 72.9 million homes and power 24.5 million cars.
       Clearing the regulatory roadblocks in Utah is one simple 
     step to lower the price of energy for the American people. It 
     is only by acting in a bipartisan manner that we can move our 
     nation out of this national energy crisis. We have prepared a 
     letter and await your approval. Additionally, we stand ready 
     to assist you in bringing legislation before the House of 
     Representatives that will eliminate the roadblocks to energy 
     development in America.
       In coming together to encourage the President to take steps 
     and reduce the regulatory burden on companies developing 
     resources, we will show the American people that the

[[Page H6700]]

     Federal government is serious about lowering the price of 
     gasoline. If we support the President as he removes 
     regulatory roadblocks, we will see increased development on 
     the acres sitting idle and lower energy prices.
           Sincerely,
     Stevan Pearce,
       Member of Congress.
     Rob Bishop,
       Member of Congress.
     Chris Cannon,
       Member of Congress.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 17, 2008.
     Hon. George W. Bush,
     President, the White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Congress has reached a consensus on 
     opening idle lands to energy exploration and production. As 
     we look en mass at these idle acres, we begin to see a 
     pattern emerge. We believe companies producing on acres that 
     remain idle are facing factors beyond their control. In many 
     cases, Congress and the bureaucracy create roadblocks that 
     shut down companies' access to the lands.
       We ask that you look at each case individually and on a 
     case by case basis for the purpose of systematically removing 
     the regulatory roadblocks these companies' face on idle 
     acres. We believe you should begin with one simple case in 
     Utah. For seven years, Utah has waited for the final Records 
     of Decision (RODs) on their state's Resource Management Plans 
     (RMPs) at Vernal, Price, Moab, Richfield, and Monticello that 
     authorize oil and gas activities in Utah.
       We believe you should issue an Executive Order to require 
     the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to issue the RMPs by 
     August 31, 2008. Additionally, we ask that you order BLM to 
     ensure the RODs authorize the Preferred Alternatives in each 
     RMP without the adoption of new Wilderness Characteristics 
     Areas (WCAs). Removing bureaucratic roadblocks to these 
     955,000 idle acres will ensure that development starts 
     immediately. This would enable the oil and gas industry to 
     effectively tap into over 5.2 Tcf of natural gas and 334 
     million barrels of oil. This energy would heat 72.9 million 
     homes and power 24.5 million cars.
       Clearing the regulatory roadblocks in Utah is one simple 
     step to lower the price of energy for the American people. It 
     is only by acting in a bipartisan manner that we can move our 
     nation out of this national energy crisis. Additionally, we 
     stand ready to assist you in bringing legislation before the 
     House of Representatives that will eliminate the roadblocks 
     to energy development in America.
           Sincerely,
     Stevan Pearce,
       Member of Congress.
     Rob Bishop,
       Member of Congress.
     Chris Cannon,
       Member of Congress.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. I am shocked that the gentleman would even start down the 
road of campaign contributions in this debate, but I am not going to 
proceed any further down that road.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In 1923, President Harding took the Saudi Arabia of the United States 
and put it into the Naval Petroleum Reserve. There is a huge pool of 
known oil, over 10 billion barrels underneath what has now been called, 
and the Republicans changed it from the Naval Petroleum Reserve to the 
National Petroleum Reserve. And yes, indeed, President Clinton did let 
the first leases in that more than a decade ago.
  The companies have drilled 25 test wells to find out there is indeed 
oil under there, but they have not connected over here to the Prudhoe 
Bay pipeline and there is no construction going on and no active 
drilling going on.
  Now this area that they want to argue about, in 1950 it was made into 
a wildlife reserve. Now this was made into a Naval Petroleum Reserve 
because it has huge amounts of known oil. This was made into a wildlife 
reserve because it has huge amounts of known wildlife. President 
Harding didn't make ANWR into the Naval Petroleum Reserve because no 
one knows if there is any oil under there. They try to pretend that 
they know that there is oil there, but the Bush administration's own 
Mineral Management Service says there is a 50 percent chance of 
recoverable oil under ANWR.
  So why not drill here in NPR-A? Why don't the Republicans and the oil 
companies want to fully exploit these 10 billion barrels of oil? I 
think there is a pretty simple answer to that, because they are doing 
really well under the Bush-Cheney energy policy. Remember, written in 
secret, voted on and put into law by the Republican Congress, signed by 
George Bush. During George Bush's tenure, the profits of the oil 
companies have been $511 billion, a new record every year George Bush 
has been in office, more money in 7 years than in the preceding 
quarter-century.
  This system is working quite well for them. They don't want to 
increase supply. In fact, they are working hand-in-glove with OPEC and 
others who are colluding to restrict supply.
  Drill responsibly in leased land. Exploit America's resources.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton).
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6515. 
The bill was introduced yesterday. It is on the floor today. That is 
pretty fast work. No hearings, no committee process. It is primarily a 
restatement of existing Federal law with a couple of exceptions. It 
does have a prohibition of any oil that is found in Alaska going 
anywhere but the lower 48. Chairman Rahall and I had a little debate 
about that on the House floor earlier this week. I certainly don't have 
any opposition. It is somewhat meaningless because oil is fungible and 
it can go wherever it needs to go; but if that is the price we have to 
pay to get more oil drilled and produced in Alaska, I am actually for 
that section of the bill.
  Having said that, this bill is counterproductive if we really want to 
find new oil and gas because it doesn't open up any new areas.

                              {time}  1345

  If you only allow drilling where we have already been allowed to 
drill, for example, in the great State of Texas that I represent, we 
have drilled over 2 million oil wells since 1901. The probability of 
finding a major new oil field in Texas today is much closer to zero 
than it is to 100 percent, because we have already drilled so many 
wells.
  Eighty-five percent of the Outer Continental Shelf of the United 
States of America is off-limits. This bill does nothing about that. It 
says, let's expedite leasing in the Alaska Naval Petroleum Reserve. 
Fine, but we can already drill for oil in the Alaska Naval Petroleum 
Reserve.
  What about ANWR? ANPR is to the west of Prudhoe Bay. ANWR is to the 
east. We think there are 10 billion barrels of oil in a 2,000-acre 
section of ANWR, 10 billion barrels. Drill 10 wells, and you get 1 
billion barrels a well.
  If we drill on an expedited basis in ANPR, certainly there is oil to 
be found there, but we can already drill there, and it won't get 1 
billion barrels per well.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall) who has been very active on this 
issue and very involved in our debate we had the other night.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I assure you that this Member is 
serious and sincere, and I strongly support the DRILL bill.
  Gas in my district in the Hudson Valley is over $4.30, and families 
are paying and really being hurt by this. They need serious solutions 
that deliver real results, and that's why I support the Drill 
Responsibly in Leased Lands Act to take action right now to extract 
more American oil in the right places.
  Oil company advocates have been preying on the anxiety of Americans 
to push the failed ANWR drilling plan that would only lower prices by a 
nickel in 20 years, 20 years in the future. Our drivers need more help 
than that, and they need it faster. The DRILL Act answers the call, 
telling oil companies to drill for oil that can give more relief than 
ANWR ever could.
  The ``use it or lose it'' measure requires oil companies to drill on 
land they have already leased or make way for someone who will. If they 
did that, they could double production and cut imports by one-third. It 
also makes it easier to lease the 20 million acres of the National 
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, already approved for drilling, and calls 
on the President to build pipelines to bring that 10.6 billion barrels 
of oil to market. The bill will pave the way to get at the most oil in 
the shortest time with the greatest responsibility.
  I hope all of my colleagues will support it.

