[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 10, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H7970-H7980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  MISSISQUOI AND TROUT RIVERS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY ACT OF 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1419 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3667.

                              {time}  1354


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3667) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a 
segment of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in the State of Vermont for 
study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System, with Mr. Salazar in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  H.R. 3667, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River 
Study Act, was introduced by our colleague from Vermont, Representative 
Welch. This bill would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to 
authorize the National Park Service to study specific sections of the 
Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in Vermont for their potential inclusion 
into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
  I want to thank our colleague from Vermont, Congressman Welch, for 
his hard work on this measure. This is a good piece of legislation, 
which will help showcase the natural heritage of Vermont.
  We are coming upon the 40th anniversary of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act in October. It's important to celebrate the legacy of this act, the 
preservation of some of our wildest rivers and the safeguarding of our 
scenic waterways for generations to come, and to acknowledge the 
essential role that stewardship and a conservation ethic play in the 
management of our Nation's rivers and streams.
  The Missisquoi is a tributary of Lake Champlain, located in northern 
Vermont. The Trout is a tributary of the Missisquoi. With its 
headwaters in Lowell, Vermont, the Missisquoi extends almost 100 miles, 
flowing north into Quebec, then returning to Vermont to flow west 
before finally ending its journey at Lake Champlain.
  As it runs its course through open pastoral fields, scenic gorges and 
native hardwood forests, the river is a remarkable example of a 
northeastern ecosystem. It is bordered by the largest and perhaps 
highest quality silver maple floodplain forest remaining in the State 
of Vermont. American elm, white ash, white oak, and red maple are found 
along its banks.
  The river is home to diverse fish and wildlife, including native 
rainbow and brown trout, rare freshwater mussels, spiny soft-shell 
turtles and river otter. While on the river's banks, bobcat, white-
tailed deer, and moose can sometimes be spotted, and the surrounding 
marshes host large flocks of migratory birds.
  In addition to these natural qualities, there are numerous Abenaki 
Indian archeological sites along the floodplain.
  And the river is well-known for its outstanding recreational 
opportunities as well. It is part of the Northern Forest Canoe Trail--a 
historic 740-mile water trail through New York, Vermont, Quebec, New 
Hampshire, and Maine--and outfitters consider the northern part of the 
river to be the preeminent flat-water paddling spot in Vermont.
  It is also renowned for its waterfalls, and the Great Falls on the 
upper river is recognized as Vermont's largest undammed waterfall.
  Simply put, this river is a superb illustration of Vermont's postcard 
perfect national scenery.
  During a hearing on this bill, the administration testified in 
support of the bill, but recommended that changes be made to clearly 
specify which segments should be included in the study, as not all of 
the sections of the river in the original bill were appropriate for 
consideration. They recommended other technical changes as well.
  The Natural Resources Committee amended the bill to respond to those 
recommendations and clarified which sections of the river would be 
studied for the wild and scenic attributes.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3667 simply authorizes a study of this river. It 
is a preliminary step, not a final designation.
  Its enactment would simply trigger a process which will allow the 
National Park Service the opportunity to gather information from, 
listen to, and coordinate with State officials and local communities; 
with farmers, business owners, and river outfitters; and with hunters, 
anglers, birders, paddlers, and hikers--all those who value this river. 
Only then, after careful consideration and with input from all the 
stakeholders, will the National Park Service provide recommendations to 
Congress about the potential of this river.
  That is all the legislation does. It is that simple. Let's not lose 
sight of what this bill is about.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3667.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and it will be quite awhile.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are in a 15-day session. We're now one-
fifth of the way through our final session before we end. The Democrat 
leaders, who have set the agenda and run this floor for almost 2 years 
now, have had 5 weeks in preparation for this day. So the first issue 
of significance, the only issue we may have this week that has a rule, 
the most significant piece of

[[Page H7971]]

legislation we're talking about today is a study that, if passed, may 
perhaps someday, if conditions allow and the elements are conducive, 
possibly create a compromise that would might possibly pass an 
additional 70 miles being added to the inventory of the national 
government, and only costing the taxpayers $300,000 to do it. That's 
what we're doing today.
  I would like to make a couple of points about this particular bill, 
not necessarily in opposition to it. But one point that is significant; 
we talk a great deal in government about transparency. It's important 
to government to be transparent. It's good to be transparent--until it 
deals with how we treat people.
  One of the things that the Republican Party has tried to do on almost 
every bill that has come either to committee or to the floor that deals 
with a trail, a heritage area, an historic area or a scenic river is to 
ensure that the people who will be involved in that area are informed 
up front about what may or may not happen to them. Because once we go 
to the next step and actually create this wild and scenic river, the 
Federal Government is given--not in this bill, but is given in the 
existing powers they have--the right of condemnation of any of that 
land that will be in that area. They have almost unlimited rights of 
easement. They always have the ability of dealing with local officials 
to create zoning ordinances that have a huge impact on the people in 
those areas.
  Almost always these studies are done with small groups. And then 
citizens will come back to us afterwards and say we were unaware of 
what was actually happening at this time. The dairy farmers along this 
river--who may or may not need protection and may or may not be happy 
and satisfied with what will result to them--may or may not have any 
idea what will happen as they go through this study.
  The first year I was here in Congress I passed a wilderness bill. I 
made sure that I went to every single property owner in that area that 
would be impacted by that wilderness bill, even the guy who was dead 
and had no heirs, which was a neat trick. But we went to every one of 
them to make sure they were well aware in advance of what was to take 
place. And yet when we tried to add an amendment, both in committee and 
once again before the Rules Committee, to make sure that everyone who 
may be impacted by this new designation and this study was made aware 
and they had to respond affirmatively that they wished to be part of 
the study, it was again rejected.
  Why do we not treat Americans with respect? We will pass these types 
of provisions to empower government, but we will not ask the citizens 
who will be impacted by our decisions to be part of this particular 
process. It's something that used to be standard language that we would 
add to these types of provisions, and it should be added again. That's 
a flaw.
  For 2 years Speaker Pelosi has been the one who was to set the agenda 
for our discussions here on the floor. One of those issues that I think 
people would like us to talk about is obviously energy. We have been 
talking about that for a long time. When this new leadership took over 
the House, on day one, when the energy prices started to climb and it 
was $2.22, the topic of discussion we had on this floor was 
congratulating the University of California-Santa Barbara soccer team. 
When energy reached $4 at the pump, I was here to spend a rollicking 
hour and a half talking about monkey bites. And today, after our 5-week 
adjournment, after people have been talking to us, after our 
constituents have said what is affecting them, after 5 weeks of 
preparation, what we are proposing to talk about today as the 
significant issue on the agenda is to study two rivers in Vermont. The 
only bill we will have with a rule, to study two rivers in Vermont.
  And I hate to say this; I'm not opposed to it. There's no reason to 
be. It's fine. The bill is a nice bill. It can be improved 
significantly, but there's nothing wrong with it. The question is, why 
are we here talking about that after 5 weeks of getting prepared to 
talk about significant issues?
  I had a couple of my constituents come to me. They said what they 
wanted to see Congress do is something in a bipartisan way; that we 
should come back here and show that we can work together. Indeed, the 
Senators have already told us that there is only a bipartisan energy 
plan of theirs, that's the only thing that can be passed, therefore, we 
should come together and support what they are trying to do in the 
spirit of bipartisanship, not only between two political parties, but 
between two branches of Congress. I am sure maybe someday this week we 
might even have another energy bill proposed for discussion on this 
floor, and I'm sure somebody will say this is the only thing we can 
pass; let us now embrace this in a spirit of bipartisanship so that we 
can show that we can work together.
  Sometimes I have the feeling that we on this floor believe that if we 
toast one another or we slap one another on the back or we have 
congratulatory comity, that that, indeed, is the end of the discussion; 
that is the goal, not the means to reach some kind of discussion; when 
the end should be, have we solved the problem?
  We have now had eight votes over 3 days on this floor, each of them 
getting around 400 plus votes. That is bipartisanship, that is comity, 
that is coming together. But have we solved what the needs of the 
American people are? Those eight votes, we've named three post offices, 
we said we're against hunger and we're for the Red Cross. That's good. 
But that does not solve the problems plaguing Americans.
  If I was to go to a hospital and I was on the gurney being rushed 
into the surgery room, is it logical that I would look up at the 
assembled doctors and nurses and say, ``Look, when you open me up, I 
don't really care what you do inside just as long as you do it together 
in harmony, in a bipartisan way''? Or would it be much more logical for 
me to say, ``Ladies and gentlemen, when you open me up, solve the 
problem''? And that is, indeed, what the American people are looking at 
us to do here today is not necessarily find out how many bills we can 
pass on suspension, how much comity we can have, but how we can solve 
the problem.
  To simply pass a political statement does not make a difference to 
individuals. We are supposed to be here to try and solve the problem. 
And it is very clear that the problem has to be some way in which we 
have an overarching, comprehensive energy proposal. That is the problem 
that we're facing. We need to come to this floor and actually encourage 
people to conserve, not by mandating conservation efforts, but by 
rewarding Americans for conservation efforts and they will take it from 
there.
  We must come to the floor and finally realize that our problem is 
supply and demand, and that we have to increase production of that 
supply, that we do not have a logical pattern of funding alternative 
energy sources. But if we could actually increase the amount of oil and 
coal and oil shale and natural gas, that we could use the royalties 
this government would then create to actually fund a comprehensive 
energy program for alternative energies--for solar, for wind power, for 
anything else that happens to be there--if we simply decided to use an 
``all of the above'' approach. We can solve our problem in the 
emergency, for the beginning, for the present time, as well as coming 
up with a long-term strategy for the future that actually would be 
funded.

