[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13610-13620]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4761, DEEP OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES 
                              ACT OF 2006

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 897 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 897

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4761) to provide for exploration, development, 
     and production activities for mineral resources on the outer 
     Continental Shelf, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Resources. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the 
     bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. House Resolutions 162, 163, 181, 182, 393, 395, 
     400, 401, 468, and 620 are laid upon the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from West 
Virginia (Mrs. Capito) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  The Rules Committee granted a fair rule for consideration of H.R. 
4761 providing for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
between the Chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Resources.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill shall 
be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and 
shall be considered read.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources.
  The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules 
Committee report accompanying the resolution and provides that the 
amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or 
in the Committee of the Whole.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in 
the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.

[[Page 13611]]

  The rule provides that House Resolutions 162, 163, 181, 182, 393, 
395, 400, 401, 468 and 620 are laid upon the table.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation faces an energy crisis that is impacting our 
constituents across the country. In my district of West Virginia, many 
lower and middle income citizens, especially our seniors on fixed 
incomes, are being impacted by the soaring prices at the pump and 
rising home heating costs. Not only does this blow a hole in the 
budgets of many families, it also has an impact on the Federal budget; 
and correctly, in my view, we sought to increase the funds for LIHEAP 
to help those in the lower and middle income range.
  The crisis also impacts jobs. Energy prices make adding jobs more 
challenging for small business owners as their transportation and 
energy costs skyrocket. The impact has been felt by larger, community 
sustaining industries.
  The Kanawha Valley in my district has long been one of the largest 
centers of the Nation's chemical industry. These chemical plants use 
natural gas as both an energy source and as a feedstock. The cost of 
energy is one factor that has led to job losses in this important 
industry and has decimated the large chemical industry in the Kanawha 
Valley. These jobs have gone overseas.
  The American Chemistry Council estimates that since the price of 
natural gas began to spike the chemical industry has lost more than $60 
billion to foreign competitors because investors are wary of expensive 
natural gas in the United States. This has cost over 100,000 jobs 
nationwide in the chemical industry, about 10 percent of that total 
industry workforce.
  Last month, hundreds of employees from West Virginia chemical plants 
wrote me asking that Congress pass legislation to allow drilling in the 
outer Continental Shelf as a means of preserving their jobs. Mr. 
Speaker, we must reduce our reliance on foreign oil and make 
commonsense use of our domestic energy resources in order to protect 
these West Virginians and others like them across the country.
  H.R. 4761 takes a commonsense approach in making use of our country's 
energy resources along the outer Continental Shelf to help meet our 
vast energy needs. The legislation passed the Resources Committee by an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 29-9, and I am proud to be one of the 
112 cosponsors of this bill.
  This legislation will impact the price consumers pay at the pump. I 
know every Member of Congress, and all of us, are feeling the pain when 
we go to the pump. Natural gas prices are set on a local, not a global, 
market. The United States pays the highest natural gas prices in the 
world, and it is no surprise that countries that make use of their own 
natural gas reserves pay the lowest prices. We can make a real 
difference for consumers by passing this bill.
  Many of my colleagues will talk about addressing alternative fuels as 
a means to solving our energy crisis, and I certainly agree this must 
be part of the solution. The Department of Ag estimates that 20 percent 
of the corn grown in the United States this year will be used for 
ethanol production, but growing corn demands fertilizer, produced by 
the chemical industry, that uses natural gas as their feedstock and 
energy source. Passing this legislation today will make sure that 
ethanol producers have access to the fertilizer they need to increase 
our supply of this important alternative fuel.
  Contrary to what some will say on the floor today, this legislation 
will not harm the environment. The Minerals Management Service reports 
that, since 1980, 4.7 billion barrels of oil have been produced 
offshore with a spill rate of one-thousandth of 1 percent. According to 
the National Academy of Science, these spills account for only 2 
percent of petroleum put into North American waters, while 62 percent 
comes from natural seepage.
  The legislation takes into account the legitimate interests of 
coastal States, and we are going to hear a lot of debate on this point 
as well. Any State will be able to stop production from occurring 
within 100 miles of its shores should it choose to do so. This will 
keep drilling further offshore than other countries. By comparison, 
Ireland blocks drilling within 45 miles; the United Kingdom and Norway, 
40 miles; the Netherlands, 20 miles; Scotland, 10 miles. Our neighbor 
to the north has permitted drilling in the coastal waters for years.
  If State officials decide to allow production, they will share the 
royalties. This revenue-sharing provision is appropriate, given the 
devastation many States suffered from hurricanes last year. Allowing 
them to share in the royalties from outer Continental Shelf drilling 
will benefit this devastated region, while at the same time helping to 
lower energy costs to consumers across the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's policy on drilling in the outer Continental 
Shelf is outdated, and many of those in the press have written 
editorials stating that. We saw last year the result of a policy that 
put all of our eggs in one basket, in the western portion of the Gulf 
of Mexico, when hurricanes knocked out one-quarter of the total 
domestic oil and natural gas production.
  This will be an important debate today. We can support this 
legislation because it is important to protect the jobs, help families 
with heating bills, all the while protecting the environment and 
preserving States rights, or we can allow vast energy supplies to go 
untapped while we complain and seek and find no solutions about the 
cost and the supply of energy.
  My colleagues should join me here in taking action by passing this 
rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I thank my friend Mrs. Capito for the time.
  I ask two questions of my colleagues here today. One, what is the 
emergency and can anybody that supports this measure tell me that it is 
going to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump? If we already 
own all of this, and we do, and if 80 percent of it is under lease and 
drilled as it is, then what is the emergency? Why can we not wait until 
such time as there is either a national or a military emergency?
  Gas prices, you bet, but ask Jane Lunch Bucket, is this going to 
bring down the price of gasoline at the pump?
  Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it is better for others to speak for you; and 
in this case I choose to let the editorial boards representing the 
newspapers across my great State of Florida, which have universally, 
universally come out against this dangerous bill. These are papers 
which represent views of Floridians from the Panhandle to the Keys and 
in all parts in between. From Orlando to Opa Loka and from Pensacola 
and Panama City to Pahokee to Key West and Kissimmee, Floridians agree 
that this would be bad for the environment, bad for tourism, bad for 
business and a black eye for generations to come.

                              {time}  1200

  The Orlando Sentinel said this week about this bill: ``House Members 
from Florida who support this bill are portraying it as the best deal 
the State can hope for, given the growing pressure to drill for oil and 
gas at home. Never mind the fact that the United States has only a 
small percentage of the world's reserves of those fuels. Congress could 
do more to solve the Nation's energy crunch with stronger measures to 
conserve energy and promote the development and use of alternative 
fuels. It doesn't have to imperil Florida's environment and economy. 
Florida's two U.S. Senators, Democrat Bill Nelson and Republican Mel 
Martinez, say they are reserving the right to filibuster the measure if 
it reaches the Senate. But it needn't come to that. Florida's House 
delegation and other Members in that Chamber who support an 
environmentally and economically sensible energy policy need to kill 
this bill.''
  The St. Petersburg Times had this to say: ``The oil industry's,'' and 
I am paraphrasing, ``minions in the U.S.