[[Page H6701]]

  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that is not dealt with in 
the drill now bill, DRILL, someone said maybe that means Democrats 
Reinventing the Inconvenient Liberal Lies instead of drilling now, but 
we just have a process that takes a long time. This process is part of 
what creates the 68 million acres.
  The 68 million acres of idle land are not idle at all. They are 
involved in this process. This process is not changed one bit by the 
bill in front of us. Again, if the bill had come through committee, if 
we would have had hearings, we could have made these points in 
committee.
  It's rather inconvenient because we don't have the ability to amend 
the bill today. We do not have the ability to offer a substitute bill, 
no motion to recommit. So we are tasked with simply explaining why the 
bill should receive a ``no'' vote.
  But the process today has not changed at all, and you cannot read 
every single element in this block, but you can just see, as we move 
the chart toward me, what the steps are that are required to drill any 
single well. Litigation can occur at many different points. Again, this 
bill does absolutely nothing to stop any of this regulatory process 
that exists today.
  There is not really such a thing as a third-world country. There are 
only overregulated countries, and when we look at this chart, we see 
why America is moving towards the status of a third-world country, 
because we are overregulating to the extreme, and it is winding up with 
millions of idle acres. Our friends want to say take it away from those 
companies that are not using it.
  Either it is because of bureaucratic process, external litigation, 
but there are very good reasons why acres are idle. I think that our 
friends on the other side of the aisle are simply avoiding the real 
question of why we are not drilling in this country, why we are 
preferring Hugo Chavez oil, why we are giving preferential treatment to 
oil from OPEC, rather than this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the 
gentleman from New Mexico.
  If he was listening to my opening statement and my earlier comments 
on this issue, I fully understand it's a lengthy process. The 
regulatory framework was put into place in this and many other laws of 
this land for a very specific reason, to protect the public health and 
safety and the environment.
  It's a lengthy process to go through this leasing. I must tell the 
gentleman, and he knows it, once you obtain that lease you have 
overcome most of the hard obstacle of achieving production. The lands 
we are talking about are mostly lands already under lease. Therefore, a 
lot of that burden has already been overcome.
  Mr. PEARCE. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAHALL. Yes.
  Mr. PEARCE. I really appreciate and respect what the gentleman says, 
but when you give the figure 68 million acres are idle, I wonder how 
many of those acres are, in fact, in this bureaucratic process.
  Mr. RAHALL. Reclaiming my time. And under lease. And if they are in 
that process, that is called due diligence. We don't penalize them. We 
don't take it away at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila 
Jackson-Lee.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
the great State of West Virginia, I thank you for your leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, speaking of history, I just want to make mention of the 
fact that we have many Americans that care for it.
  I am delighted that some 23,000 women from Alpha Kappa Alpha are 
here, Americans who are believing in their government and asking for 
change and asking for the leadership that is here on the floor of the 
House. To them, I believe we have an obligation to all Americans. It's 
important to know that I come from oil country. I represent large 
numbers of energy companies in the City of Houston. I practiced oil and 
gas law and have the experience of stripper-well legislation or 
litigation, if you will, worked on take-or-pay and curtailment.
  I know very well about the Alaskan pipeline because it was being 
worked on in the 1970s, so we do have a right in this legislation, H.R. 
6515, to ask that the Alaskan pipeline for natural gas for Americans be 
utilized, be put in place. It might be time now to declare a national 
emergency and take control of that pipeline and get it working.
  But what this bill stands for is for working men and women, families. 
What it says is we are simply asking for due diligence, and that is to 
come to the National Petroleum Reserve and go ahead and acknowledge the 
fact that there are 22.6 million acres that can be leased. Only 3 
million acres have been leased, and only 25 exploratory wells have been 
drilled.
  We are simply saying that this is part of the larger piece, the 
drilling off the gulf of Texas and Louisiana, of which we in those 
areas applaud and salute. They have been done environmentally safely.
  I ask the energy companies, of whom I am inviting to sit down in 
Houston in a roundtable and begin to engage in the process of doing 
what the building trades have said. Let us address the question of 
affordable energy and national security. This is a national security 
issue.
  The question has to be if we have Federal lands, we need to be able 
to drill. This legislation says so. We need to be able to have due 
diligence, and we need to come together to provide the kind of energy 
policy that is for national security.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Brady, I would point 
out that this is the area we are talking about leasing, it is not some 
area up in Alaska that doesn't have any infrastructure, no pipelines. 
The majority is still avoiding the real question that is in front of 
this country, why we have $4 gasoline is because we can't get access to 
supplies that have an effect on the market today.
  I would recognize Mr. Brady for 3 minutes.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a very unfortunate time when 
families are struggling to try to make ends meet with these energy 
prices, small businesses too. Basically, Congress is debating a bait-
and-switch piece of legislation.
  Democrats are hoping that the American public isn't smart enough to 
realize there are two oil fields in Alaska--ANWR, the one that has been 
put off-limits, is fertile with what we believe are vast oil and gas 
reserves. And the National Petroleum Reserve, which, by the way, has 
been explored out now for 70 years.
  The difference between ANWR, and the National Petroleum Reserve, is 
the difference between Jimmy Carter and his brother, Billy Carter. ANWR 
holds vast reserves in a small amount of land that can be accessed much 
more affordably and quickly. The National Petroleum Reserve was first 
drilled for two decades by the U.S. Navy, the Federal Government.
  Then for the next two decades it was drilled again by the U.S. 
Geological Service, again, the Federal Government. For the recent 
decades, it has been drilled by companies, three principally, two of 
them in the Texas area. Unfortunately, no major finds were there. 
That's why most of this area, it's big, but most of it hasn't been 
leased because most of it is a dry hole.
  What they found instead is that there are some small finds along the 
edge, which are very expensive to explore, it costs about $1 billion to 
put an oil well there, and $10 million a mile to try to connect it back 
to the existing fields. Unfortunately, even doing that, even stringing 
those small finds together to try to produce oil has been held up by 
environmental lawsuits and red tape.
  So the claim that oil companies aren't exploring and doing their 
best, they are investing billions of dollars there. To claim that there 
are vast reserves that merely need to be leased, the whole world has 
passed on these leases year and year and year again. You can offer them 
every 5 minutes, and they are going to pass on them again.
  We need to quit playing games with the American public. We need to 
open up ANWR, the other Alaskan oil field, that holds a real ability 
for us to take more responsibility for America's own energy needs, for 
us to have some say

[[Page H6702]]

in that price of energy, to make sure that when families are filling 
up, they aren't filling up with oil from the Middle East or from 
Venezuela or that they are paying prices dictated by Iran and Nigeria 
and Russia, but more American-made energy.
  Ignore this bait and switch. Let's get to real energy policy, real 
American-made energy in ANWR.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded by my colleague from 
Mississippi, Mr. Gene Taylor, and in thinking back over history, when 
this moratoria was first passed by a Democratic Congress in the early 
eighties, there was one Ronald Reagan that occupied the White House and 
signed it into law. My colleagues are attacking Ronald Reagan, His 
Holiness? I am rather shocked.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman, and I congratulate him on this 
excellent piece of legislation. I think we know why we are here. We are 
here because the American consumer is being pummeled at the gasoline 
pump on a daily basis. They want to know, how did we get from $30 a 
barrel of oil and $1.50 for a gallon, on the day that George Bush and 
Dick Cheney were sworn in, to a point now where it's now $140 a barrel 
and more than $4 a gallon gasoline now.
  Well, it's a very simple formula during the Bush-Cheney era. It's two 
oilmen in the White House for two terms, equals $4 a gallon gasoline. 
Oil math in the United States is very simple. They put together a 
secret energy plan, Dick Cheney and George Bush, on day one in the 
White House. Today, we are out here debating whether or not it's a 
success.
  Now, from the oil industry perspective, it is, and they were the only 
ones allowed into these secret meetings with the President and the Vice 
President.
  But, for the American people, they are being tipped upside down at 
the pump. When we, as Democrats, say you can go right now and drill up 
in the petroleum reserves, you can go offshore. You can go into all of 
these locations that are already permitted.
  No, there is absolutely no interest on the part of the oil industry. 
When we say to the oil industry and to the Bush administration, instead 
of drilling off of the beaches of the United States first, how about 
going to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? How about taking 70 million 
barrels there and starting to deploy it, to put the fear of God into 
the oil industry, into speculators, into traders?