  We could finally realize that this country does not have an 
infrastructure that will allow energy to be moved from one part of the 
country to the other. There are good friends in New England who will 
face high costs of heating their homes this fall. We have a good 
pipeline that goes, but it stops before it ever gets to their part of 
the country.
  We need to solve those problems. We need to make sure we have more 
refineries. We need to make sure we do something on the electric grid. 
And we are not. That is the solution to the problem for the American 
people.
  We need to finally realize that the future of this country is not 
going to be solved by bringing experts into Washington to sit around a 
room and come up with an idea, but the ability of America to solve its 
problem rests with the people out there. Because within the American 
people, without their soul and heart, is the ability and the creativity 
to come up with real solutions if we just empower them to find those 
solutions and then reward them

[[Page H7972]]

for the creativity that they can expound.
  We need to realize that the solution to our problem is that the next 
time we lose 84,000 jobs it is not exacerbated by the lack of energy; 
that the next time an airline doesn't have enough energy to run 100 
planes, they don't have to fire 1,100 people because of it; that the 
cab driver in Washington, D.C. who now drives 2 hours extra every day 
because he needs that to provide enough funds for the new energy he has 
to provide could actually be back at home meeting his kids after school 
the way he used to; or that we provide enough energy in here so the 
father in Virginia can finally go with his son to a father and son 
outing; or the family in Maryland can finally have enough energy so 
they can re-enroll their daughters in dance and gymnastics; so that 
school kids in the middle of this country can finally make it to field 
trips this year; or the teachers in our districts throughout this 
country will not find their salaries to be depressed or in some cases 
slashed because of unusual and unexpected energy costs in their 
districts; so that home heating oil will not drive people out of 
existence; so the farmer in the field will have enough energy to put in 
diesel in his tractors to produce the food so that truckers will have 
enough energy to drive them to market so that the prices of food that 
we have to pick up at those markets will not be spiraling this winter 
and this next year. And all of those is what we should be talking 
about.
  The river is nice; it's okay. The study is okay. But it is not where 
we should be at this particular time because it doesn't solve the 
problem.
  There are a lot of rich people in this body. For them, this energy 
crisis is an annoyance. But for those people on fixed incomes, those 
people at the bottom of the scale, those people in the middle class, 
we're not talking to them about energy policy. We're talking about the 
way they cook their food, the way they heat their homes, whether they 
have a job or not.
  Three days into the last 15 days of this session, and the most 
significant issue is a study bill on two rivers in Vermont. This 
country is aching for legislation that will nourish the body politic, 
and yet we continue to put up, day after day on this body, pieces of 
legislation that are as nutritional as cotton candy. We need to do it 
differently.
  But, on the plus side, we will probably do this bill in a bipartisan 
way. Doesn't it make you feel proud?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I'm encouraged by the newfound populism 
of my good friend from Utah. And I agree that a comprehensive approach 
to energy has to be something that this Congress accomplishes within 
the week. This does not negate what I believe to be a good piece of 
legislation that is before us.
  And it is considerable work. We have to unravel 8 years of failed 
energy policies. We have to unravel the relationship between Big Oil 
and the administration so that the consumer, the average Joe out there, 
will get the kind of break and attention that he needs and she needs 
with regard to energy costs and the rising cost all around us.
  Having said that, let me now turn to the sponsor of this good piece 
of legislation, the gentleman from Vermont, Congressman Welch, for as 
much time as he may consume.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate 
the excellent work you did and your eloquent description of a beautiful 
river. If I have any say about it, we're going to make you an honorary 
Vermonter and bring you down that river and make you paddle your way 
from one end to the other and have you see for yourself how beautiful 
what you described really is. Thank you.
  I want to respond to some of the comments.
  Mr. Chairman, my opinion is that one of the greatest Presidents of 
the United States was Theodore Roosevelt. He came to the Presidency 
when his predecessor was assassinated. It was a time of great turmoil, 
social and labor unrest, a need for corporate reform, trust busting. 
President Roosevelt had his hands full taking on those economic 
challenges.
  He was a war President. The skirmish in Cuba and the Philippines were 
still very much alive, and he had to deal with that as President. Very 
serious issues with the Supreme Court. And in the midst of all of that 
he still found time to be a peacemaker and was the winner of the Nobel 
Prize for the work that he did in bringing together the Soviet and 
Japanese conflict and helping those folks resolve the end of that war.
  But Theodore Roosevelt was also a person who respected and did more, 
perhaps, than anyone else to protect our environment. And amidst his 
responsibilities, where he had to simultaneously deal with enormous 
economic anxiety in this country, when he had to deal with foreign 
affairs that involved making America a strong country and bringing 
together peace in other countries, he would never, ever, busy as he 
was, urgent as his demands were, belittle the work of the House of 
Representatives when they were taking up what is now being 
characterized as a ``waste-of-time bill'' because it involves two 
rivers in the State of Vermont. He wouldn't do it. He's a bigger man 
than that.
  He reflects the leadership that we can provide to the American people 
where we simultaneously take on the challenges, as President Roosevelt 
did, but also pay attention to the posterity that is our responsibility 
to leave behind.
  I just want to say as a Vermonter, I want to say as a Member of the 
House of Representatives that if we can't find time to do those things 
that are going to allow us in Utah, in Arkansas, in Arizona and in 
Vermont to save our rivers and to do what is going to preserve our 
country and leave behind legacies like President Teddy Roosevelt did 
with the National Park Service that we revere and enjoy, then we don't 
deserve the vote of confidence that we get from the folks who send us 
here. We can do both.
  Now my friend from Utah has essentially made an argument that there 
is more important business to be done, as if that suggests we don't 
have time to do other important business about protecting and 
preserving our environment and having mutual respect for the particular 
concerns, in this case, of Vermont.