[[Page 13612]]

House are still scheming to open Florida's coast to offshore drilling. 
That is not surprising, considering their disdain for environmental 
protection. What is unforgivable,'' unforgivable, the St. Pete Times 
says, ``is that some Florida Representatives appear to be in league 
with them and are more atuned to the politics of Washington than the 
realities of Florida. Some other Florida Republican Members seem to 
think defeat is inevitable, so they might as well cut a deal that would 
undermine the protection of our beaches. Unfortunately, saying so could 
make it so. If Floridians value their beautiful beaches, clean coastal 
waters and tourism economy, then the time to give in to the hysteria to 
drill is never.''
  The Palm Beach Post added this: ``Protecting Florida's coasts under 
the bill wouldn't be enough. Because oil spills could be carried on 
ocean currents, what happens in States that opt to allow drilling 
closer to shore could affect other States with stricter rules. A spill 
in the eastern gulf, for example, could travel to Panhandle beaches, to 
Florida's Keys, or to east coast beaches as far north as Cape 
Canaveral. The cover story is that disruption from Hurricane Katrina 
showed why the Nation needs new sources of energy. But why put new 
sources in the same storm path? The majority's bill, or the bill as 
authored, and some of them as sponsors, has one of the worst 
environmental records in Congress,'' according to this newspaper.
  ``Florida's tourism industry places the State in a unique position. 
Opposing this bill isn't good just for the environment. It's good for 
business.''
  Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to continue quoting from other Florida 
newspapers, but I think the point has been made and made and made 
again. While we are here now debating whether we should open up Florida 
and California, and maybe New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, and Maine, 
to oil drilling, we already have debated Alaska, and doubtless others 
are to come.
  But it was our colleague, Mr. Boehlert, who has pointed out that 
through 18 months of this Congress we have brought up all sorts of ways 
to drill in this country but not one, not one bill that would look at 
alternatives or do anything about conservation. Pretty telling, don't 
you think?
  I asked one of my Republican colleagues last night what his opinion 
on this bill would be if it meant drilling in the heart of his 
district, one of the most environmentally unique ecosystems that we 
have in this country. I give him credit for consistency. We were on the 
elevator leaving the Rules Committee at midnight, and he flat-out told 
me if there was some oil or gas to get there, so be it.
  Wow. This is truly frightening. I hope the American people are 
listening. A Member of Congress, and there are others like him, 
potentially thinks that we should put oil derricks on every street 
corner, I gather, in the country if there is even a chance we might get 
a teaspoon of oil out of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there are others who want to speak on this 
irresponsible bill, so I am not going to use more of my time. But trust 
me, as a fifth-generation Floridian, as a person deeply concerned about 
our environment in this world as well as in Florida, and a Member of 
Congress that represents more small businesses than all but two other 
Congresspersons in this body, according to the Small Business 
Administration, I oppose this rule for the bill we will soon consider, 
which I consider to be reckless.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman that 
States will have the opportunity in this bill to opt out if they do not 
wish to have the drilling occur along their coastlines.
  Also, I would like to remind the gentleman that I represent West 
Virginia. We value our mountains, but we dig coal from our mountains 
every single day so that people around this country can turn on their 
lights and use their air-conditioning.
  We are talking about a Nation here in need of energy resources. And I 
am not sure if he has ever seen a natural gas well, but it is not like 
an oil derrick in the middle of a town. It can be done in a very 
disruptive and very clean way.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield time now to my friend from Florida (Mr. Keller), 
2 minutes.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the legislation. I 
represent Orlando, Florida, the world's number one vacation 
destination. It would devastate our tourism-based economy if gas prices 
ever reached $4 a gallon. Similarly, it would also hurt tourism if 
there was an oil spill right next to our beautiful beaches.
  This legislation strikes the appropriate balance of protecting 
Florida's beaches with a 100-mile buffer while also reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil. That is why it is supported by Governor Jeb 
Bush and The Washington Post editorial board.
  The most significant aspect of this bill is that it gives Florida 
home court advantage on all future decisions regarding offshore 
drilling. For the first time in history, there will be a 100-mile 
buffer around the entire State of Florida, controlled by Floridians.
  Here is the math: Floridians make up 100 percent of the State 
legislature, but only 5 percent of the U.S. Congress. Would you rather 
have Florida offshore drilling decisions made by a Florida State 
representative from Clearwater or by a drill-happy U.S. Congressman 
from Texas?
  Mr. Speaker, it is easy to demagogue this issue by saying we should 
do nothing if the bill isn't perfect. Well, here is some straight talk. 
We don't have the luxury of doing nothing. If we don't act, drilling 
will be allowed only 3 miles off Florida's east coast beaches. On the 
other hand, if we do act, we will get 100 miles of protection for all 
of Florida's beaches and put future decisions about drilling in the 
hands of Floridians.
  Mr. Speaker, opposition to this bill on environmental grounds is not 
justified. First, the industry's safety record for exploration is 
impressive. For example, oil rigs in the western half of the Gulf of 
Mexico endured Hurricane Katrina without any spills.
  Second, according to the Washington Post editorial board, not 
allowing any drilling whatsoever past the 100 mile mark may increase 
the danger of oil spills because it means more incoming traffic from 
oil tankers, which are riskier than oil rigs. As you recall, the Exxon-
Valdez accident was an oil tanker, not an oil rig.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and on 
the bill, and I commend Congressmen Putnam and Richard Pombo for 
getting this bill in the strike zone.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Rules Committee 
with the distinguished gentlewoman, my good friend, Ms. Matsui from 
California, Sacramento and that area, who understands environmental 
consequences. I am pleased and privileged to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  The Pacific Ocean is synonymous with California. California's beaches 
are world renowned tourist destinations. People from my hometown of 
Sacramento can attest to the beauty of nearby Stinson and Dillon 
Beaches, of Point Reyes and Capitola near Santa Cruz. But our coasts 
are more than playgrounds. We Californians consider them to be national 
treasures, and we certainly wouldn't sell them off to oil developers.
  But that is a major element of what this bill before us proposes to 
do. This legislation tempts States to sell off their natural heritage 
by presenting a false choice between Federal dollars and their 
coastlines. Even worse, the closer to shore a cash-strapped State 
allows drilling, the more money it stands to receive. In other words, 
the more intrusive the drilling, the larger the payoff.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we simply don't need to expand our drilling 
capacity. Eighty percent of our Nation's offshore oil and gas reserves 
are already open for drilling. Energy companies hold over 6,000 unused 
leases in