                              {time}  1400

  The President says, I would never use that because it is a free 
market, the price of oil on the marketplace.
  So what we are saying is, don't go to the beaches first. Go to the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but they will not do it.
  So the DRILL bill of Mr. Rahall is very simple. He says, instead of 
drilling somewhere 20 years from now, to give an insignificant relief, 
Mr. Rahall is saying, drill now in the 68 million acres that you 
already have, which has oil.
  We need, instead of drilling for 20 years from now we need to tap, 
tap, tap the oil where we have it on the land in the United States 
today. We need to tap, tap, tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve today, 
immediately, to protect the American consumer. We need to tap into 
renewable energy resources in order to protect the American people now 
with wind and solar.
  The Bush administration says no, no, no; I am with the American 
Petroleum Institute, not the American consumer at the pump. And that is 
why we say to the oil industry and to the Republican Party, stop your 
coalition which has driven the price of oil to a point where consumers 
are being tipped upside down at the pump.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, the Perdido lease in the Gulf of Mexico was 
sold in 1996. Twelve years later, over $2 billion has been spent before 
we even produce one drop of oil. That is 34,000 acres that, according 
to our friends, are idle. And yet, $2 billion has been spent. Another 
billion dollars has to be spent before that can be produced.
  And what is going to happen with this bill is that people are going 
to say, I am afraid I might lose my lease. 12 years to produce one, not 
even 1 drop of oil on 34,000 acres, and people are going to stop buying 
leases. This bill is going to kill production, not assist production.
  I would like to recognize Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia for 2 minutes.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Here is a real chart of what the gas prices have 
done. You have got the Republican Congress, 12 years, and then you have 
got the Democrat Congress in just 18 months.
  But I was really surprised to hear the chairman of the Resource 
Committee talk about exporting Alaskan oil. There has not been any 
Alaskan oil exported in 8 years, 8 years. And we talk about, you know, 
if we are going to drill, I want to know--and this is shameful, but 
this is snake oil. This is snake oil.
  Mr. Speaker, what the American people are being sold today is snake 
oil. They set up a snake oil shop about 2 weeks ago over here, and it 
was shut down by the Republican minority because we would not go along 
with a suspension bill that did not allow drilling.
  Here we are right back again, trying to set up another snake oil shop 
with new ingredients, new facts that are being stirred around in the 
same thing to try to come up with a different result.
  It is not going to come up with a different result because we are not 
going to cave in to these snake oil salesmen. We are going to stand up 
for the American people and demand that we drill, that we open up our 
areas, that we use our own natural resources, that we don't go hat in 
hand to foreign countries, that we don't give Hugo Chavez $178 million 
a year, that we use our own resources. And we are not going to be 
tricked by these new escapades that are being put on by the majority 
party today.
  I feel like I am watching a ``Whose Line Is It?'' Because they are 
off on so many different things that I don't even know, Mr. Speaker, if 
they have read their own bill.
  They call it the DRILL bill. This is not about drilling. This is 
about tricking the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can pay attention to their words, because 
I want to show you, this is a quote from January of 2007.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The time of the gentleman from 
Georgia has expired.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, they can read this 
quote and see that there is no sincerity.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from New 
Mexico, when he brings up all these bureaucratic delays and 
environmental lawsuits and that big long chart of his, I was here when 
we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, when I believe that side of 
the aisle was in control, as well as their party in control of the 
White House. I thought one of the purposes of EPAC, as passed by the 
Republican Congress, was to speed up this whole mess.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank Chairman Rahall for his excellent leadership in 
crafting this legislation, the DRILL Act, which I strongly support.
  The oil and gas companies, awash in profits, would have us believe 
they have nowhere to drill. That is just plain wrong.
  According to the Bush administration, 80 percent of our oil and gas 
resources are available for drilling. The industry is sitting on 68 
million acres of public lands where it could be drilling, but isn't. 
And with this bill today we are speeding up the effort to drill in the 
Alaska National Petroleum Reserve.
  We don't need to open up more areas for drilling when industry is 
dragging its feet on producing where it already could. This recent push 
by President Bush to open up the rest of our coast to offshore drilling 
is a political stunt. It is not about lowering gas prices today or even 
in the near future. It is just a cynical attempt to change the subject 
from this administration's abject failure on energy.
  The great oilmen rode into the White House 7\1/2\ years ago boasting 
about their new energy policy. Their great plan, now 95 percent 
implemented, has now resulted in $4 a gallon in gas, $500 billion in 
oil company profits, and an economy in crisis.
  Those of us who opposed the Bush-Cheney energy plan did so because we 
knew this was the likely result.

[[Page H6703]]

  Mr. Speaker, Democrats have a better idea, one that meets today's 
crisis and transitions us to a new energy future. We believe the 
President should release a small amount of oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. We have done it before, and it works. It would 
likely bring prices down more in 10 days than the Bush-McCain offshore 
drilling plan would in 10 years.
  In addition, oil companies should drill in the vast stretches of this 
country where they are now permitted, and the Bush administration 
should open up drilling in the Alaskan National Petroleum Reserve, 
build the pipelines and sell that oil and gas to Americans.
  Finally, we must seriously ramp up our transition to alternative and 
renewable energy sources. If, in 10 years, oil and gas are still the 
focus of our energy debates, we surely will have failed. That would 
mean following the path that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have 
charted, and we know where that leads us.
  We need to change direction. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman of the committee 
pointing out that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was supposed to speed 
up the delays. And, in fact, we did.
  You would remember, sir, that it was in our committee that we 
established the five categorical exclusions. Those are the categorical 
exclusions that were dropped out in your energy bill earlier this year 
that slowed the process down.
  You also remember that we established the pilot offices. The pilot 
offices were established in several places across the country, and your 
legislation stopped those too.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is reminded to address his 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. PEARCE. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I was simply addressing the 
questions that were addressed to me by the gentleman from the floor. I 
would thank you for that reminder, and would point out that, in fact, 
what we are doing here today, we are saying that people have been 
laying on these leases, that they are letting them lie idle.
  But it was actually the Democrats of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 
that passed, Democrats in the majority. And you notice that we have 
many of the gentlemen on the floor of the House today. Mr. Hoyer, Mr. 
Miller, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Rahall all voted yes in saying that we need, 
not just 5 years, but 10 years to produce these wells. And now we are 
having the finger pointed by the same people today, saying that it is 
irresponsible oil companies who are delaying too long. So the flip-
flopping that we are seeing across the country right now is absolutely 
amazing.
  We would love to hear the Democrats say that they want to drill and 
drill now. The only problem is that I have heard Democrats say that 
drill is a four-letter word. Well, either they can't spell or they 
can't count; I don't know which.
  But let's yield 2 minutes to Mr. Carter of Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. I have been listening to this debate, and it has been 
extremely interesting. But I think that we have got a situation here 
where, because of the fantastic nature of the Congress, nobody 
understands what we are talking about. In reality, we are talking about 
leasing, and they are saying use the lease you paid for.
  Now, I think the American people, almost every one of them out there, 
they know what a lease is because probably they have leased an 
apartment, or they have leased a home or they have leased a car. They 
have leased something in their life. And I doubt very seriously if they 
paid a lease price, a pretty good size lease price that came out of 
their family's pocket, and then didn't use what they leased. They 
parked the car in the garage and didn't use it. They rented the 
apartment for a year and never set foot in it, but lived someplace 
else. Or if they were in business, they rented a warehouse to store 
things, and then didn't put anything in the warehouse and wasted their 
money.
  Now, what we are talking about here is leases that the people who are 
in the oil business have spent billions, with a B, of dollars to lease. 
Does it make sense to anyone's common sense that they would spend that 
kind of money and then not look to see if there is some way they could 
get their money back on the deal? Of course they have.
  And in fact, as Kevin Brady pointed out, they have been looking and 
looking and looking and looking in this area to find enough resources 
to justify billions of dollars worth of expenditures to drill.
  I will tell you, you are welcome to drill in my back yard. I have got 
about two, a little over 2 acres. I will lease it tomorrow, okay? But 
there is no oil in my back yard, and I don't expect anyone to lease it 
or drill there because they know in Round Rock, Texas there is not any 
oil.
  Now, the same thing goes here. You can talk about use it or lose it, 
but once you know there is no production in an area, there makes no 
sense to spend millions of dollars to find nothing. That is what this 
is all about. Common sense tells you there is no oil there.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from New Hampshire, Carol Shea-Porter.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, almost 8 years ago two oilmen arrived 
at the White House. They devised an oil policy that left everybody else 
out. And now we are seeing their very successful oil policy where we 
are paying for their secret policy. And yet we didn't hear a word from 
the Republican side of the aisle. And now, when we are paying almost $5 
a gallon, suddenly they are talking about drilling in ANWR.
  Now, they know, as well as we do, as well as the Department of Energy 
knows and says, that it would take 10 years to get any gas from that. 
The American family would spend $57,000 before they saw one penny from 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We need to drill now and we need 
to drill domestically, and they have the leases.
  And don't ever be surprised by the fact that the oil companies are 
claiming there is nothing underneath there anyway, because what they 
are really doing is buying back their stock.
  So my suggestion to the oil companies is to get to work now. Start 
drilling domestically with what you have. You have 80 percent of the 
leased land. Use it or lose it.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlelady from Oklahoma 
(Ms. Fallin) for 2 minutes.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6515 is the ``use it or lose it'' bill 
that was defeated last month, but today it is coming back with just 
window dressing added to this version.
  The previous version of this bill, H.R. 6251, was rejected by the 
majority of Republicans and nearly all the oil patch Democrats, 
including the chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resources 
Subcommittee.
  Like the last version, H.R. 6515 breaches contracts by requiring 
terms under which oil companies may use and bid on leases. In fact, 
this piece of legislation may actually drive away oil and gas companies 
from the U.S. and lower the production of energy. It is based on a 
claim that has been dismissed by the Department of Interior, that the 
industry is stockpiling 68 million acres of Federal leases.
  This bill cannot hide 30 years of shutting off access. In Jimmy 
Carter's last year as President, over 100 million acres were leased 
onshore, and it reached 160 million acres under Ronald Reagan. In a 
good year it is now just 50 million acres. The government and the 
Democrat leadership is the one that is stockpiling oil and gas leases, 
and the Speaker is keeping it off the market. Over two billion, that's 
over 200,000 million acres are not leased.
  And according to today's New York Times, when the President decided 
to lift the ban on OCS oil and gas production, the Speaker responded, 
I'm not going to let him get away with it.
  Well, H.R. 6515 and the Speaker are not living up to their promises.
  This bill also purports to open up the National Petroleum Reserve in 
Alaska, but the NRPA is already open. Just yesterday the Secretary of 
the Interior announced a major lease sale for this fall. So 6515 could 
delay the drilling because the bill now injects new environmental 
language that is already existing in the NPRA law. And this is an 
invitation for environmental groups to sue to stop oil production. And 
they have been filing lawsuits for the last 10 years to stop the 
production. This is a bad piece of legislation.