                              {time}  1415

  But it's that same comity that has allowed us to come forward and 
step up as Vermonters and Arizonans to help the folks in the Midwest 
from their flood and to respond to the gulf coast with the damage that 
they sustained. It's political. That's what we know.
  The reality is our friends on the other side had 12 years in control 
here and their energy policy was one thing: give tax breaks to oil 
companies. You can't make that up. Oil companies are doing well. I 
don't begrudge them their profits. But why do you reach into the 
taxpayers' pocket and ask taxpayers to give the most profitable 
corporations in the world, running a mature industry, doing well, why 
do we ask the taxpayers to give them $13 billion? When you reveal that 
fact, they don't even know how to respond because you can't make that 
kind of stuff up.
  So this House of Representatives, under the leadership that now is 
being castigated for a failure of leadership, has repeatedly passed 
legislation against the objections, almost unanimous, of our friends on 
the other side, to stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to 
squeeze out the speculative premium in the price of a gallon of gas at 
the pump. That can provide some short-term relief. We did that. We 
passed comprehensive energy reform, again, against the objections of 
our friends on the other side. We took away the tax breaks from the oil 
companies, not because oil companies are a target. They're doing 
important work. They know how to do their work and they know how to do 
it well. But why in the world would our friends on the other side want 
to give $13 billion in tax breaks to a mature and profitable industry 
when that money comes directly out of the pockets of American consumers 
who need that money in their pocket to pay the price at the pump? 
They've resisted that. They opposed it.
  Our friends on the other side are also aware that even though we have 
passed legislation against their objection, it has gotten stalled in 
the other body, threatened with veto by the President, we're ready to 
do it again. Our motto is

[[Page H7973]]

try again, try again, and keep going because, bottom line, we want to 
address that problem. And we have actually been doing things in our 2 
years on the watch despite their resistance when they had 12 years to 
get the job done and essentially caved into the interests of the oil 
companies.
  So, Mr. Chairman, as a Vermonter and the sponsor of this bill, I want 
to object to what is really a rhetorical and political device, and that 
is ridiculing the importance of these two rivers to the people of my 
State for a partisan political argument. Energy is incredibly important 
and we have delivered. We've put substantive proposals on the floor. 
They have been debated and they have been passed. They've been stalled 
in the Senate or threatened with veto by the President. We're prepared 
to do it again. We're also prepared to reach out to the other side 
because we all know that in the end if we are going to be successful, 
we do have to work together, particularly where we have divided 
government. But it takes two sides, two bodies, and a President to be 
willing to do that, and it has not been forthcoming.
  So I want to go back to a very simple fact. This legislation is about 
allowing Vermonters to have a study for scenic status on two rivers 
that are very precious to us, places where moms and dads have taken 
they are kids, taught them how to hunt, taught them how to fish, taught 
them how to be families, taught them responsibility. And there is a 
place for us and a time for us to do that as well as face these large 
issues like energy, like the war in Iraq, like redefining our foreign 
policy. So this is a very important piece of legislation to us, and I, 
as one Member of Congress, object to having it be held hostage to what 
is essentially a political game that's been going on far too long.
  And I want to thank the chairman for the tremendous work that he's 
done. And, Vermonters, thank you as well.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the discussion 
especially about Teddy Roosevelt, a famous President. But I would 
remind my friend that William Howard Taft, who came after him, created 
more national parks, created more land in the national forests, and 
busted more trusts in 4 years than Roosevelt did in 8. The difference 
was he didn't use public relations.
  Our issue is still the same. Talk about these issues after we have 
had a debate on real issues for a real solution on the real problem of 
energy that affects real Americans here on the floor. That should be 
our priority.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Utah for 
yielding, and I stand with him on these issues.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of setting priorities. I just got back 
Monday evening for votes. I left my home State of Louisiana, my 
district of southwest Louisiana, that was just hit by Hurricane Gustav. 
Folks are suffering. Seniors are suffering back home. Seniors are 
suffering all over the country. Seniors in Vermont are suffering and 
they're going to suffer with high prices of heating oil this coming 
winter. Farmers, I have got farmers that lost their crops just last 
week, and they're faced with high diesel costs and high gasoline costs 
and high fertilizer costs because this country doesn't have an energy 
policy. What are our priorities? This is the most important bill we 
have done so far this week, and it's a study and it's a study based on 
what the subcommittee found there to be no risk involved. So I have to 
question what are the priorities of this Democratically led Congress.
  We in Louisiana have been bearing the burden of providing energy in 
this country for quite a long time, and we have seen our coasts, our 
precious wetlands devastated, and now we are trying to rebuild those 
wetlands. Is that a priority? It's certainly a priority to me. But 
clearly getting an energy policy has to be one of the top priorities 
for this country. We should all recognize that. And I think my 
colleagues across the aisle, after spending August back home hearing 
from folks in their districts, would understand that.
  We in Louisiana know that energy policy and environmental policy and 
economic policy all march together. That's good policy. We're also 
talking about jobs. Mr. Chairman, every time I fly home on the little 
stretch between Houston and Lafayette, Louisiana, I run into folks from 
Louisiana who are coming back or going to countries all over the globe, 
Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Thailand, Vietnam, countries throughout the 
Middle East, Louisianians with oil and gas expertise who wish they 
could be back in this country closer to their families. No, they're 
having to travel all over the globe and be away from their families for 
months on end to make a living in the energy industry. These are jobs 
that were lost to this country. These were manufacturing jobs that were 
lost to this country in the 1980s when a Democratically controlled 
Congress imposed a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry. 
And what's their answer today? Well, let's get rid of the manufacturing 
tax credit on oil and gas companies. Let's single out the oil and gas 
companies. Well, on one hand you say you want good jobs and good 
manufacturing jobs, but then you propose policies that drive these jobs 
out of this country. I don't get it. I just don't get it, and the folks 
back home in Louisiana don't get it.
  I talked about the environment. Down in my district we've got a 
beautiful stretch of wetlands and marsh. It's a bird habitat for ducks, 
a breeding ground for ducks. White Lake, a beautiful lake, a pristine 
lake, is down there in Vermilion Parish. That land is managed by BP 
Amoco, and they have done an outstanding job with the environment. Just 
yet another example of good environmental policy working hand in hand 
with energy policy because what does it mean? Jobs, good American jobs.
  Explain that to the folks in Michigan. Explain that to the folks in 
Ohio who are struggling right now. If you want good American jobs, you 
get a good energy policy, an all-of-the-above energy policy. An energy 
policy that looks at oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf and 
Alaska, shale oil, nuclear energy, looks at building refining capacity, 
and also invests in renewables and alternatives. That's what we're 
advocating over here. We want to work in a bipartisan fashion.
  But, no, the other side, our friends across the aisle are finding 
ways to avoid the issue. That's not what the American public wants 
today. Everybody knows what the polls are showing. Seven out of ten 
Americans want a comprehensive energy policy. How can you go home and 
explain to the seniors, an elderly woman back in your district who 
can't afford gasoline for her car to go to the grocery store to pick up 
a few essential items, so then she has to carpool with three others and 
now they can't afford it?
  I'm all for conservation. I believe conservation is a critical part 
of our energy policy, but yet conservation is not enough. We need a 
real energy policy, an all-of-the-above approach.
  Our friends across the aisle are proposing all kinds of things that 
we're hearing about. They're proposing a policy that permanently locks 
up 80 percent, 80 percent of American energy on the Outer Continental 
Shelf. Our friends are proposing permanently locking up 1 trillion 
barrels of oil from oil shale in the inner-mountain west. How can you 
explain that to the American public? What's your explanation? How can 
you say we want to permanently lock up more than 10 billion barrels of 
oil on Alaska's remote North Slope? And how do you explain no to 
nuclear power when countries like France rely on nuclear power for 80 
percent of their electricity? People around this country are struggling 
with high utility bills.
  We ought to be looking at ways to diversify our sources of energy and 
putting this country on a sound footing, putting America first. How can 
our friends across the aisle do nothing about constructing clean coal 
and looking at that type of new technology? This is critical. And yet 
again they propose additional tax increases on the energy companies 
that are trying to provide energy for this country. I just don't get 
it. I don't get it.
  Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this Chamber ought to look at that 
plaque up there. Look at that plaque. It quotes from Daniel Webster, 
who says, ``Let us develop the resources of our land.'' The resources 
of our land. We shouldn't be holding back. This is