[[Page 13613]]

these waters. There is no reason to overturn a 25-year-old bipartisan 
drilling moratorium when we haven't even utilized our existing capacity 
yet.
  Providing less expensive energy to our constituents and reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil should be one of Congress' top priorities, 
but we cannot drill our way to energy independence as some claim.
  Sadly, we should have expected such an idea from a Congress that 
continues to rely on the same tired and misguided drilling-only 
approach. This strategy has been the defining element of our failed 
energy policy for the last 6 years.
  America can do better, but today's proposal takes us in the wrong 
direction. Instead of drilling off our coasts, we should devote 
resources to encouraging renewable energy use and to perform innovative 
research on advanced technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, on the Science Committee we worked together in a 
bipartisan way to create a balanced and forward-looking policy. For 
instance, earlier this week, the committee approved legislation to 
authorize alternative energy development programs.
  Unfortunately, it seems that today's legislation has been narrowly 
written to benefit oil interests at the expense of States like mine. We 
should follow the example of the Science Committee, Mr. Speaker, and 
rely on emerging research and proven scientific fact. Both of these 
will demonstrate that we do not, we should not, drill off our coasts.
  Increasing our energy independence should be the first great policy 
challenge our country addresses in the 21st century. We would be well 
advised to consider forward-looking energy proposals. Revisiting old 
arguments and despoiling national treasures wastes a golden opportunity 
to put our Nation on a course towards energy independence and 
responsible environmental stewardship.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this misguided and unnecessary 
legislation.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 
of the rule and of H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. I 
could stand up here and talk about some astounding facts, but the 
bottom line is we need to be more dependent on ourselves and not 
somebody else.
  Our current energy supply simply does not meet our growing demand. 
The solution is to reduce our dependency on foreign sources of energy. 
That is the solution. National security and national interests begin 
right here at home, and we need to be more self-reliant and energy 
independent.
  My home State of South Carolina has many great resources off its 
coast, and I am pleased that this legislation grants power to the 
States that allows them to dictate energy initiatives.
  Keeping this country both safe and strong is a pledge that I made and 
a pledge that I will keep. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule 
and the underlying legislation that keeps our Nation safe and moves us 
toward energy independence.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to 
my good friend from Maine, a gentleman who has some understanding of 
fisheries and coastlines, 2 minutes to Representative Allen.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying 
bill, H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. I urge all of my 
colleagues to oppose this environmentally reckless and fiscally 
irresponsible attempt to bribe State governments to allow drilling off 
our coasts.
  There is more to the sea than just oil and gas. For more than three 
centuries, Maine fishermen have made their living from the ocean. The 
fishing community represents the heritage and social fabric of my 
State, and it has been that way for more than 300 years.

                              {time}  1215

  Oil derricks and gas platforms on Georges Bank would despoil this 
abundant fishing ground. The pollution associated with deep sea oil and 
gas exploration would devastate the already suffering ground fish 
industry. It would undoubtedly impact other species as well, and to 
what end?
  The United States has 3 percent of the world's population and 
consumes 25 percent of the world's fossil fuel. We cannot drill our way 
out of that equation. There has got to be a better way.
  Instead of bringing back tired old ideas, we should be pushing for 
new technologies, for incentives for renewable energy sources and for 
cleaner, more abundant fuels. Drilling off our coast is not the answer. 
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the underlying bill, H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. It 
is a commonsense bipartisan strategy that would reduce record high 
energy prices and America's dependence on foreign sources of energy.
  For too long, special interests here in Washington have contributed 
to higher energy costs by blocking access to our domestic natural 
resources. We all know gasoline is expensive. Home heating costs have 
increased by 20 to 40 percent. The price of natural gas in the U.S. is 
$10 more expensive than in China and Japan and even a greater 
differential in places like Iran, Russia and Argentina.
  This commodity is a key component to the U.S. agricultural sector, 
the feedstock for fertilizer. Natural gas is estimated to consume 30 
percent of a farmer's production costs. Moreover, natural gas is 
absolutely critical in manufacturing renewable fuels, accounting for 17 
percent of ethanol production costs.
  Sixty percent of the energy consumed in the U.S. is imported from 
other countries. As a result, our economic and national security is at 
risk. In fact, many natural-gas-dependent production facilities are 
shutting down and moving their operations overseas in order to escape 
this rising cost squeeze.
  In order to provide relief for our constituents and ensure farmers 
have the ability to produce the crops and process the food that feeds 
the world, we must utilize the energy available closest to home.
  Removing an outdated prohibition on energy production 100 miles from 
America's coastline, while preserving the rights of States to determine 
production areas within that boundary, is a practical approach that 
will have an immediate impact. Please vote in favor of this bill. It is 
a strong signal of support to our U.S. consumers, farmers and agri-
businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support final passage of 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend from California (Mrs. Capps) who knows a 
little bit about the coastline, being from Santa Barbara.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  Over the years I have served in this body, I have heard Members from 
both sides of the aisle talk about the benefits of democracy. Last 
night, for example, Mr. Diaz-Balart spoke quite movingly about the 
importance of democracy during consideration of an amendment to end 
bilingual voting. He spoke of, and I quote, that sacred right, that is, 
voting.
  Today, with this rule, we see that this sacred right doesn't really 
extend to Members of the House of Representatives. The rule before us 
brings up a bill being furiously rewritten in the dead of night. It is 
unclear what some of these amendments or what their provisions really 
mean, and the House is certainly not being given a fair opportunity to 
consider competing views, other than that put forward by the Republican 
leadership.
  H.R. 4671 affects some very important issues, our energy future, the 
preservation of our ocean resources, the impact on our budget. Yet this 
rule stifles debate and limits our understanding of how the bill 
affects these important issues and more.