[[Page H6704]]

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I was sort of shocked to hear my friend from New 
Mexico complaining about rules and regulations that fetter the oil-
extraction industry as restrictions that make us Third World. Well, you 
know, think for a moment about the abuses we see worldwide in terms of 
corruption and environmental abuse, and we have those for a reason.
  But even if you're going to ignore that, if you think environmental 
protection and administrative controls are infringements on freedom and 
unnecessary, gee, as my friend from West Virginia points out, you 
passed an energy bill in 2005 that was supposed to streamline it. The 
Republicans and two oilmen have been in charge for the last 7\1/2\ 
years. If it doesn't work right, whose fault is that administratively?
  I would suggest the gentleman look in the mirror and then vote for 
our legislation.
  Mr. PEARCE. The gentleman asks a question whose fault is it. Let's 
read down through a list of observations: Wilderness Society v. Wisely, 
16 leases, 11,000 acres stopped; Montana Wilderness Alliance v. Fry, 
stops three leases, limits additional 9; Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. 
Norton, injunction covering 93 percent of the resource area; Theodore 
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership challenges total of 127 APDs, 
applications for permits to drill; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. 
Kempthorne stopped 60 wells; Potash Association stopped 72 wells; 
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance suspends leases; Wyoming Outdoor 
Council v. BLM, 11 parcels BLM stopped; National Audubon Society 
challenging the Resource Operational Division, and then we have Pennaco 
Energy v. U.S.; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; Southern Utah 
Wilderness Alliance.
  The reason that oil and gas exploration is stopped, the reason that 
we have 68 million acres is because of litigation and excess 
regulation, many of which do nothing, nothing to improve the 
environment. Most are bureaucratic delays.
  I would suggest that the gentleman should--maybe if he thinks that he 
can produce oil more cheaply and more effectively than the people who 
are producing it, maybe he should be there and actually be drilling 
some wells and find out for himself the difficulty of producing.
  Mr. Speaker, I would recognize the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry) for 1 minute.
  Mr. TERRY. Ask yourselves why folks on the left who are more green 
than the Riddler and the Democrat leadership that has vowed to prevent 
any new drilling support this bill. Do I smell hypocrisy? No. Because 
this bill doesn't open up any new drilling. In fact on balance, it 
makes it more difficult to drill in an area already open for drilling. 
It poses new requirements to prove that you have to fully have used 
other leases before you can get any one there. A new requirement that 
any company must have a union contract in place before receiving a 
lease are just some of the couple of examples.
  This is not a drilling bill that's going to get us more resources. 
It's a rhetorical political bill. Don't be suckered. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, could you give us the time remaining on both 
sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico has 4 minutes 
left. The gentleman from West Virginia has 6\1/2\ minutes left.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from 
Michigan, again we would just look at one area. This is the Powder 
River Basin, and 86 percent of the leased land is idle because of the 
fear of lawsuits. It is lawsuits that are stopping much of the 
production, and yet the gentleman's bill does nothing. It does nothing 
to stop the lawsuits.
  If we are serious about drilling and drilling now, then let's put 
something substantial in this bill, let's take it back to committee, 
let's amend it like we should have, let's put things that restrict the 
litigation that is stopping Americans from receiving the oil that they 
deserve and the lower price of gasoline.
  Mr. Speaker, I would recognize the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
McCotter) for 1 minute.
  Mr. McCOTTER. I thank you.
  This bill is worse than nothing; it is the illusion of something. As 
was alluded to by my colleague from Nebraska, when you see people who 
claim to be more green than the Maid of Arran supporting a drilling 
bill, questions do arise.
  In the final analysis, I must be honest. In fairness, this bill will 
do one thing. It will unleash the new power of the Democratic Party's 
hybrid of solar and wind power. It's called hot air. Now, hot air will 
not fuel your car, it will not fly your plane, and it will not lower 
your gas prices.
  I would point out before you vote on this, remember the more hot air 
that you unleash over this, the more disastrous the consequences to 
both gas prices and global warming.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has called upon the 
country for more domestic drilling. This bill says yes, Mr. President, 
let's drill. Let's drill in those areas that are already leased and 
already ready to go because what the President has not told the 
American people is that there are over 68 million acres of Federal 
lands already leased to the big oil and gas companies. They are not 
moving forward on those leases. They are sitting tight. They like the 
status quo. They're making record profits. Gas is over $4 a gallon. 
They like it that way.
  What the President said is don't push forward on those already 
existing leases. Let's go up in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. But what he 
hasn't said is the Department of Energy, his own Department of Energy, 
has found that we won't see one drop of gas on the market for another 
10 years as a result of that drilling, and even then the price will be 
insignificant.
  If we really want to get going now, two things we've got to do: One, 
we need to begin to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 
That's 10 days until it hits market. Not 10 years. Two, we've got to 
crack down on the speculators, and this Congress is going to move 
forward on that measure. We hope we have the President's support 
because he has said no to releasing oil from the SPR.
  In the longer term, we have to do two other things: responsible 
drilling, and that's what this bill calls for, and we need to make that 
investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. If we're going to 
truly reduce and crack our addiction to oil, especially foreign oil, we 
need to move forward on those fronts.
  This is a responsible bill that says to the President, yeah, let's 
start drilling on all of those areas where the oil companies have the 
ability to do that. They're sitting on it. They like it that way. Let's 
send them a message.
  Mr. PEARCE. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that oil 
companies are very rarely sitting on it. They are delayed by 
regulation. They're delayed by litigation, and if we were serious about 
drilling and drilling now, drill today, we would do something more than 
recommend a Black and Decker drill. I was surprised to hear our 
chairman of the committee say that because it takes billions of dollars 
to build these rigs out in the middle of the gulf, and to suggest that 
it is quite as simple as grabbing a Black and Decker and going and 
drilling with your hand, simply just, I think, intentionally 
understates the difficulty in providing low-cost gasoline for consumers 
in today's market. I was surprised.
  Mr. RAHALL. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PEARCE. Yes, I would yield.
  Mr. RAHALL. Of course I was being facetious in case you didn't 
understand my southern drawl.
  But in regard to the issue of litigation lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits 
to which you refer, if I might respond. In regard to the NPRA, the 
National Petroleum Reserve, ConocoPhillips currently holds 183 leases 
up there making them one of the largest leaseholders. As of July 16, 
2008, I believe that's yesterday, ConocoPhillips has told my staff, 
``There are no lawsuits, litigation, on any ConocoPhillips leases in 
the NPRA nor have there been.''