[[Page H7974]]

the only country holding back on this. Let us develop the resources of 
our land. Let us call forth its power and build its institutions. 
That's what this Congress should be doing. Not wasting time. I have got 
to go back home and explain why I spent a week up here while folks back 
in Louisiana are struggling after another hurricane and I have got to 
explain to those folks that I came up here and we didn't do anything 
substantively in this Congress and we didn't do anything that they care 
most about: getting an energy policy.
  Read that plaque again: ``Let us develop the resources of our land.''
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I realize the political statements that 
are being made by my friends on the other side of the aisle. I 
understand them. I think relative to this bill I don't appreciate them, 
but I really believe that there has to be an understanding that our 
leadership and the Democrats on this side of the aisle can actually 
walk and chew gum at the same time, that we can deal with an issue that 
we are dealing with here today that affects the State of Vermont and 
deal with the very pertinent issue which is the energy policy for this 
country.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, let me yield to the gentlewoman from New 
Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for such time as she may consume.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I support the 
bill in front of us, for these two rivers in Vermont. And I think that 
it's unfortunate that we can't seem to work on the particular bills in 
front of us because of the issue that the friends on the other side of 
the aisle keep bringing up.
  What I find particularly disturbing is that for 8 years we have had 
two oilmen in the White House with no energy policy and my colleagues 
on the other side have sat silent for 2 long years, nothing since I 
have been here talking about it, 8 years since President Bush has come 
into office, and suddenly in the waning hours of this session, they are 
now talking about an energy policy.
  I certainly welcome them to this. I think we do need an energy 
policy. I wish they had started talking about an energy policy 8 long 
years ago. What they allowed to happen in the past 8 years is for us to 
lose ground on an Apollo-type project to bring a real energy policy to 
the United States. They have allowed the oil companies to reap the 
greatest profits in history while they have allowed the American 
taxpayer to suffer while they subsidize these oil companies. That's 
just outrageous that they are now at this point 8 long years into it 
and getting near an election and they're suddenly talking about the 
lack of an energy policy.

                              {time}  1430

  Thank you, gentlemen, for bringing this to our attention. We have 
been speaking about this lack of an energy policy for a long time.
  I would like to say that their idea of drill, just drill, drill, 
drill, and we heard it at their convention, drill, baby drill. That is 
a Fred Flintstone policy. Drill, baby drill, I heard a reporter say, is 
like people standing there at the edge of the technology revolution 
yelling, Electric typewriters, electric typewriters.
  We are now right at the edge of this wonderful, wonderful future for 
our country. If you decide to join us and invest in an Apollo-type 
program, a program for energy independence, a program that would allow 
us to be independent of these nations, to have an economic base here in 
this country, to create jobs in a green technology, and to have 
renewables.
  One of your own party, T. Boone Pickens, who has talked often about, 
and has run ads, by the way, about the fact that we can't drill our way 
out of this, that we only hold 2 to 3 percent of the oil and that we 
are consuming 25 percent. Yet I haven't heard the word ``conserve'' 
over there until just now. I heard one mention it.
  We've ignored conservation, we've ignored wind, we've ignored solar, 
we've ignored all kinds of renewables. And when we have the drill, baby 
drill plan and drill baby, drill only. Well, you know what? We have 
simply got to face these issues. We should have faced them 8 long years 
ago, and we should have faced them when I got here in this 110th 
Congress. But I certainly welcome you to the debate now.
  So why don't we do this? Why don't we first take away the subsidies 
from the oil company and invest in renewables? I think that would be a 
good start to show Americans that we hear them. Why don't we take the 
speculators out of the market, since we are all very concerned about 
the price of energy. I am particularly concerned about what is 
happening in New Hampshire, where the oil is so high and the winter is 
coming on us. I am concerned that the President of the United States 
put in his budget a cut in the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance 
Program.
  So why don't we do this? Why don't we take the speculators out of the 
market? Why don't we say Drill now, drill, to the oil companies who had 
68 million acres and they would not drill on. That would be helpful.
  There's a number of things that we could have done, and I agree with 
you that we are at the last moments here, and it's outrageous. But we 
have the future of America in our hands. We have the ability, as T. 
Boone Pickens said, to take the wind from--he named Sweetwater, Texas 
to Hastings, Nebraska--we have great wind capacity, and to take solar 
from Sweetwater, Texas to California, and catch that. And biomass. And, 
yes, drilling. Drilling on land and leases that we have.
  Why didn't you agree to take the leases away if the oil companies 
wouldn't drill? Why not? Why not do something except stand there with 
the same, tired drill, baby drill.
  We are on the eve of this wonderful technology. We have so many 
people and businesses ready to invest in it. Oil companies certainly 
have their role. And we are dependent on oil. We are more dependent on 
oil than we were when George Bush came into office. That's true. But 
where have you been for 8 long years?
  I welcome you to this discussion. But I think we should have the 
discussion in the appropriate place and not block every piece of 
legislation that is coming through right now, and let's have a 
comprehensive energy plan. And the first thing the other side could do 
to show their good faith in this would be to vote against the tax 
subsidies for the oil companies. If we really want to protect the 
American taxpayer, why don't we stop forcing them to subsidize oil 
companies? That would be my first question. Thank you.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In my 6 long years of being here on this floor, 
and I welcome my freshman colleague from New Hampshire, we have been 
involved in many issues that deal with energy, and I found that what 
was not stopped by filibuster in the Senate, was stopped by litigation 
in the court, and that is part of the overall reform we are talking 
about, which is why we desperately need a real vote on a real solution, 
the American Energy Act.
  May I just inquire how much time we have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ross). The gentleman from Utah has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend from Utah for giving me 
this opportunity to come and to speak. As I was listening to the 
gentlelady from New Hampshire speak, she must not have read the 
American Energy Act. My colleagues and I, at least about 135 of my 
Republican colleagues and I, have been coming back to this floor ever 
since August 1, when Speaker Pelosi decided to adjourn this Congress 
and go on a 5-week vacation rather than address the energy crisis that 
we have in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, it's awfully strange that all of the debate, most all 
of the debate that I have heard on the floor today, has dealt with 
energy. Yet we refuse to bring an energy bill to the floor under 
regular order.
  I think what also needs to be said, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the 
American people are picking up on this, is that the Democrats have been 
in control of this Congress for the last 20 months. The Democrats have 
been the majority, the controlling party in this Congress for the last 
20 months. In the House, they have 236 Members, I believe. Close to it. 
I think the Republicans have 199. It only takes 218 to pass any 
legislation in this body. In fact, you can have a good idea, you can 
have a great idea, you can have a lifesaving, wonderful, world-changing 
idea,