[[Page 13614]]

  The underlying bill is unnecessary, environmentally damaging, 
fiscally irresponsible. In addition to being irresponsible, it is also 
deceptive. Although the legislation has been in the works for months, 
as of 10:30 this morning, we still don't have a CBO score.
  If you read the paragraph in the bill that describes it, you can't 
figure out, but you do know that it is fuzzy math, that it hides the 
true costs. The only thing that is clear is it postpones the bill's 
cost until later. It is a raid, this bill, on the Treasury, 
jeopardizing coastal environments and economies.
  Mr. Speaker, time and time again this leadership brings bills to the 
floor with rules that skew our choices. It is undemocratic, it is 
cowardly, it is wrecking America. Afraid of losing and certain that 
their weak arguments can't carry the day, the Republican leadership 
abuses its power and degrades this institution and democracy. Members 
who continually vote for such stifled debate aid and abet this 
corruption.
  We can do better. Vote down this rule. Restore democracy to the 
House.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the 
champion of this bill and a champion for rural America, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill 
and the rule.
  The gentleman from Florida a few moments ago asked a fair question. 
He said, what is the emergency? I believe it is an emergency. We talk 
about gasoline prices. We don't often talk about natural gas prices.
  Natural gas prices historically were $2 per thousand in this country 
up until 5 years ago. Last year, that average price was $9.50. You have 
already heard it is threatening the absolute viability of aluminum, 
steel, petrochemical, polymers, plastics, fertilizer, bricks, glass, 
who use huge amounts of natural gas not only in making them but as an 
ingredient.
  This country cannot compete in the global marketplace without 
affordable natural gas. We can't drill our way out of the oil crisis, 
and we shouldn't try. Natural gas is a commodity this country is rich 
in. Our Outer Continental Shelf is loaded. It could supply us for 
decades and could make our seniors able to heat their homes, our 
companies able to be profitable and compete.
  Yes, natural gas is the resource we need to focus on. It should be 
our bridge to the future. It will keep us competitive until the 
renewables become a much bigger part of our energy portfolio.
  I ask the colleagues that oppose this bill, show me a natural gas 
well that has ever polluted a beach. Natural gas is America's cleanest, 
almost-perfect fuel, no NOx, almost no SOx, a 
fourth of the Co2.
  Folks, natural gas is the milk of America's future, the milk of our 
industry, the baby, mother's milk. We need to produce energy. We need 
to have affordable energy for people to heat their homes, and we need 
to have energy so our industries can stay alive and not be sending us 
goods from foreign countries.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. As I recall, my friend from Pleasantville 
and Happy Valley wanted drilling 3 miles out, he perceives it as such 
an emergency.
  I find it strange that people that live so far away from the 
potential problem have all of the correct answers. If we were drilling 
in Happy Valley outside of Penn State, you would be down here 
concerned, as I am, and Ms. Lee, who comes from San Francisco Bay in 
Oakland, California, who understands something about drilling.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for your clarity 
about what it really means to be energy independent. Talk about beating 
a dead horse. Instead of getting tough with the administration's oil 
and gas cronies, Republicans once again want to reward them with even 
more public giveaways.
  First it was ANWR, now the Outer Continental Shelf. Republicans would 
put an oil well on the White House lawn if they could get away with it. 
Instead of trotting out the same tired arguments about how the 
government is oppressing the oil and the gas industry by restricting 
their right to drill, we need a real energy plan that is good for the 
public, good for business and good for the environment.
  Democrats know we can't drill our way to energy independence. We know 
that providing energy efficiency incentives will help United States 
businesses compete long term in the global marketplace. We know that 
raising CAFE standards will save more energy over the next 20 years 
than new drilling will produce, and we know that making a profit is not 
really a license to gouge customers. We have a real plan. 
Unfortunately, Republicans only promise more of the same.
  I oppose the rule; I oppose the bill.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the 
chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, the way the House is handling offshore oil 
drilling today pretty much defines ``travesty.'' For the first time in 
more than a generation, we are going to vote on opening the entire 
coastline of the United States to oil and natural gas drilling. You 
think that would be considered a rather major matter that requires some 
thoughtful discussion. But that is not how we are handling it. Instead, 
we are going to debate legislation that is being rushed through the 
House.
  The base bill we are discussing, and the report on it, which includes 
the cost estimate, were not filed until Monday. Once folks got a look 
at the text and the cost estimate, opposition pressure mounted, so the 
bill needed to be rewritten. That rewriting continued well into the 
night last evening.
  So the rule makes in order a manager's amendment that includes 
massive changes in the bill that no one was able to see until after 
midnight.
  Is this a process we can be proud of? It seems all one has to do 
around here is use the word ``oil'' for the sanctity of the democratic 
process to simply slip away. The process we are using today gives new 
meaning to the phrase ``oil slick.''
  Now, some may say, oh, come on, people know whether they are for or 
against offshore drilling. We don't need a lot of time.
  Well, this bill doesn't just allow offshore drilling. It changes all 
the rules on approving oil drilling in areas where it is allowed. It 
changes all the maps for State marine boundaries. Did you know that? 
Probably not, because the new maps aren't publicly available. It 
changes all the ways that royalty funds are distributed. It gives 
additional royalty breaks to oil companies. It is a complex bill with 
many unprecedented provisions that most Members know nothing about.
  When we point out these troubling provisions, the sponsors of the 
bill don't defend them. They try to deny that they are there. The 
remedy is to read the bill, but we are not giving anyone time to do 
that.
  Did you know, for example, that under the bill if the Secretary of 
the Interior opposes some future law because it limits drilling in any 
way, the Secretary can cut off all aid to States to try to get them to 
see the law his way?
  That is an unusual idea, to say the least.
  Did you know that the bill subordinates every other use of coastal 
waters to oil drilling, blocking any effort to use waters in a way that 
could ever limit drilling in any way? That is what the bill says. It 
blocks any actions ever that could interfere with drilling.
  If the bill ever becomes law, your constituents will be up in arms 
about just about every provision, because the law gives oil interests 
the ability to trample everyone else's right.
  This is a bad bill that we are considering today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, this is a very memorable day, as far as I 
am

[[Page 13615]]

concerned, with the hopes not only for the passage of this legislation 
but for the people of Louisiana and for the people of this country.
  I know there are questions about the environment. Those have been 
around for 25 or 30 years.
  If you look at the record of the offshore oil industry, it has been 
very good. As a matter of fact, it has been excellent in the last 25 
years. There have been more oil spills from ships and tank farms on 
land than there has been oil in the coastal waters of Louisiana and the 
Gulf of Mexico.
  I want to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for their 
working together. Even though there may be some differences between the 
parties and between the ranking member and the chairman, they have 
worked together to bring a bill that will do good for America.
  If you are happy with $3 plus a gallon of gas, if you are happy 
because your friends are being laid off from the petrochemical industry 
as those plants move to Saudi Arabia and other places where they get 
cheap natural gas, if you are happy to hear that our senior citizens up 
north, particularly, are living at 55 degrees on their thermostats, I 
don't think that is the way it should have been.