[[Page H6705]]

  According to several other sources, there are no lawsuits pending to 
stop lease sales, exploration, or development of the NPRA, the National 
Petroleum Reserve.
  Mr. PEARCE. Reclaiming my time.
  I would just point out to the gentleman that the 34,000 acres with 
the Perdido lease has got no production coming from it yet. It's 
declared as idle according to your specifications. And I would just 
remind the gentleman that there are always reasons why production is 
not occurring. No one is withholding oil at $140 a barrel.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very honored and proud to yield at this 
time 1 minute to our superb majority leader, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank 
him for bringing this bill to the floor.
  Drill Responsibly In Leased Lands. The assertion was that Democrats 
are not for drilling. This gives lie to that assertion. This says, as 
we have been saying, there are 88 million acres available for drilling 
right now. Those acres are subject to lawsuit, my friend says. Any 
acreage would be subject to lawsuits. This acreage is subject to the 
availability of drills. Black and Decker or otherwise. What an absurd, 
I say to my friend, assertion. There are no drills available currently 
to drill in new lands here or other places.
  The minority leader, I presume, is going to be speaking in some few 
minutes. He said this: ``They're,'' meaning the Democrats, ``offering 
excuses designed to get people thinking about something other than 
drilling. They worship at the altar of radical environmentalists.''
  This is, of course, the crowd that said global warming didn't exist 
until just a few months ago. This is the crowd that has been in charge 
of the White House for the last 7\1/2\ years.
  The gentleman from New Mexico says, Gee whiz, let's bring the price 
of gasoline down.
  They had an energy policy which they came up with under Dick Cheney. 
Some people say it failed. I'm not sure the oil companies thought it 
failed. It was $1.46 when they brought up the policy. It's now $4 at 
the pump. The oil companies are making the biggest profits they've made 
in their history.
  The assertion Mr. Boehner made is, as I said again, that we worship 
at the altar of radical environmentalists. Let me quote one of those 
radical environmentalists: ``I have been an oilman my whole life, but 
this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of.'' That radical 
environmentalist's name is T. Boone Pickens, and as he said earlier in 
that statement, ``I have been an oilman all my life.'' He understands 
very well what can and cannot be done.
  This bill says let's drill. Let's get American product to American 
consumers and try to bring down prices. We've also asked the SPR be 
released. Not all of it. Maintain most of it. Why? To bring prices 
down, to free the oil that Americans have bought for their use and to 
bring prices down. With Americans being pummeled by $4-a-gallon gas, 
it's high time that America did just that. With the passage of the 
DRILL bill, America will move decisively to increase its domestic oil 
production.
  Now, ladies and gentlemen of the House, isn't it an ironic 
happenstance that the day before we put this bill on the floor, 24 
hours before we put this bill on the floor and say let's drill in the 
National Petroleum Reserve, isn't it ironic that the White House 
announces they're going to do just that? My, my, my. What an awful idea 
we had--right up until the time 24 hours ago when the administration 
decided they would do it.
  I'm glad they've done it. And if our actions spurred their action, so 
be it. And we're going to take credit. Because they've been in office 
7\1/2\ years. They took it 24 hours ago. What was the reaction of the 
oil industry? They were happy.
  Now, nobody is saying if you have land over here you have got to use 
it before you get land over here. What we're saying is you can't 
inventory land. You can't inventory acreage. You can't be a huge, rich 
oil company and want no competition and therefore inventory land. We're 
saying that. Yes, we are. We think that makes good sense for the 
American public.
  Today we call their bluff, I think. Yesterday they saw us. And they 
said, we'll drill here.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Speaker, 68 million acres of American oil-producing land are 
sitting leased, available, and idle. There is even more land available 
for drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A, which 
we're dealing with today.
  Combined, we are talking about an area the size of--and all my 
colleagues listening to this debate and anybody else who is listening 
to it, they ought to know currently what is available--the area of 
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode 
Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and most of my own State, 
Maryland. That entire area is currently available for drilling, for 
getting American product to Americans.
  Let's help the oil companies get that oil out of the ground and get 
it flowing to the Americans who need it. The DRILL bill speeds up the 
leasing process in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. It ensures 
that Alaskan oil will fill American gas tanks.
  That is, I presume, why, when they knew this bill was coming to the 
floor, yesterday the administration said they were going to have this 
land leased. Yesterday. The American public is pretty smart. There's 
nobody I think that's hearing my voice, wherever they are, doubts that 
if they just did it yesterday, after being in office for 7\1/2\ years, 
then maybe, maybe, maybe there was a relationship between Chairman 
Rahall bringing this bill to the floor and the action yesterday to try 
to preclude the credit for doing what we think is good policy. 
Hopefully, we're all going to vote for good policy today and vote for 
this bill.
  It calls upon the President to speed up the completion of the Alaskan 
oil and gas pipelines. That's what it does because we need those lines 
to get that oil and product, natural gas and oil, to market and to 
Americans.
  ``Drill on the leases you have, or let somebody else do it. But don't 
just sit on them while Americans are paying $4 a gallon. Use it or lose 
it.''
  The gentleman says, well, they're not just sitting there; they're 
afraid of lawsuits. We may all be afraid of lawsuits. We may never 
drive our car because we're afraid of an accident or a lawsuit. That's 
not what they're in the business for, and very frankly, in terms of 
fear, when you're making the largest profit for a product, you go look 
for more, unless of course you want to keep the price high and supply 
down.
  Why is our plan better than the Republicans'? One, it means more oil. 
The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which is already approved for 
drilling, has an estimated 10.6 billion barrels of oil. ANWR has 10.4 
billion. And the information we have is the oil companies aren't too 
interested in drilling there.
  Two, our plan means more oil, faster. Unlike ANWR and protected 
coastal areas, NPR-A plus the 68 million leased acres elsewhere are 
currently approved for production.
  And get this, right now, today, available pipelines reach to within 5 
miles of the National Petroleum Reserve, and if the pipelines are 
completed soon, we will speed production up even more.
  Third, I see no reason to give even more handouts of public land to 
companies enjoying record profits and billions of dollars in taxpayer 
subsidies unless they are using that which they currently have. 
Inventorying land, inventorying acreage, inventorying possible oil 
supplies is not what the American people want.
  What the American people want is they want production. They want 
performance. They want prices to go down. That's why we say let's start 
on the land they already have. Let them eat their vegetables before 
they think about dessert.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Would the majority leader yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I would like to ask the gentleman: How can we 
accurately know what those reserves are if we can't even have seismic, 
modern seismic activity done? So, that's the reason to open the Outer 
Continental Shelf, to at least get the process started. If the seismic 
shows nothing, these companies lose the lease. That's current law. So I 
don't understand the majority's opposition to opening the Outer 
Continental Shelf.

[[Page H6706]]

  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, what the majority says is we've done 
seismic, we've had available 10-year leases to do the research on 68 
million in the Lower 48. Thirty-three million of those are on the Outer 
Continental Shelf, and 20 million acres are in the Alaskan Petroleum 
Reserve.
  What we are saying is, we have available now. You don't have to do 
the seismic. Presumably, that's what you've been doing on the 68 
million acres. If you haven't been doing it, then let's release it and 
give it to somebody else who will because, as you point out, the 
seismics have not been done in other areas. They have been done here, 
presumably by people who already had available the leases.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. But if the majority leader would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I'll yield one more time, and then I want to finish my 
comments.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the majority leader.
  The point is, if we have tight supply and demand, then we should be 
opening up all these areas for seismic analysis to get accurate 
information about these reserves, and if the seismic shows nothing, 
there's no activity; you lose the lease. The companies lose the money. 
That is the current law, and I think the American people want an 
explanation as to why we're not doing that. We should be looking at all 
of our potential resources.
  We, in Louisiana, have known for a long time how this works. In fact, 
Louisiana delegations for 35 years have fought to open up additional 
Outer Continental Shelf and let the States share in the revenue.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, what the American people want, they 
want to know why we're simply arguing that we ought to have more 
available when we haven't used what we now have available. That's what 
the American people want to know, and that's what this bill says, and 
that's what we're arguing.
  Your argument, with all due respect, is not necessarily wrong, but it 
certainly is not a replacement for what we have provided here. Let's 
move ahead on that which is already authorized, and then we can 
certainly authorize more to see whether or not more is available.
  Mr. Speaker, we have lived through 7\1/2\ years of Republican energy 
policy: plans put forth by Vice President Cheney, a bill passed in 
2005--let me stress, a bill passed in 2005. Oil was approximately $2. 
Their plan was passed, passed through this House, passed through the 
Senate, sent to the President, he signed it. Three years later, the 
price of gasoline has doubled. It is a failed policy. We need a new 
policy. We need to make sure we use the land we have.
  And that's why it's so ironic that just yesterday, I tell my friend 
from Louisiana, isn't it ironic that just yesterday the President made 
an announcement the day before this bill was going to be announced that 
he wanted, in October, to allow the leases to move forward on this land 
which we're talking about? He apparently agrees with the objectives of 
this bill.
  With this responsible domestic production bill we can start today. I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Let's use the resources 
that are available right now on leased lands. Drill responsibly in 
these leased lands. Let's keep America's oil in America. Vote for the 
DRILL bill. Let's make America more energy independent.
  And before I close, let me reiterate what T. Boone Pickens said 
because the nub of this debate is not just about more oil. The nub of 
this debate and the nub of the failure in the past of perhaps all of us 
has been that we have not honestly said to the American public, the 
only way we will solve this problem, the only way we will become energy 
independent is to ensure a vigorous program of pursuing renewables so 
that we will have energy for the future, not just for today; for our 
children, not just for ourselves.
  Vote for this DRILL bill. It is a responsible way forward.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert two documents that 
show a history of litigation in the NPR-A. If the gentleman from West 
Virginia is unaware of those, maybe that would help.