[[Page H7975]]

but if you don't have 218 votes, you don't have anything except an 
idea. If you have the worst bill in the world, or something that really 
hurts the American people and hurts our economy and our future and 
future generations, if you have 218 votes, you can pass that.
  So I guess my question to the majority is that rather than 
continually laying the blame on the executive branch of our government, 
and most all Americans know that we do have three branches of 
government. We have got the executive branch, we have got the judicial 
branch, and we have got the legislative branch. The legislative branch, 
who the Democrats are in control of, have the responsibility for 
passing laws. So we can't help it. It's not our fault. If the 
unemployment was 4.2 percent, Mr. Chairman, when your party took the 
majority, and now it's 6.1, we can't help that. This comes from the 
legislation that you had 218 votes for to pass.
  Now we can't help it because gas was $2.06 a gallon when you took 
over, and that it's over $4, or close to $4 a gallon now. It's been as 
high as $4.50. We can't help that. You were in control. You had the 218 
votes to do anything you wanted to do.
  But what has happened? The Democratic majority decided that rather 
than have a bill that would go through regular order and have 
subcommittee hearings and committee hearings and be brought to the 
floor under a rule that would be an open rule that would allow input 
for all 435 Members and the seven delegates from U.S. territories to be 
able to have amendments on the floor to speak to what their 
constituents had felt and what they had been told at home, they have 
been brought under a suspension rule.
  Mr. Chairman, a suspension does not have to go through committee. It 
does not have a rule. There's 20 minutes of debate for each side. And 
then you have to have two-thirds of the vote. Well, these have been 
snake oil or shams or, I guess, covers to hide under, maybe, that you 
could go home and say that you had voted for an energy bill.
  I say let's bring it under regular order. If you bring it under 
regular order, let's give us an opportunity to have a motion to 
recommit, or an alternative. But the best thing to do, the thing that I 
think the American people want to happen, is an open rule come to the 
floor, where we can all--this is a House where we are supposed to come 
and debate and share ideas. Let this House work its will. Let's vote on 
every amendment that comes to the floor. Limit it to one amendment per 
person.
  If we have to stay here over the weekend, let's hear all the good 
ideas that will come out of this place. There's not just a certain 
number of people in this body that have good ideas, there's a lot of 
good ideas that come from a lot of people, and there's a lot of people 
here who have good ideas that never get to share them.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I encourage, I encourage the majority to 
bring out of mothballs that commonsense energy plan that in April of 
2006 Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that she had. I hope that she 
will bring it out soon because not just my constituents in the Third 
District of Georgia, but constituents, people, citizens all over this 
country are hurting. So, hopefully, we will get to see this commonsense 
plan at some point in the near future.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for allotting me 
this time. I just want to bring us back to basics, for one thing. 
Whether it's the Kiwanis or the Cub Scouts or the PTA, ordinarily you 
talk about the issue that is at hand. And the issue that is at hand, 
ladies and gentlemen, and to my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
is we are talking about the Missisquoi and the Trout Rivers, the Wild 
and Scenic Rivers.
  I want to thank my friend, Mr. Welch, for bringing this matter before 
the House of Representatives as to trying to maintain wild and scenic 
streams in Vermont. That is what is being debated. That is the bill on 
the floor, although our friends would like to completely change the 
subject.
  Whether it's the Kiwanis or the PTA or the boardroom or the Cub 
Scouts, you try to have a relevant conversation. But they decided that 
is not the issue. They must love this bill. They would rather talk 
about something else. So let's talk about the something else, which is 
energy.
  Now my friends on the other side of the aisle, the GOP, the 
Republicans, in 2005 passed what they said was a landmark energy bill. 
I want to quote the former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, on 
July 28, 2005:
  ``Americans need this (GOP energy) legislation to lower their energy 
costs, to drive economic growth and job creation, and to promote 
greater energy independence.''
  The minority whip, Mr. Blunt, said on that same day:
  ``This (GOP energy) plan relies on simple economics. If we create a 
larger market for a greater amount of gasoline, we'll help drive prices 
down. This proposal moves the country one step closer to lowering the 
sky-high price of gas for consumers.''
  The President, a few days later, said, ``I am confident that one day 
Americans will look back on this (GOP energy) plan as a vital step 
toward a more secure and more prosperous Nation that is less dependent 
on foreign sources of energy.''
  Well, ladies and gentlemen, that energy plan that was promoted by the 
Republicans and supported by the President back in 2005 I think now 
turns out to be a really bad joke on the American people. We have had 
our prices of oil and gas going up by almost double, sometimes during 
this summer they almost tripled after that plan was implemented by a 
Republican Congress and a Republican President.
  But that shouldn't surprise us. With two oilmen in the White House, 
what did you expect? This is exactly what we have gotten. Skyrocketing 
energy prices.
  Now what we have got to do, and I can't believe that my friend from 
Utah, when he says that what we need to be doing is drilling here, and 
drilling now, really wants to drill in the middle of Salt Lake City or 
in any of the glorious places in Utah. This is something where it has 
got to be sensible energy policy. It's a comprehensive energy policy, 
which includes oil and gas.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. It includes oil and gas, it includes coal, it 
includes nuclear, it includes renewable energy, and it includes overall 
energy efficiency, because a barrel of oil saved is a barrel of oil 
earned. A Btu saved is a Btu earned.
  We need a comprehensive plan. And to pull a bad joke on the American 
public of drilling here, drilling now, drill, baby drill, is simply a 
sham, and we cannot go forward with that alone. We need a comprehensive 
energy plan, and that is what the Democrats are going to provide.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Ohio, 
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and also rise in 
support of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers measure related to 
including Vermont's Missisquoi and Trout Rivers for further assessment.
  Let me also say I think it's really sad that our GOP colleagues here 
are trying to divert attention from this bill and trying to change the 
subject to something that they have a pretty dismal record on.

                              {time}  1445

  In fact, since the Bush administration took office, our country is 
now importing over 1 billion more barrels of oil a year, the price of 
gasoline has doubled, as every American knows, and oil company profits 
are through the roof. Exxon alone, Exxon alone last year, made $40.6 
billion in profits, one company; BP, $20 billion; Shell, $31 billion in 
profits; Conoco, $15.5 billion; Chevron, $17.1 billion. That is a 
total, just of those companies, of $125.3 billion.
  They are loving every minute of this, friends. And the question for 
America is, do we want our people to be dependent on a diminishing 
global resource that becomes more precious every day, where blood for 
oil is now shed around the world? That is the real question. Are we 
going to grow up and live in the 21st century? It is a real choice.