                              {time}  1230

  For 25 years, observing this Congress, being a citizen of Louisiana, 
that has been producing gas and oil for over 50 years, it is great to 
see that we have finally brought something to the floor for this 
Congress to act on, because up until today, the policy of this Congress 
has been to just say no; and we can no longer do that. The independence 
of this country, the security of this country is premised on the fact 
that we can defend ourselves, that we can feed our folks, and that we 
can supply the fuel and the energy that is needed to drive this Nation.
  This may not be a panacea that will come tomorrow. But it will be a 
process or a point that will bring us into the future with hope that we 
can be energy independent and be a safe and secure Nation and defend 
ourselves without having to worry about getting our oil in tankers from 
countries that don't necessarily like us. It will mean a safe, secure 
America.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize and yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. During 
consideration of the bill, I will be offering an amendment with several 
of my Florida colleagues; and I want to thank the Rules Committee for 
making the important amendment in order.
  While some use political rhetoric to say ``do nothing,'' some of us 
for months have worked diligently to craft solid statutory protections 
for Florida and other coastal States.
  Opposition to drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf is particularly 
strong in Florida, due to the potentially devastating consequences it 
could have for our economy, natural resources, and quality of life.
  I want to thank Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo and his 
staff for their willingness to work with me, Governor Jeb Bush, 
Congressman Putnam and other members of the Florida delegation on the 
very sensitive issue of offshore drilling.
  While I applaud the efforts of the Resources Committee to allow 
States to determine whether or not drilling occurs closest to their 
coastlines, I believe that if we truly, truly want to maximize the 
ability of States to protect their own coastlines, they should have to 
opt in to drilling, as opposed to being required to opt out of 
drilling.
  Therefore, the amendment my colleagues and I will be offering today 
provides States with a true opt in, meaning that drilling could only 
occur if a State requests leasing.
  Our amendment also expands the true opt in protection from 100 miles 
to 125 miles. While some States may choose to allow drilling close to 
their shores, those States can still do so under this amendment. They 
are not precluded from doing so. We believe that States that want to 
protect their shores from drilling should be able to do so to the 
maximum degree possible.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Bilirakis/Wasserman Schultz/
Young/Brown-Waite/ Harris/Wexler/Mario Diaz-Balart/Stearns amendment to 
H.R. 4761 and give States real control, real, solid, true, statutory 
control over whether or not drilling occurs off their coastlines.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey). He is a former ranking member of the Resources Committee, and 
has, in my judgment, extraordinary clarity regarding the issue of the 
day here in Congress.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I hear the Republicans saying, it is time 
for us to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf; it is time for us to 
look for the oil and the gas.
  Well, it turns out that under existing law, you can already drill on 
80 percent of the land on the Outer Continental Shelf, where the 
Minerals Management Service has found oil and gas. The leases have 
already been given away, or they are available for bidding.
  So what's the issue really all about if 80 percent of the Outer 
Continental Shelf where the oil and gas is is already available? And 
that is what they are not telling you.
  This is an issue about Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas 
changing the formula. The Minerals Management Service tells us that 
under this formula change, $600 billion, which was going to go to the 
Federal Treasury for Medicaid, for education, to help people who need 
it in their own homes, is now going to go to four States. So if you 
come from these four States, you vote for this bill, you get $600 
billion. But if you come from the other 46 States, you are losing money 
on this deal, ladies and gentlemen. The money is coming out of your 
pocket, and it is going to Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi.
  By the way, I recommend to each of the Members from those 
delegations, vote ``yes.'' You are going to hear them down here, vote 
``yes'' because this doesn't change any of the rules for those States. 
The Federal Government already allows for drilling in that part of the 
country. And that is where 80 percent of the oil and gas is, by the 
way, and where 80 percent of the revenues are going to come from.
  But if you come from these other States, you go home and you explain 
to your constituents the loss of $600 billion in Federal money that you 
are sending to four States on Federal lands. This is not State land. 
This is not Louisiana's land or Texas' land. This is our land. This is 
the Federal Government's land. And you are going to give up $600 
billion here today, your last vote before we break?
  This is just going to bust the Treasury again. This is just going to 
create bigger deficits.
  But why would you do it to help four States? Why would you allow your 
taxpayers to have their revenues sent to four States, when all of this 
area can already be drilled and it is Federal land? There is no 
restriction. There are 8,000 leases that the oil companies already 
have. They are only drilling on 2,000 of them. But at $70 a barrel, 
they are going to go to this area, and they don't need any more 
permission.
  So here is the trick: yes, they cannot drill off of these coastlines 
right now. We are going to debate that. And many Members from these 
States don't want drilling off these coastlines.
  But that is not what the bill is about, ladies and gentlemen. This is 
about a raid on the Federal Treasury by four States in the area where 
we already permit drilling on Federal lands by oil companies. But these 
four States are in here dipping their straws into the Federal revenues 
which would go to 46 States, and they want it all to go to theirs.
  Vote ``no'' on this terrible bill.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the previous speaker 
that the bill passed out of committee with large bipartisan support of 
a 29-9 vote.
  I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran), a leader in rural health care.

[[Page 13616]]