   Litigation History: Oil and Gas Leasing in the National Petroleum 
                            Reserve--Alaska

       In 1980 Congress amended the Naval Petroleum Reserves 
     Production Act (Public Law 96-514), directing the Secretary 
     of the Interior to carry out ``an expeditious program of 
     competitive leasing of oil and gas'' in the 23 million acre 
     National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Pursuant to this 
     directive, BLM developed an expedited leasing program.
       In 1983, BLM completed an environmental impact statement 
     (EIS) and issued a record of decision (ROD) opening all but 
     1,416,000 acres of NPR-A to leasing. The ROD called for five 
     annual lease sales of approximately two million acres each. 
     Soon after the release of the ROD a lawsuit was filed by two 
     Inupiat Eskimos in U.S. District Court for Alaska. The 
     plaintiffs, together with amicus State of Alaska and North 
     Slope Borough, sought a preliminary injunction blocking the 
     lease sale. They contended that BLM failed to make certain 
     subsistence-related determinations required by Section 810 of 
     the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 
     16 U.S.C. Sec. 3120. After a trial on the merits, the 
     district court held in favor of BLM, finding that such 
     determinations were not required. However the court issued an 
     injunction precluding execution of the leases pending appeal 
     of the matter to the Ninth Circuit. The district court's 
     decision was affirmed on appeal in Kunakana v. Clark, 742 
     F.2d 1145 (9th Cir. 1984), thus allowing issuance of the 
     leases. By 1998, all leases issued under the 1983 ROD had 
     expired without a significant discovery.
       In 1998, BLM completed an ElS and issued a ROD addressing 
     the 4.6 million acre Northeast Planning Area of NPR-A. The 
     ROD opened 87 percent of the area to leasing, excluding an 
     area that included most of the submerged lands of Teshekpuk 
     Lake and lands to the north and east of the lake. Several 
     environmental groups filed suit in U.S. District Court for 
     the District of Columbia (Wilderness Soc'y v. Babbit, Civ. 
     No. 98-2395), alleging violations of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and seeking an injunction to 
     preclude lease sales under the ROD. In an unreported 
     decision, the court ruled in favor of BLM as to the 
     plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, thus 
     allowing the lease sales to move forward. BLM held lease 
     sales in 1999 and 2002, which resulted in the issuance of 
     several leases near Teshekpuk Lake. However, the court has 
     yet to issue a final decision on the merits, and the case 
     remains pending without any action having been taken by the 
     court for several years now.
       After completing an EIS, in 2004 BLM issued a ROD 
     addressing the Northwest Planning Area. The ROD opened all 
     8.8 million acres of the planning area to leasing, but 
     deferred 1,570,000 acres near the village of Wainwright from 
     leasing for ten years. Several environmental groups filed 
     suit against the Department of the Interior in U.S. District 
     Court in Alaska. The plaintiffs argued that BLM acted 
     arbitrarily in violation of NEPA by authorizing leasing in 
     the entire planning area without considering reasonable 
     alternatives and without doing a site-specific analysis of 
     each of the areas affected by the proposed action. The 
     plaintiffs further argued that the biological opinion was 
     arbitrary in violation of the Endangered Species Act, 
     alleging that it was insufficiently thorough, not co-
     extensive with the ROD, and paid insufficient attention to 
     the uneven distribution of eiders within the affected area. 
     The district court ruled in favor of BLM on all counts, N. 
     Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Norton, 361 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. AK 
     2005). The decision was upheld on appeal in its entirety in 
     N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 
     2006).
       Seeking to open additional areas of the Northeast Planning 
     Area to oil and gas leasing pursuant to a 2002 recommendation 
     contained in the President's National Energy Policy, BLM 
     completed an amendment to the 1998 EIS in 2005 and issued an 
     amended ROD in 2006. The amended ROD sought to open for 
     leasing all lands in the planning area except the submerged 
     lands underlying Teshekpuk Lake. In doing so, 389,000 acres 
     that had been unavailable under the 1998 ROD would be 
     available. Several environmental groups filed suit against 
     the Department of the Interior in U.S. District Court in 
     Alaska, alleging violations of NEPA and the Endangered 
     Species Act. Holding in favor of the plaintiffs in part, in 
     National Audubon Society v. Kempthorne, No. 1:05-cv-00008-JKS 
     (Sep. 25, 2006), the court vacated the ROD. The court found 
     that the amended EIS failed to adequately analyze cumulative 
     impacts associated with the adjoining Northwest Planning 
     Area, and that for similar reasons the biological opinion was 
     inadequate as well. The Department chose not to appeal the 
     adverse decision, but instead proceeded to correct the 
     deficiencies noted by the court by supplementing the amended 
     EIS and revising the biological opinion accordingly. BLM 
     issued the final Supplemental EIS on May 23, 2008. Under the 
     Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, potential plaintiffs 
     have 60 days from issuance of a final EIS to bring suit 
     (i.e., until July 22, 2008)
                                  ____


             [From the Anchorage Daily News, Dec. 20, 2007]

     Groups Sue To Protect Rare Loon in Alaska's Arctic Oil Reserve

                            (By Dan Joling)

       Three conservation groups sued the federal government 
     Wednesday hoping to block Arctic petroleum development 
     through protections for a rare loon that breeds in Alaska's 
     National Petroleum Reserve.

[[Page H6707]]

       The groups claim yellow-billed loons are threatened by 
     industrialization in the 23 million-acre reserve that covers 
     much of Alaska's western North Slope.
       ``The yellow-billed loon is one of the rarest and most 
     vulnerable birds in the United States,'' said Andrea Treece, 
     an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. ``If 
     the loon is to survive in a warming Arctic, we need to 
     protect its critical habitat, not open it up for oil 
     development.''
       Inundation of the loons' freshwater breeding areas by 
     rising sea levels tied to global warming is also considered a 
     threat, but petroleum development is the petitioners' main 
     concern.
       The lawsuit names Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and 
     the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. According to the 
     conservation groups, the agency is more than two years behind 
     the legal deadline for taking action to protect the yellow-
     billed loons under provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
       A spokesman for the agency said a decision on protections 
     is coming.
       ``We expect to have money available in the fiscal year '08 
     budget and then complete the status review and the 12-month 
     finding,'' said Bruce Woods.
       The Center for Biological Diversity, the National Resources 
     Defense Council, Pacific Environment and other U.S. and 
     Russian scientific and conservation organizations filed a 
     petition in April 2004 to list yellow-billed loons as 
     threatened or endangered. After a petition is filed, agencies 
     have a 12-month deadline to issue a proposed rule listing a 
     species or to decide listing is not warranted.
       The Fish and Wildlife Service only last May accepted the 
     petition for review. The determination required the agency to 
     solicit public comment, carry out a status review of the 
     loons and, if merited, issue a proposed rule to protect 
     loons. That has not happened and the lawsuit will seek an 
     order from a federal judge telling the agency to do so.
       The yellow-billed loon breeds in tundra wetlands in Alaska, 
     Canada and Russia, and winters along the west coasts of 
     Canada and the United States.
       The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates there are 16,500 
     yellow-billed loons in the world, including 3,700 to 4,900 
     that breed in Alaska. More than 75 percent of the Alaska 
     breeders nest in the petroleum reserve and many nest in areas 
     recently opened to oil and gas development near Teshekpuk 
     Lake and along the Colville River, according to conservation 
     groups.
       Smaller numbers breed on the Seward Peninsula, the land 
     mass east of the Bering Strait, and on St. Lawrence Island in 
     the Bering Sea.
       President Warren Harding created the National Petroleum 
     Reserve-Alaska in 1923 as an emergency oil supply for the 
     Navy. Current leasing plans come from a presidential 
     directive guiding the Department of the Interior to foster 
     oil and gas development there.
       The lawsuit was filed in San Francisco by the Center for 
     Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council 
     and Pacific Environment.