[[Page H7976]]

  One of the fellows over there on the other side of the aisle said, 
well, we got enough votes in the House. We sure do. We passed a couple 
of bills and sent them over to the Senate, where they sit unpassed. For 
example, our bills for extension of our renewable energy credits for 
solar and for wind, they are sitting over in the Senate. Do you know 
why? There isn't a majority of Democratic votes over there. The Senate 
is divided. It is 49D-49R. Our Senators are sitting on their hands over 
there, half of them. I would say to the gentleman who says we have got 
enough votes here, go get your friends over there to put their blood on 
the line over on the other side for the American people. They are 
wasting an awful lot of time.
  I want to say too that the President has to sign these bills. Look 
what he did to the agriculture bill, one of the most important bills we 
have brought to this floor to try to create a new biofuels industry for 
this country, which rural America wanted and wants and is leading into 
an energy independent future for this country. What did the President 
of the United States do? He vetoed it. We had to override the veto here 
and in the other body. That is the kind of mess we have got here in 
Washington.
  Boy, do we ever need a working majority in the Senate. And we need a 
bigger working majority here in the House to do what the American 
people sent us here to do, and that is to help our children have a 
better future, to have an independent energy future for this country, 
and not to try to say that ``business as usual'' is the course of the 
hour. Oh, no. Our people expect us to play the piano on all keys.
  Where have you been for the last 8 years and where has the President 
of the United States been for the last 8 years?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank you very much for yielding.
  Let me just say that I represent one of the solar centers of this 
country, one of the three top places that are inventing the future for 
our people. We need the help of the President of the United States. We 
don't need him to hold up renewable energy credits in this body or over 
in the Senate. Our people have seen the future, and they are building 
it. We don't need to have this administration produce an energy plan 
back in their first year that didn't even include agriculture, not even 
a mention of it, and renewables, and then defunded renewables for most 
of the years that they sat over there on Pennsylvania Avenue.
  We do need new leadership. We need a working majority in the Senate. 
And we need a greater working majority here and a President who will 
stand at the side of the American people.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I was about to be critical of the 
remarks of the gentlewoman from Ohio, but once she said the Senate is a 
problem that should be working, how can I reject that?
  I would, though, remind you, if you really want to help Exxon, don't 
do anything. Sixty-eight percent of all the oil and 87 percent of all 
the natural gas is being drilled by small entrepreneurial companies. If 
you want competition, allow those to be successful.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Utah for his great 
comments.
  You know, I like Congressman Peter Welch. We are on opposite ends of 
the aisle philosophically, but he is a nice guy. But I will tell you, I 
would like to be able to support this issue of the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act. However, what the American people want are lower gas 
prices, so they will have a chance to go and visit wild and scenic 
rivers. Right now, the Democrats have let the gas prices get so high, 
nobody can go on vacation, nobody can visit these rivers, nobody can do 
the kinds of things they want to do.
  But the good news is during the month of August, when Republicans 
stayed here working while the Democrats went on vacation, we alerted 
the American people to the fact that we are here trying to bring down 
prices and that the Democrats are in charge of this Congress. It is not 
the President of the United States who can take action. He has already 
taken action. He lifted the moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf 
drilling.
  Let me tell you, my colleague just before my colleague from Ohio was 
giving quotes, but let me give you a quote. Here is the best one, and 
the one that we are going to come back to over and over and over again. 
Speaker Pelosi, when she was asking for the majority in this House: 
``Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices. Join Democrats, who are 
working to lower gas prices now.''
  What happened? Gas prices have doubled under the Democrats. They can 
do their best to blame this on the Republicans. But they are in charge, 
and we are going to continue to inform the American people that 
Democrats are in charge of the Congress, that they have the ability to 
do something.
  Republicans believe in alternatives. Certainly we want solar, wind, 
hydro, all the alternatives. We believe in conservation. Republicans 
are the original conservationists. But we cannot get to those places 
immediately, and we can bring down the price of gasoline by providing 
additional supply.
  Democrats think they can ignore and maybe even repeal the basic law 
of economics, supply and demand. We have to have more supply. They are 
preventing that. They do not want us to bring down the price of 
gasoline. Why, is difficult to understand.
  But I say it is a simple choice for the American people this fall: 
Are you going to believe the people who are pro-American energy, or are 
you going to believe the people who are anti-American energy? The 
Democrats want us to remain dependent on foreign oil. They are not 
interested in creating additional American energy. And you can see 
that.
  Let's talk some more about quotes. Here is another one: ``This 
leadership team will create the most honest, most open, most ethical 
Congress in history.'' Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi.
  What have we had? Closed rules. The appropriations committees aren't 
even meeting, because they are scared to death that we will bring up 
bills that they will have to vote on that they know will pass because 
their Members are feeling the heat in their districts. Their 
constituents are hurting too.
  This is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. It is 
an American issue. We begged our Democratic colleagues to come and join 
us, vote with us, speak to the American people about this. She knows 
they will vote for additional American energy. There is no bill on the 
floor this week. Why? Because her caucus is so divided. The pro-
American energy Democrats want to vote on increasing supply. They are 
not being allowed to do that.
  Let me speak about the farm bill just a little bit. Ethanol is 
creating a major problem for us in this country. We are not allowing 
ethanol to come in here from other countries. We could get it in here 
cheaper than we are producing it in this country. They will not allow 
that. That was part of that farm bill that the President vetoed.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of our 
full Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mr. Grijalva, for bringing this 
bill forward, and the ranking member, Mr. Bishop. Also I want to thank 
Mr. Peter Welch for the tremendous leadership he has provided.
  Certainly I am in support of the legislation. I recognize that much 
of the debate that has occurred thus far has not really been on the 
legislation itself, but rather has surrounded the energy issue. As all 
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know, we are working toward 
bringing an energy bill to the floor of the House of Representatives in 
the very near future.
  I have heard a lot of finger pointing. We all have been doing that, 
are guilty of that, for the last several months on this issue. Each 
side is trying to blame the other for the high price of gas today, 
ignoring the fact that the price of gas when President Bush took office 
was $1.47, both houses of Congress were

[[Page H7977]]

in Republican hands, and the price of gas is where it is today.
  But that is the past. We must look forward. Now we are all talking 
about using all of our domestic sources of energy in order to free 
ourselves from that dangerous reliance upon foreign oil. And certainly 
I am one of those in the category, if not 99.9 percent of my 
colleagues, that want to see all of our domestic sources of energy 
used. I dare say that in the not-too-distant future, when we do address 
the energy bill, if not in the next several days on the floor of this 
body, that we will see the most broad-ranging, most comprehensive 
energy bill come to this floor that we have had in several years. It 
will be an all-of-the-above. It will be a start toward progressive, 
comprehensive energy legislation.
  In that, it will be a pro-drilling bill as well, although it will not 
be all-drilling. It will not be all my-way-or-the-highway, as some on 
the other side continually preach, but rather it will be a bill that 
will show the sacrifices that will be necessary, the compromises that 
are always necessary in the legislative process if we are going to 
address the common good of this country. So that is what we are going 
to see.
  One important factor of that bill that we have not seen in previous 
energy bills is accountability and transparency. After all, these are 
the American people's resources, our public resources we are talking 
about on the OCS or with Federal leasing on on-shore Federal lands. 
That means the American people have the right to receive a fair 
dispensation for the use of their resources, as well as an 
accountability of royalties and fees collected thereupon.
  One of the areas in which we will seek to provide much-needed reform 
and more oversight is in the area of royalty collection and the 
royalty-in-kind program specifically.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. And I say we will provide that additional 
oversight, because the Interior Department's own Inspector General, Mr. 
Devaney, is today coming out with a report of his investigation of the 
royalty-in-kind program in which he says we have also discovered a 
culture of substance abuse and promiscuity in the RIK program, both 
within the program, including the supervisor, who engaged in illegal 
drug use, had sexual relations with subordinates, and is in consort 
with industry. Internally, several staff admitted to illegal drug use 
as well as elicit sexual encounters, and it goes on and on about what 
has been happening with this oversight program. We will strengthen this 
program and make the reforms necessary.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope when my chairman 
rolls me into the surgery room and opens me up, he will solve the 
problem.
  May I inquire of the other side if they have additional speakers left 
up and how much time remains.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. We have no additional speakers.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Each side has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my 
last 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion let me say I associate myself with the 
comments that our chairman, Mr. Rahall, made about transparency and 
about the deeply needed reform in that agency, given the disclosure and 
the investigation by the Inspector General. This is a good piece of 
legislation. I urge its approval.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill pursuant to part 2 of House Report 110-668 shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 3667

       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 ``Missisquoi and Trout Rivers 
     Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

       Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1276(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(__) Missisquoi and trout rivers, vermont.--The 
     approximately 25-mile segment of the upper Missisquoi from 
     its headwaters in Lowell to the Canadian border in North 
     Troy; the approximately 25-mile segment from the Canadian 
     border in East Richford to Enosburg Falls; and approximately 
     20 miles of the Trout River from its headwaters to its 
     confluence with the Missisquoi River.''.