  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of increased 
exploration, drilling and production of natural gas off our 
intercontinental shelf. This is an important issue for all of the 
country, but especially true among my farmers and ranchers in Kansas.
  I am one who supports renewable fuels, and ethanol and soy diesel 
provide a great opportunity for economic opportunity in Kansas, for 
Kansas farmers and for American agriculture and for our country. We 
must become much more independent from the energy sources abroad.
  But for our farmers and ranchers to remain in business, to survive 
into the future, they have got to have access to natural gas and at 
prices that are affordable. Natural gas is the primary feed stock, the 
ingredient for the production of many agricultural components, but 
especially for nitrogen fertilizer that is so important; and if we are 
going to produce ethanol in this country, if we are going to produce 
soy diesel, we are going to have to have the fertilizer at an 
affordable price that will allow our farmers to raise the corn and 
grain sorghum to produce the ethanol to raise the soy beans to produce 
the soy diesel.
  Our farmers are struggling across the country. Input costs are 
dramatically on the rise. Nearly 40 percent of the nitrogen capacity, 
fertilizer capacity has been shut down in this country since 1999. Six 
years ago, approximately 15 percent of our fertilizer needs were met in 
the United States from abroad. Today 50 percent is imported.
  Prices have increased dramatically: $250 a ton for nitrogen 
fertilizer in 2002; today, $416.
  One of my farmers who farms in southwest Kansas, 30 years ago when he 
started farming, natural gas was 19 cents. Today it is $9. We are 
seeing double, triple and even fourfold prices that Donny Young talks 
about in trying to stay in business with these increasing input costs, 
while the price of corn has stayed the same.
  We in the United States need to become independent if we are going to 
produce the ethanol. And it is important that we remember that natural 
gas is necessary to make that nitrogen fertilizer.
  I encourage the adoption of this proposal.
  A vote for H.R. 4761 is a vote for agriculture.
  Agriculture's ability to produce an affordable food supply will 
continue to face huge obstacles if our nation does not come to grips 
with its desire to have limitless resources, like natural gas, for 
production and not realize that these resources have to come from 
somewhere. Our natural gas crisis has two solutions--increase supply 
and reduce demand. H.R. 4761 addresses one aspect of this crisis as it 
will increase the supply of natural gas from the Outer Continental 
Shelf. This additional supply will do two things. It will send a strong 
signal to natural gas markets and could increase the elasticity in 
North American natural gas markets. It indicates to these futures 
markets that the United States is committed to lifting the moratoria in 
the Outer Continental Shelf to provide consumers with an additional 
supply of natural gas. This message should ease the volatility in 
natural gas prices that all of us have seen since 1999 and the 
additional supply should help ease the natural gas prices over time.
  Why does agriculture care so much about this natural gas crisis? 
Simply put, agriculture is a very large consumer of natural gas. 
Farmers use significant amounts of natural gas for food processing, 
irrigation, crop drying, heating farm buildings and homes and for the 
production of crop protection chemicals and nitrogen fertilizers.
  Natural gas is the primary feedstock in the production of virtually 
all commercial nitrogen fertilizers manufactured in the Untied States. 
Natural gas is not just an energy source it is the raw material for 
producing the fertilizer. Today, in the case of the nitrogen fertilizer 
anhydrous ammonia, natural gas accounts for over 90 percent of the 
total cash cost of production.
  Just like Kansas wheat and Wisconsin milk, fertilizer is a commodity 
bought and sold worldwide and subject to basic global supply and demand 
economic principles. As the U.S. domestic nitrogen fertilizer 
manufacturing sector declines due to high natural gas prices, Kansas 
farmers and other U.S. food producers will be subject to global supply/
demand forces on the fertilizer products they buy, even more so than 
today.
  The climb in natural gas prices since 2000 has forced U.S. fertilizer 
production costs to unprecedented levels. Over this period of high 
prices and intense volatility, the U.S. fertilizer industry began to 
shut down production. Nearly 40 percent of the industry's nitrogen 
capacity permanently shut down between 1999 and today. This has and 
will, continue to make U.S. farmers dependent on offshore production 
from the major suppliers such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Russia.
  This rise in natural gas prices and the permanent closure of so much 
U.S. fertilizer production has dramatically impacted fertilizer prices 
throughout the marketing chain and, in particular, at the farm level. 
According to USDA, U.S. prices to farmers for ammonia climbed from $250 
per ton in 2002 to $416 per ton in 2005. That is almost a doubling of 
the price of ammonia to farmers.
  This continued loss of production from the U.S. nitrogen fertilizer 
industry would force farmers to rely on a highly uncertain and highly 
volatile world market with no assurance that they will be able to 
obtain enough product to meet their full demand. This is particularly 
important when considering the importance of nitrogen to farmers. 
Thirty to 50 percent of corn yields are directly attributed to nitrogen 
fertilizer.
  Passing H.R. 4761 represents a direct, positive action to increase 
our nation's domestic natural gas supply to help relieve the high 
prices pressuring American farmers, fertilizer producers and 
homeowners. Allowing exploration and development of the Outer 
Continental Shelf is an essential commitment that our nation must make. 
These natural resources belong to all Americans and should be developed 
for the benefit of the entire nation.
  A vote for H.R. 4761 is a vote for agriculture. Please support 
passage of H.R. 4761.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman, my classmate, Ms. Woolsey.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the majority party says that we need to 
find a better way to end our energy crisis and a way to bring gas 
prices down. Well, that sounds really good because that is exactly what 
we need to do. But the solution they are offering today is not a 
solution. There is a better way, and that is for certain.
  In fact, by providing tax incentives for the construction of energy-
efficient buildings and heating equipment, by doing that alone, we 
could save more than 12 times the Interior Department's estimate of 
economically recoverable gas outside the central and western Gulf of 
Mexico.
  This plan they are offering for more offshore drilling for four 
States makes every other use of coastal waters subordinate to drilling 
for oil.
  Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't even be discussing it. Do they really think 
that the people of this country don't get it? Well, let me tell you, 
the people in my district, Marin and Sonoma Counties north of San 
Francisco, get it. They know that what makes this bill even worse than 
being a Band-Aid is that it is a destructive solution.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the underlying bill. For me, the question of drilling off our coastal 
waters is a difficult one, and it is made even more difficult by the 
fact that I represent the State of Florida, where we have 1,300 miles 
of shoreline, and we have a tourism industry that adds up to about $60 
billion, and a lot of that is due to our magnificent beaches.
  But I am faced with a question today, whether I vote in favor of 
letting the people of Florida control their own destiny as it relates 
to offshore drilling within 100 miles of the shore. I can do that, or I 
can just vote ``no'' and do nothing.
  It seems to me, as I look at this bill, I would urge my colleagues to 
support it because it gives to our precious beaches in Florida 
unprecedented permanent protection, something we have never had before, 
something we may never have again within that first 100 miles.
  Would I like to see more protection? Sure I would. Most people in 
Florida would. But wishing it so is not going to make it so. And I am 
going to support this bill.
  Other people will say no, I will just vote ``no.'' And people that do 
that, I

[[Page 13617]]

think, are going to find themselves hoping against hope, rolling the 
dice that somehow, some way drilling won't occur off the coast of 
Florida or any other coastal waters in America. And I think that is 
pretty shortsighted.
  I don't want to sit back and wait, sit back and watch. I don't want 
to find myself watching the sun rise and the sun set through the 
silhouette of an oil rig. That is too big a chance to take.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule, in favor of 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to my good friend from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the Fourth of July 
holiday, Americans are still paying record prices at the pump to fuel 
their cars for summer road trips and vacations. And this Republican 
Congress is still dragging its feet and refusing to pass legislation 
that would actually do something to prevent these high prices, to 
prevent oil and gas companies from price gouging.
  For the past year, Democrats have sought to pass legislation that 
would give the Federal Trade Commission authority to hold oil and gas 
companies that gouge consumers accountable. The Senate hasn't even 
taken up the Republicans' own weaker price-gouging bill which passed 
the House in May. That means more toothless investigations, more 
corporate bandits getting off scot free.
  The FTC issued a report in May that exposed the need to pass 
legislation that clearly defines price-gouging offenses. Even in 
instances where the FTC has found that consumers have been abused at 
the pump, the FTC was powerless to prosecute the companies that engage 
in price gouging.

                              {time}  1245

  The five largest oil and gas companies reported $110 billion in 
profits in 2005, and ExxonMobil reported the highest profit of any 
American company ever.
  There is a price-gouging problem. It is happening at the producer and 
refiner levels, not at the retail level. We should pass the Democrats' 
FREE Act and give consumers relief at the pump once and for all and do 
it now.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I will submit into the Record documents 
in favor of the bill from several labor unions, a Washington Post 
editorial, and a letter with some figures regarding revenue from the 
Congressional Budget Office.
                                                    June 29, 2006.