  So we now arrive at the point of conclusion of this debate. Protests 
are up 706 percent. That stops oil production. This bill does nothing 
against the protests.
  Litigation is up in this one case. Eighty-six percent of the 
available acres are undrilled because of litigation. This bill does 
nothing about litigation.
  In this particular case, 33 percent of this in Utah is out of 
production because of a combination of litigation and bureaucratic 
delays. This bill does nothing about that.
  Finally, 1992, the Democrat majority extended the drilling from 5 to 
10 years because they understood at that point what the Democrat 
Congress of today does not understand: that it does take time to prove 
up on leases, find if there is oil there, and produce them. The entire 
allegation that 68 million acres are completely idle is one that's 
intended, I think, to misconstrue the whole situation.
  And finally, the entire underlying intent of the bill, the use-it-or-
lose-it, is already a part of BLM regulations. So this bill does 
nothing except it duplicates what is already in place for many 
instances, and it threatens companies with the loss of valuable 
resources and will actually drive the price of gasoline up.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on the bill today and give the gentleman 
thanks for the debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico 
has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I would say to the gentleman from New Mexico, again, we 
realize this is a lengthy process, leasing and permitting and getting 
into actual production. But again, a lot of the regulatory framework 
that's in place is in place for a darn good reason, to protect the 
public, to protect their health, to protect their safety, and to 
protect our environment, regulatory framework of which I happen to be 
proud to have supported over the years and I think should be there for 
that public protection.
  I'd be glad to yield the gentleman from Illinois 1 minute.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you very much for the time.
  Three years ago this summer, President Bush signed into law in 2005, 
in August--July 28, we passed it here in the House--an energy bill 
which the President said at that time, ``I'm confident that one day the 
Americans will look back on this bill as a vital step towards a more 
secure and prosperous Nation that is less dependent on foreign sources 
of energy.''
  At that time, gas was $2.29 a gallon. By any measurement, that 
legislation has failed. Today, it's $4.11 a gallon, and our dependence 
on foreign oil is greater now than it was then.
  What has happened here is we have provided the oil and gas companies 
$15 billion in subsidies of taxpayer money to drill. They're not 
drilling on the 68 million acres. We have provided them 68 million 
acres on the Lower 48 to drill. They are not drilling.
  So we have a simple thing: use-it-or-lose-it. Get drilling. We agree 
that supply is part of it. We also agree that efficiency is part of it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman 30 more seconds.
  Mr. EMANUEL. There are three parts to this: supply, efficiency, and 
alternatives.
  When we increased the fuel efficiency of cars, we moved on one of 
those pieces. Here, we're moving on supply. We're asking you to join us 
to make sure that we have adequate supplies out there. There are 68 
million acres to be drilled, and as the majority leader said earlier, 
it's ironic on the day that we have the bill on the floor, finally 
we're going to have 2 million acres opened up in Alaska.
  This requires that there's an annual offering of more property up to 
be drilling. It does not have to only occur when the Congress puts a 
bill on the floor to threaten an administration that you finally move 
more supply to market.
  This is a comprehensive approach to solving the energy crisis that 
the country faces.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend debate by 
10 minutes, equally divided.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  Mr. RAHALL. We're prepared to wrap up, Mr. Speaker. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, to conclude our debate on this side, and in 
order to promote the passage of this DRILL Act, which will bring 
American energy to American consumers in a responsible way, I yield 1 
minute to our distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentlelady from 
California, Nancy Pelosi.

                              {time}  1445

  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his 
extraordinary leadership in bringing the most extensive drilling 
legislation to the floor of the House. Thank you, Mr. Rahall.
  Because part of what we must do in order to bring down the price of 
energy to the American people is to increase domestic supply and to 
protect the consumer. And increasing domestic supply means that we must 
remove all doubt in the minds of those who wish to drill and those who 
want the drilling to take place that there are 68 million acres in the 
lower 48 States where drilling is allowed: ``Drill Responsibly in 
Leased Lands,'' the DRILL bill.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the documentation of that amount of 
land. Thirty-three million of those acres are offshore. So the question 
is, why do you not want us to drill offshore? We do, in 33 million 
acres. Why do you not want us to drill on land? We do, in tens of 
millions more acres in the lower 48.
  And then this bill takes us to Alaska, where the National Petroleum 
Reserve-Alaska is a bigger source of oil than the ANWR, the refuge in 
Alaska. So why those who wish to make an argument here are saying we 
won't let you drill: No, we want you to drill. Why are you saying this 
is the law, they have to do it anyway? Well, they aren't because these 
lands are not drilled upon.

[[Page H6708]]

We're not getting the product from them.
  So in order to protect the consumer and to increase domestic supply, 
we're talking about two things: We're talking about protecting the 
consumer with legislation to curb unnecessary, excessive and abusive 
speculation in the marketplace. That debate is going on in the Senate 
as we speak here right now and will come to the House soon.
  Increasing domestic supply means facilitating drilling where it is 
allowed already--in tens of millions of acres across our country. It 
means investments in renewable resources, because that is part of our 
energy supply now and for the future. And it also means an immediate 
call upon the President to free our oil. Right now, the President is 
sitting on over 700 million barrels of oil. This is oil that has been 
bought and paid for by the American taxpayer and is warehoused in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is there for emergencies, and we have a 
national emergency in terms of the energy crisis in our country.
  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is 97.5 percent full, the fullest it 
has ever been in history. All we're asking the President to do is to 
take 10 percent of that oil and release it over time into the 
marketplace; increase the supply, reduce the price.
  Ten days ago, we called upon the President to free our oil. If he had 
done so at that time, we would already have an immediate impact at the 
pump, 10 days. Release the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 10 
days later we would have had an impact at the pump.
  What our colleagues are suggesting about going beyond the areas that 
already have permits all ready to go will take 10 years to get to the 
pump. Even the President, who is advocating drilling in the protected 
areas of OCS, even he said in his press conference the other day, this 
is not an immediate fix. This will not lower the price at the pump in 
the near future. Even the President has said that.
  So this is a false argument. It's an argument trying to be used to 
divert attention from the fact that President Bush has had a failed 
energy policy for the last 7.5 years. If he had acted earlier, we would 
be reaping the benefits of our investments and renewables. But there 
has been a resistance in the Congress and within the White House to 
these changes.
  So here we are today at a moment of truth. The truth is that there is 
a great deal more oil to be exploited in our country. The truth is that 
it is not being exploited, and this bill would encourage that 
exploitation. It would encourage those who have the leases to use it or 
lose it, and if they don't want to exploit the situation, to let 
someone else drill and produce oil and gas in those acres.
  It also says that in Alaska we should be drilling in the National 
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Instead of having a fight over a protected 
area, let's go to an area that is already permitted for leasing and has 
more oil in the first place. The bill also says, when we do that, we 
must bring that product to market.
  So let's complete the pipeline--it's 5 miles there to complete the 
pipeline--and then build the natural gas pipeline to take natural gas 
from Alaska to the United States. The only reason that has not happened 
is because the President has not decided it should.
  All of this is only a decision. We call upon the President to use the 
good offices of the President of the United States to encourage those 
who are in the final stages of decision making on this to move. And 
then the supply of energy to our country will be vast, and it will 
create probably a hundred thousand new jobs. Building the Alaska 
Pipeline, the Natural Gas Alaska Pipeline, would be the biggest 
infrastructure project in history. And all the President has to do is 
give the signal that this should be done. He hasn't in 7.5 years. This 
bill calls upon him to do so.
  So when we drill, and when we bring the oil and gas down to our 
country, we are saying that none of this oil that is being produced can 
be exported to foreign countries. It is there not for the profit of 
these corporations, but to meet the energy demands of the American 
people.
  Essential to all of this, though, is to ignore the false claims being 
made of the impact of drilling on these protected lands. Maybe the 
science and the technology one day will make that feasible, and we 
should always keep our minds open to that. But to say we have to go 
there--which will take much longer to bring product to market--is just 
a diversion from the matter at hand, which is, a failed policy in the 
White House. As Mr. Markey said, two oilmen in the White House, $4-plus 
a gallon at the pump. The President is sitting on 700 million barrels 
of oil that would bring down that price at the pump.
  Free our oil, Mr. President. ``Use it or lose it'' to our oil 
companies. End speculation that is driving up the price. Protect the 
American consumer. Vote for the DRILL Act.
  I thank Mr. Rahall again for his leadership.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill.
  The bill is similar to one I voted for last month that dealt with 
Federal lands that have been leased for energy exploration and 
development under the Mineral Leasing Act but where such activities 
have not yet occurred.
  As I noted last month, the debate over this legislation has included 
statements--by some supporters and some opponents alike--that 
exaggerates the likely effect of enactment. For example, I believe it 
would be better to avoid the ``use it or lose it'' rhetoric that over-
simplifies the issue and fails to reflect the reality that oil and gas 
exploration is a complicated commercial and scientific enterprise 
involving efforts that do not easily fit within strict regulatory 
timelines.
  But while that part of the bill may not be as far-reaching as some 
have claimed, I think it is a reasonable response to current conditions 
and should be passed. In essence, it would bar the current holders of 
federal mineral leases--whether for onshore or offshore areas--from 
obtaining additional leases unless they are able to show that they are 
``diligently developing'' the leases they already hold. The Secretary 
of the Interior would be responsible for spelling out in regulations 
exactly what would be needed to show such ``due diligence.''
  Current Interior Department regulations include provisions addressing 
due diligence requirements, so this is not a new concept. But I think 
giving it greater emphasis is appropriate in view of the continuing 
importance of oil even as we work to increase the availability and use 
of alternative energy sources. More useful in terms of energy policy, 
this bill will reinforce the provisions of current law that aim to 
prevent hoarding of leases. And providing an incentive for 
relinquishment of some leases may increase the opportunity for others 
to explore for and produce oil or gas from those lands.
  This approach is similar to that taken when Congress amended the 
coal-leasing laws by passing the Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 
over President Ford's veto. That 1976 legislation provided for a due-
diligence requirement as part of a comprehensive overhaul of the laws 
governing leasing and development of federally-owned coal resources--a 
provision that some analysts have said had the most immediate practical 
effect of any of the legislation's various provisions. As a result, for 
several decades the holders of federal coal leases have been required 
by law to diligently develop their leases, which has aided in the 
orderly and efficient development of the nation's coal. I think a 
similar reinforcement of existing law for leasing of other federal 
energy resources makes sense.
  I have a similar reaction to the other provisions of the bill--they 
certainly are not all that needs to be done to improve our energy 
policies, but they can make at least a modest contribution in the right 
direction.
  These provisions include a requirement for the Department of the 
Interior to offer at least one lease sale annually in the National 
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. This is an area of well-established 
potential that was initially made available for leasing in the Clinton 
Administration, and with regard to which the current Administration 
just today announced that 2.6 million acres would be offered at lease 
sales in the near future. Dictating a leasing timetable in legislation 
is unusual, but the potentially beneficial effects on prices from 
tapping the reserves in this part of Alaska are undeniable.
  In addition, the bill would reinstate a ban on the export of Alaskan 
oil that was previously a matter of federal law. Oil is a globally-
traded commodity, so the effect of this will be limited, but it may, to 
some extent, reduce reliance on exports.
  The bill calls on the President to facilitate the completion of oil 
pipelines into the National Petroleum Reserve and to facilitate the 
construction of a Alaska natural gas pipeline to the continental United 
States to move the product to market. These are only exhortations, but 
I see no objection to their inclusion in the legislation.