     SEC. 3. STUDY AND REPORT.

       Section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1276(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(19) Missisquoi and trout rivers, vermont.--Not later 
     than 3 years after funds are made available to carry out this 
     paragraph, the Secretary of the Interior shall--
       ``(A) analyze the potential impact of the designation on 
     private lands within the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, 
     Vermont, described in subsection (a)(__) or adjacent to that 
     area;
       ``(B) complete the study of the Missisquoi and Trout 
     Rivers, Vermont, described in subsection (a)(__); and
       ``(C) submit a report describing the results of that study 
     to the appropriate committees of Congress.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 110-834. Each amendment shall be 
considered only in the order printed in the report; by a Member 
designated in the report; shall be considered read; shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent of the amendment; and shall be not 
subject to amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.

                              {time}  1500


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 110-834.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the amendment as the 
designee for Mr. Rahall.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Grijalva:
       Before subparagraph (A) in the quoted material adding a new 
     paragraph (19) to section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
     Act, insert the following and redesignate the subsequent 
     provisions accordingly:
       ``(A) analyze any potential impacts on the possession or 
     use of a weapon, trap, or net, including a concealed weapon, 
     on the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, Vermont, described in 
     subsection (a)(__) or on lands adjacent to that area;''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1419, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require that the 
study authorized by H.R. 3667 analyze any potential impacts a wild and 
scenic river designation for this river might have on the possession or 
use of a weapon, trap or net, including a concealed weapon.
  As with many of the amendments offered today, I do not believe this 
amendment is necessary. The underlying legislation already is more than 
sufficient in what it directs the Secretary to study when considering a 
wild and scenic river designation. Further, the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act already makes perfectly clear that these river designations are not 
intended to infringe upon existing State authority to manage hunting or 
fishing.
  Nevertheless, Chairman Rahall has filed this amendment in an 
overabundance of caution, and as a good-faith effort to dispel any 
rumors that this bill will impact existing policies on hunting and 
fishing. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, though not in opposition, I claim 
the time in opposition on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in a unique 
situation on this particular amendment. The gentleman who proposed it 
thinks it is unnecessary. I think this is a wonderful amendment. It was 
great when

[[Page H7978]]

somebody first wrote it, and now that you have incorporated it into the 
general discussion on these bills, I am equally as enthralled with that 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I wish to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah for 
yielding.
  I, too, want to rise in support of the amendment of Mr. Grijalva and 
Mr. Bishop in regard to this amendment. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to 
state rather emphatically that I rise to express concern that this 
committee, the Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, has jurisdiction over the miles and 
miles and hundreds if not thousands of miles of Outer Continental Shelf 
on both coasts of this country and also the Gulf of Mexico, this 
committee, the Natural Resources Committee chaired by Mr. Rahall, has 
jurisdiction, and yet here we are, Mr. Chairman, taking up the time of 
this body to delay the work that we clearly need to do in regard to a 
sound energy policy. And to think that we have 2 more weeks left before 
the majority leadership has decided that we are going to leave this 
place and not come back until the 111th Congress, ladies and gentlemen, 
that is next January. So starting from August 1 until the end of the 
year, that means we will have worked, what, 13 days in 5 months. That 
makes this congressional job, Mr. Chairman, a part-time job. If I had 
known that, I would go back home and deliver babies for 6 months out of 
the year.
  We ought to be doing an energy bill right now, this week. There is no 
excuse for it. And there was really no excuse, Mr. Chairman, for us 
adjourning and going home to our districts for whatever reason for 5 
weeks. We could have stayed here and in 3 days, 5 days at the most, 
done exactly what Mr. Rahall just a few minutes ago on the floor of 
this Chamber said that you were going to do; you, the majority, were 
going to introduce a comprehensive bill allowing 99 percent of all 
United States energy resources to be utilized.
  What I have seen, Mr. Chairman, of this proposal, if it looks 
anything like what has been suggested on the Senate side, doesn't even 
come close to that. This is certainly not an all-of-the-above energy 
bill; it is almost none of the above. And, quite honestly, the acronym 
for that is the NOT-A bill, none-of-the-above act. It is a NOT-A energy 
act.
  But if the chairman is right in what he said, Mr. Chairman, that we 
are going to see an all-of-the-above energy bill, let's get with it. 
Let's get with it. There is no reason why the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, with Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton who work very 
well together, very respected members on both sides of the aisle in 
this Chamber, we could not in a regular order go through the regular 
process, have an open rule, and give and take on both sides.
  Put the politics aside, and let's do what we should have done 6 weeks 
ago to bring relief to the American people in regard to these high 
gasoline prices.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, just as a friendly correction for the 
gentleman from Georgia, nada is spelled N-A-D-A. So none of the above 
doesn't quite fit the acronym, so there might need to be a search for 
an appropriate balance.
  The other thing, and he mentioned a good point. Under the 
jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee are 68 million acres 
under lease and not in production under the public lands of this 
country. So under that jurisdiction, I think the committee has made 
that effort to try to extend the public lands as a source for energy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I wish to defend my good friend 
from Georgia. Actually he said NOT-A, which is N-O-T-A. It is just that 
Georgian accent, it's hard to get the letters straight there. That's 
something we don't face in Arizona or Utah, I realize that.
  Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity, we support this particular amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


             Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 110-834.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
       After the new paragraph (19)(A) added to section 5(b) of 
     the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the subsequent subparagraphs accordingly):

       ``(B) include in the study completed under this paragraph 
     an assessment of any effect a wild and scenic designation in 
     the study area is likely to have on energy production, 
     transmission, or conveyance;''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1419, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of 
talking about a bill that asks us to review energy issues with this 
particular piece of legislation.
  When the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was originally established, it 
was designed specifically to inhibit, if not stop, the production of 
dams across rivers where electricity could be the result. It is fitting 
and proper to see what kind of impact this wild and scenic river would 
have in that area, as well as the fact that this river, the Missisquoi 
River, translated means the great grassy meadow. It could possibly be 
the ``great gassy meadow'' if we find some kind of minerals down there, 
which, once again, a review of that I think would be appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for up 
to 4 minutes.
  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, it is great to have a chance to be on the 
floor to talk about energy and the lack of movement from my colleagues 
on the other side. It's not the first time I've been down here, it's 
not going to be the last, and I seriously doubt that the provision that 
will be brought to the floor will be an all-of-the-above, comprehensive 
plan.
  It will be a smoke screen, it will try to have some cover for votes 
for November, but it will not be the all-the-above strategy that we are 
demanding on the floor of the House.
  There will not be a provision on coal in this bill. Coal is our most 
valuable resource we have in this country. There will not be a 
provision on oil shale. More energy than any other country in oil 
shale. We will not deal with opening up the entire Outer Continental 
Shelf. We will not use the revenues to fully expand the grid or go into 
all the renewables.
  We would like regular order. We would like the chance to move a bill 
through the committee. I serve on the Energy and Air Quality 
subcommittee; I serve on the Energy and Commerce full committee. The 
2005 energy bill that you all had attacked went through regular order. 
It went through your committee, it went through my committee, it went 
through the Science Committee. It went through all the committees; it 
was cobbled together on the floor; we had amendments on the floor, and 
we voted.
  Democrats attacked us for the majority of the majority rule of the 
floor of the House. Well, we're going to turn that around, because now 
it's just a majority of one: It's whatever Speaker Pelosi decides, that 
will be the bill on the floor. And she is dissing you all. She's not 
allowing you all to have any

[[Page H7979]]

input into the legislative process. It's whatever she says goes. And 
you just can't deny that fact, because it is not going through any 
regular order.
  So when you attacked the 2005 energy bill that went through the 
subcommittee, went through the full committee as being written behind 
closed doors, there is no more closed doors than what you are doing and 
proposing to do in this bill, and it is a shame and it is an insult on 
the legislative process.
  Let's see if we address coal-to-liquid. There are two provisions you 
all could put in the bill right now to make us more energy independent.
  You could put long-term contracting Department of Defense, who are 
asking for coal-to-liquid applications for jet fuel, long-term 
contracting, and we would have coal-to-liquid refineries being built 
with American jobs today.
  You could take a Democrat bill, the Boucher coal-to-liquid bill. You 
could put Rick Boucher's bill in this, quote/unquote, comprehensive 
energy bill, and we would have coal-to-liquid refineries being built in 
this country within a year.
  But it won't be comprehensive because you're going to not address 
coal, the greatest resource. We have more coal reserves than any 
country on this planet. So you can't really say you are going to have a 
comprehensive energy plan when you don't address coal.
  The other thing that you will not do is open up the Outer Continental 
Shelf. You may open up 5 percent more. This whole red area, you have 
seen it numerous times, off-limits.
  We're going to call your bluff. We're going to shut down this 
government on the CR because we're going to defeat the moratorium. So 
you can pass all these energy bills you want. You know you can't 
conference it with the Senate. You know it's not going to go to the 
President's desk. It's a fig leaf. It's a farce. You ought to be 
ashamed of yourselves.
  What we're going to do is we're going to wait till the spending bill 
comes to fund government, and then we're going to call your bluff. Are 
you willing to shut the government down and keep off-limits billions of 
barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas? And if you're 
willing to do that, fine. We'll do that before the election. We'll go 
back and we'll hold you accountable at the polls.
  Do you know why you can't bring a comprehensive bill that comes 
through regular order? Because Nancy Pelosi loses, and it's her bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I just want a point of clarification, 
that we didn't attack the 2005 Republican energy bill because it was 
done behind closed doors. I think the point on the attack is relative 
to the fact that it was shortsighted, Big Oil driven, and an utter 
failure.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentleman yield?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona controls the time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank the Chairman.
  With regard to the Bishop amendment, we have no opposition after 
reviewing it, and we would accept this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1515


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 110-834.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 4. FUNDING.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     shall be construed as authorizing appropriations to designate 
     or otherwise create a new component of the national wild and 
     scenic rivers system.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1419, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, we'll actually hear about this bill for just 
a minute at least before I talk about energy. But, no, I do have a 
serious amendment here that simply clarifies that nothing in this bill 
is meant to authorize appropriations for the new unit of the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers System.
  The bill before us today authorizes a study to determine if the 
Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in Vermont are eligible to be designated 
wild and scenic rivers. Now, rivers designated as wild and scenic are 
managed by a number of Department of the Interior agencies, including 
the National Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management 
and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  However, if you ask CRS about this, these four agencies have a 
combined maintenance backlog of between 14 and $22 billion. That is 
between 14 and $22 billion. And so we are going to be doing a study of 
another river, a study that often precedes designation. I think that is 
the purpose of this study, that will then put this river under the Park 
Service's jurisdiction or the Interior Department, and these agencies 
will have to manage it. We're adding to a backlog of between 14 and $22 
billion. We shouldn't continue to do this. We can't continue to do 
this. We have parks in my State and everywhere else that have 
maintenance needs, that have staffing needs, that have needs that are 
going unmet, and we're going about just adding more to it, without 
seeking a funding source or anything else. We're simply adding more 
obligations to the Park Service, and we can't do that.
  This amendment simply says that nothing in this authorization implies 
this appropriation will follow. Again, if an appropriation does follow, 
we are taking from the existing wild and scenic rivers or other 
designations that our Interior Department has to manage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
Flake amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Upon review of the amendment of my good friend from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake), we are prepared to accept it and will not oppose 
the amendment.
  I reserve.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment, and I 
thank the Chair.
  Now, let me say a few words about energy, since everybody else has. I 
didn't plan to when I came down here, but I have to say that 
Republicans will charge, with some justification, that the Democrats 
have been in charge for the last 2 years and have failed to pass 
significant substantial energy legislation. Democrats will charge, with 
some justification, that the Republicans have been in charge for a 
number of years and failed to do so.
  We blamed the Senate. We didn't have 60 votes in the Senate. The 
Democrats can do the same at this point.
  But here we are today, and we can't continue to look back and say we 
should have done something before, because we are here today and people 
are asking, why aren't you passing something? With justification, I 
might add.
  Now, one of the speakers mentioned that what the Republicans were 
proposing was more like a Fred Flintstone bill of some type. And I 
would have to ask that same speaker how she plans to get home tonight. 
Unless she has a Flintstone mobile, she's probably riding in something 
that is powered by gas, maybe a hybrid, unlikely that it's electricity. 
In fact, less than 1 percent of our current energy needs in this 
country are produced by solar, which she talked about. Less than 1 
percent is produced by wind.
  Now, in our plan it has plans for increased solar and wind. But if 
you doubled, if you tripled, if you quadrupled, quintupled, do whatever 
you want, to solar and wind for a number of years, we are going to rely 
on our traditional

[[Page H7980]]

energy sources. And so it makes sense that, while we are searching for 
the next big thing, while we wait for a hydrogen economy, or while we 
wait for wind and solar to really come on-line, or something else that 
we may not even know of, we have to use the resources that we have.
  So nobody on this side is really saying drill and drill only. We're 
saying it has to be part of the mix and it has to be all of the above.
  So there's plenty of blame to go around. I myself have not voted for 
one energy bill since I've been here in the past 8 years because I 
thought that some of them were too subsidy-laden. I didn't think that 
they really, really allowed us, in a free market way, to go out and use 
our resources.
  But going forward, this is what we've got to look at; what are we 
going to do going forward. It doesn't do anybody any good to say well, 
the Democrats didn't do anything, or the Republicans didn't. We're here 
today, and it's time to do something on this.
  Again, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and appreciate him 
accepting this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield back.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, 
noes 193, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 580]

                               AYES--221

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Perlmutter
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--193

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Bilbray
     Boustany
     Cannon
     Cazayoux
     Christensen
     Edwards (TX)
     English (PA)
     Fortuno
     Gonzalez
     Hodes
     Hulshof
     Lee
     Levin
     Moran (KS)
     Norton
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pitts
     Reynolds
     Rush
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Weldon (FL)

                              {time}  1552

  Messrs. WELLER of Illinois, BRADY of Texas and BURTON of Indiana 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SMITH of Washington, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Messrs. 
WEINER, SNYDER, COOPER, KLEIN of Florida, CHANDLER, LYNCH, Ms. 
KILPATRICK, Messrs. FARR, McDERMOTT, ENGEL, ETHERIDGE, BOYD of Florida, 
ACKERMAN, HINOJOSA, BLUMENAUER, WELCH of Vermont, BISHOP of Georgia, 
COSTELLO, and LAMPSON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Capuano) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ross, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3667) to 
amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the 
Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in the State of Vermont for study for 
potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________