[[Page H6709]]

  Mr. Speaker, I do not think this bill is a comprehensive solution 
toward solving our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Nor does it 
come close to addressing all that we must do on energy policy.
  We need to do more.
  We can look for ways to increase exploration in offshore areas--for 
example, in 2006 I proposed opening up part of the eastern Gulf of 
Mexico to within 100 miles of the Florida coast, rather than leave the 
125-mile buffer that was finally enacted, and I think that additional 
acreage should be made available. We should adjust the tax on imported 
ethanol, and I have introduced to reduce an artificial trade barrier 
that discourages imports of that fuel. We need to aggressively pursue 
development of alternative energy sources, including solar and wind 
power, and we should move aggressively to support research in carbon 
sequestration for clean coal development, and review policies that 
inhibit a more proactive effort with nuclear power. And we also need to 
work even harder to increase energy efficiency, so that we get a 
greater payoff from all energy sources.
  In short, we need a comprehensive and balanced energy policy. This 
bill by itself is at best a small part of that prescription--but, 
modest as it is, it does deserve approval and I will vote for it.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation, which fails to open up any new lands anywhere to American 
energy exploration and production. Worse still, this bill imposes 
restrictive labor requirements including Project Labor Agreements, 
which eliminate open competition and increase the cost of projects.
  A PLA is a labor agreement that requires all contractors working on a 
site to agree to certain working conditions. If a non-union company is 
interested in work on a construction site covered by a PLA, these 
companies will very likely be forced to hire union labor, despite their 
already having a competent workforce in place.
  Why? Well, supporters of these restrictive requirements claim that 
they are necessary to protect workers' wages.
  So here we are, with another ``no new American-made energy'' bill, 
but now the majority is claiming to be protecting workers' wages. 
Forgive me, but it's hard to take this bill seriously.
  One of the biggest drains on workers' wages is the high price at the 
pump. Today, the price of a gallon of regular unleaded stands at $4.11. 
A gallon of diesel costs $4.85.
  Low-income workers are disproportionately harmed by high energy 
costs. If this bill was serious about protecting workers' wages, it 
would open new areas for exploration, it would promote the development 
of new sources of American-made energy.
  Instead, we're seeing the same tired, old rhetoric from the other 
side. We're seeing the same stubborn refusal to embrace a comprehensive 
energy agenda that includes the development of new American-made energy 
sources, the expansion of alternative fuels, and the promotion of 
conservation.
  This bill does nothing to offer workers the relief they need, and I 
strongly oppose its passage.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today is yet another sad day for 
the American people--real people who are suffering from $4-plus pain at 
the pump and the Democrat Majority's refusal to do anything about it.
  This bill is nothing more than a feeble attempt to fool the American 
people into believing that the Democratic leadership in Congress 
actually supports more drilling. They don't. The Democrats in Congress 
have a well documented, 30 year history of opposing more drilling. In 
fact, just last year, the very same Democrat leaders in this body who 
now say they support more drilling were arguing that oil companies were 
drilling too much and too quickly.
  And let me remind Members that in the first 100 hours of the 
Democrat's Majority's ``new direction'' for American energy, they 
attempted to limit and slow down energy production in the National 
Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A) by undoing the provisions Republicans 
enacted into law in 2005 that would have expedited more drilling in 
NPR-A.
  This bill is a sham. It will not produce one drop of American-made 
oil or natural gas. In fact, there is more drilling in my dentist's 
office than in this bill.
  For the record, here are the facts about drilling in NPR-A:
  All lands in NPRA that are available to be leased under current 
Bureau of Land Management planning documents have been offered for 
lease in the past, are currently leased, or are available to be leased 
now.
  If the Democrats want to open all of NRP-A for production, they'll 
have to exempt the 24 million-acre area from the National Environmental 
Policy Act and dozen other environmental laws. And if they wanted to 
produce more oil, they'd do something to address the multiple 
environmental lawsuits that have slowed/stopped production in NPRA.
  Both industry and the Department of the Interior say the Bureau of 
Land Management has enough authority to do lease sales and the agency 
can do them every year if they want--the Democrats' bill won't do 
anything new.
  Both industry and Interior say the only impediment to more production 
is environmental lawsuits, and this bill doesn't touch that. In fact, 
the ``use it or lose it'' parts of the bill create new litigation that 
will hold up leasing in NPRA.
  This legislation is yet another unfortunate example of the Democrat 
leadership's negligence on producing energy. For the last 30 years they 
have thrown every obstacle they could in the way of producing more oil 
and gas for consumers.
  It's interesting, however, that the Democrat Leadership is arguing 
that oil companies must ravage the 24 million-acre NPR-A--an area 20 
percent larger than ANWR--for its 10.6 billion barrels of oil.
  Are we to ``extrapolate'' that the Speaker and the Majority Leader 
now support allowing Americans to tap the same amount of oil from just 
2000 acres of the 19 million-acre Coastal Plain of ANWR?
  The Coastal Plain of ANWR, a flat, frozen desert just 74 miles east 
of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, is just 1.5 million acres--1/16th the 
size of NPRA. It contains the same amount of oil. And with today's 
technology we can produce all of that oil while disturbing no more than 
2000 acres, or 0.01 of ANWR's 19 million acres.
  If the Majority leadership sincerely wants more oil, surely they 
would support drilling in ANWR, the environmpntally friendly 
alternative to NPR-A. But no, they don't. And this fact should serve as 
a reminder of the Majority's real energy policy: No more drilling.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this do-nothing legislation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6515.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 173, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 511]

                               YEAS--244

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)

[[Page H6710]]


     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--173

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Green, Gene
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Andrews
     Boswell
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cubin
     Doolittle
     Gilchrest
     Herger
     Hunter
     Kaptur
     Lucas
     Marchant
     McNulty
     Miller, Gary
     Paul
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1516

  Messrs. RADANOVICH, McHENRY, FOSSELLA and Mrs. SCHMIDT changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 511, unfortunately, I 
am getting a medical procedure done and cannot vote. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________