              H.R. 4761: Outer Continental Shelf Drilling

       Our three building trades unions urge your support for H.R. 
     4761 when the House considers it later today. The bill will 
     essentially lift the current moratorium against off-shore 
     drilling by establishing a new set of drilling criteria which 
     will go a long way in addressing America's energy needs--
     particularly in respect to natural gas supply. U.S. 
     manufacturing needs the potential energy which a fully 
     implemented H.R. 4761 can supply to stay competitive in the 
     global economy. As a result, existing U.S. jobs are protected 
     and new jobs can be created to help strengthen our economy.
       From a building trades perspective, there is another 
     critically important reason to support this bill. For years, 
     the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act has been interpreted to 
     allow foreign companies to utilize foreign workers to build 
     and service these oil and gas rigs and platforms without 
     having to consider American workers for these jobs. Led by 
     Resources Committee Chairman Pombo and Representative 
     Abercrombie, there is a provision in the Manager's amendment 
     which modifies the existing OCSLA language to require that 
     American workers be given initial consideration on these 
     large projects before foreign workers are hired. We in the 
     trades have many of the skilled workers who are potentially 
     ready, willing and able to perform these construction and 
     service jobs to extract American resources for American 
     industry.
       It is important to modify our current law to develop 
     additional U.S. energy supplies. It is equally important to 
     allow American workers a realistic opportunity to perform 
     this construction and service work. H.R. 4761 accomplishes 
     both of these objectives.
                                  ____

     Donald Kaniewski,
     Legislative Director, Laborers International Union.
     Tim James,
     Legislative Director, International Union of Operating 
     Engineers.
     Chris Heinz,
     Legislative Director, United Brotherhood of Carpenters.
                                                    June 29, 2006.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the United Association of 
     Journeymen and Apprentices in the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting 
     Industry, I urge you to support the Deep Ocean Energy 
     Resources Act, H.R. 4761. The failure of the U.S. government 
     to allow responsible energy exploration on the Outer 
     Continental Shelf has created devastating economic conditions 
     that are just now coming to fruition. This is an affront to 
     every American worker, especially those in the pipe trades, 
     who will continue to watch more jobs and industries move 
     overseas because we refuse to develop our own resources.
       Reducing our dependence on foreign energy by creating 
     thousands of new jobs in the U.S. is a bipartisan issue. The 
     Building Trades and affiliates, like the UA, have been 
     working with both sides to ensure that these job 
     opportunities go to American workers first, and that the 
     revenue generated by energy development goes back into 
     training the next generation of skilled pipe tradesmen and 
     other energy-related workers.
       The skills and technology have come a long way in the past 
     30 years due to heightened environmental awareness. Do not 
     believe those who say we cannot develop our energy safely. 
     Since 1980 the spill rate for offshore drilling is .001%, and 
     accounts for less than 2% of the petroleum in the ocean, 
     whereas natural seepages account for 63%.
       We should not abandon alternative energy sources or 
     conservation, but we will be dependent on oil and natural gas 
     for another century. We already produce roughly as much 
     ethanol per capita as Brazil; they have secured their energy 
     independence through off-shore drilling, and yet their 
     beaches are still dream destinations for most of the world.
       The U.S. now faces the highest natural gas prices in the 
     world, and sends millions of dollars a day to unstable 
     regions of the world to bring in the oil and natural gas that 
     sit just on the edge of our own horizon. If we continue to 
     lose paper mills and chemical and fertilizer plants due to 
     high natural gas prices, good paying union jobs will 
     disappear. Instead we can take a productive step to secure 
     our economic future by creating good paying jobs for American 
     workers on our Outer Continental Shelf.
       For the 350,000 members of the UA, who work on offshore 
     rigs, pipelines, power stations, refineries, and in numerous 
     facilities that are downstream consumers of oil and natural 
     gas, this bill will create jobs, and keep money in the U.S. 
     economy. By doing nothing, we are choosing to jeopardize our 
     whole economy and put millions of American jobs at risk.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                  William P. Hite,
     General President.
                                  ____

                                                    June 28, 2006.
       Dear Colleague: Today you will be asked to vote on H.R. 
     4761, the bipartisan Domestic Ocean Energy Resources (DOER) 
     Act. We urge you to review The Washington Post editorial 
     below that discusses why it's important to pass the DOER Act 
     and update America's offshore energy production policy.
       While The Washington Post gave an enthusiastic endorsement 
     of this bill, it did mention some concerns over the cost 
     estimate. The manager's amendment that will be offered today 
     has made adjustments which reduce the cost for the federal 
     government by $11.6 billion over ten years and now raises 
     $600 million over the same period of time.
           Sincerely,
     Neil Abercrombie,
       Member of Congress.
     Bobby Jindal,
       Member of Congress.
     Charlie Melancon,
       Member of Congress.
     John Peterson,
       Member of Congress.

               [From the Washington Post, June 28, 2006]

                            An Outdated Ban

       For the past quarter of a century, the federal government 
     has banned oil and gas drilling in most U.S. coastal waters. 
     Efforts to relax the ban have been repelled on environmental 
     grounds, but it is time to revisit this policy. Canada and 
     Norway, two countries that care about the environment, have 
     allowed offshore drilling for years and do not regret it. 
     Offshore oil rigs in the western Gulf of Mexico, one of the 
     exceptions to the ban imposed by Congress, endured Hurricane 
     Katrina without spills. The industry's safety record is 
     impressive, and it's even possible that the drilling ban 
     increases the danger of oil spills in coastal waters: Less 
     local drilling means more incoming traffic from oil tankers, 
     which by some reckonings are riskier. Although balancing 
     energy needs with the environment is always hard, the 
     prohibition on offshore extraction cannot be justified.
       The House of Representatives is about to vote on this 
     question, probably tomorrow. A

[[Page 13618]]

     bipartisan bill would maintain a ban on drilling within 50 
     miles of the shoreline and allow states to extend that to 100 
     miles. But it would lift the congressional restriction on 
     drilling beyond that perimeter. This compromise would give 
     states that are unwilling to countenance the perceived 
     environmental risks a reasonable measure of control over 
     their coasts. But it would also open the way to more 
     drilling.
       The economic benefit of that drilling would be especially 
     pronounced if it were aimed at natural gas extraction. 
     Despite all the rhetoric about energy independence, it 
     doesn't make much difference whether the United States gets 
     its oil from its own coastal waters or whether it buys it on 
     world markets. There is one global price for oil; producing 
     more from U.S. waters will bring down that global price, 
     benefiting all consuming countries rather than just U.S. 
     consumers. But natural gas is traded globally only in small 
     quantities, in liquefied form; nearly all of the gas consumed 
     in the United States is produced domestically or in Canada. 
     So producing more natural gas in U.S. coastal waters would 
     bring down U.S. natural gas prices rather than world prices. 
     Because natural gas is much cleaner than its main 
     alternative, coal, this would have environmental as well as 
     economic benefits.
       Unfortunately, the House legislation is flawed. It diverts 
     billions of dollars' worth of oil and gas royalties from the 
     Federal government to the states, even though the waters from 
     which the resources will come are federal. The states nearest 
     to the oil rigs may feel they carry most of the perceived 
     environmental risks, and some sharing of revenue may be 
     justified to bring them along, but the House bill leans too 
     far in that direction. We hope the bill passes tomorrow, but 
     we also hope this flaw is fixed before it becomes law.
                                  ____

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, June 29, 2006.
     Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
     Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4761, the Deep 
     Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006, as modified by Pombo 
     amendment #224, dated June 28, 2006.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen 
     Gramp.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Donald B. Marron,
                                                  Acting Director.
       Enclosure.

  ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING EFFECTS OF H.R. 4761, THE DEEP OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES ACT OF 2006, AS MODIFIED BY POMBO AMENDMENT #224, DATED JUNE 28, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Outlays in billions of dollars, by fiscal year
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  2007      2008      2009      2010      2011      2012      2013      2014      2015      2016    2007-2011  2007-2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING\1\
 
Changes in the Terms of Oil
 and Gas Leases:
    Fee on deepwater OCS               0      -0.8      -0.8      -0.9      -1.2      -1.1      -1.2      -1.7      -1.9      -1.7       -3.8      -11.4
     leases...................
    Fee on nonproducing leases         0      -0.2      -0.2      -0.2      -0.2      -0.2      -0.2      -0.2      -0.2      -0.2       -0.8       -1.6
    Compensation for certain           *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *          *          *
     nonproducing leases......
    Other changes to lease             *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *          *        0.1
     terms....................
Expand Federal Areas Subject        -0.2         *      -0.2      -0.5      -0.3      -0.3      -0.5      -0.6      -0.7      -0.8       -1.2       -4.0
 to Mineral Leasing...........
Changes in Authority to Spend
 Federal Mineral Receipts:
    Repeal of certain OCS           -0.3      -0.3      -0.3      -0.3      -0.1      -0.1      -0.1      -0.1      -0.1      -0.1       -1.4       -2.0
     receipt-sharing programs.
    New OCS receipt-sharing          0.5       0.7       1.1       1.0       1.5       1.7       2.0       2.7       3.2       3.6        4.8       18.0
     with states..............
    Other federal programs....         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *         *          *          *
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Changes.........      -0.1      -0.6      -0.4      -0.9      -0.4       0.1       0.1       0.1       0.4       0.7       -2.3       -0.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorandum: OCS Receipts Under      -8.3     -10.5      -9.8     -10.0     -10.1      -9.4     -11.0     -10.9     -10.9     -11.2      -48.7    -102.1
 Current Law\2\...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Implementing H.R. 4761 would also alIect discretionary spending. Several provisions of the bill would authorize funding to be provided in future
  appropriation acts.
\2\The current law estimates are from CBO's March 2006 baseline. The receipt estimates are net of payments to states to share proceeds Irom leases
  located within specified distances of their coastlines.
 
Notes:--Details may not sum to totals because of rounding. OCS = Outer Continental Shelf. Budget authority is equal to outlays for most programs that
  involve collection and spending of OCS receipts. * = Between -$50 million and $50 million.

       The U.S. is the only developed nation in the world that 
     restricts access to its offshore energy resources, putting it 
     at an economic and strategic disadvantage with foreign 
     nations.
       The DOER Act strikes a common sense balance between 
     America's dire need to produce more energy at home and the 
     interests of American coastal states. It accomplishes this by 
     granting coastal states permanent and unprecedented power to 
     keep off-shore energy production 100 miles away from their 
     coastlines (if they so desire) while enabling the U.S. to 
     produce energy for the people in the deep waters beyond.
       For comparison, the following is a short list of foreign 
     nations that produce energy safely from their deep seas and 
     the distance from the coast that drilling occurs: Ireland, 45 
     miles; Norway, 40 miles; United Kingdom, 40 miles; 
     Netherlands, 20 miles.

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, this is an auspicious day, and I am 
pleased to be able to speak on the rule.
  I regret in some respects that many of my friends, my dear friends, 
have a view different than I as to whether or not a positive vote is 
warranted on the bill. But with regard to the rule, I believe that when 
the manager's amendment comes forward during debate on the bill that 
some of the questions that have been raised, legitimate questions that 
have been raised, will be answered, I hope, to the satisfaction of 
those who have some doubts about the bill.
  My reason for standing here today is because I do want to reach out 
in all sincerity to those who are expressing reservations about the 
bill to indicate that those of us who have been working on the bill in 
the Resources Committee understand and appreciate and recognize those 
fears and anxieties that those in opposition have expressed today, and 
we have tried to the best of our legislative ability to address them. 
We respect those who have some reservations at this stage and ask 
merely that we wait for the debate. The debate, as it comes forward, we 
think will answer those questions. We are going to try to do it 
sincerely.
  For example, on the question of revenues, we have been listening to 
those who are concerned about revenues to Treasury, and we have 
addressed it. We believe that the Congressional Budget Office, in its 
analysis of the bill, has addressed that forthrightly.
  As for the question about environment, we believe that that has been 
addressed as well. We ask really for the opportunity to make a full 
presentation on that, and then we will, of course, respect everybody's 
judgment.
  But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and tell all of my colleagues and 
friends who still retain their reservations, we are doing our very best 
to address the issues that you have raised; and we hope we have done it 
adequately. In that context, then, I hope some open minds will be kept 
at this stage; and, most particularly, we ask our friends from 
California and Florida to recognize that we are doing our level best to 
address their concerns in a positive way.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Hawaii, and 
he is my good friend, knows that I love his volcanic State that has no 
Outer Continental Shelf. If we were drilling in Oahu or on the road to 
Hana, I would hear a different perspective. But I understand that 
dynamic.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I have generally supported offshore oil and 
gas development in the past, but I cannot support this bill in its 
current form.
  This bill goes beyond offshore exploration and reaches back into the 
energy bill to change a carefully written compromise on oil shale 
development. The district I represent is the largest reserve of oil 
shale in the Nation, and I have serious concerns that the provisions in 
this bill will speed along and encourage irresponsible development. 
Western Colorado has already experienced one boom and bust due to oil 
shale speculation. It ruined the lives of

[[Page 13619]]

many families in the West, and I cannot support a policy which will 
lead to another.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill or to eliminate the 
oil shale provision.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to my 
good friend, Mr. Tiahrt.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical to the future of our 
country and our economy.
  Over the last generation, Congress has raised barriers to keeping and 
creating jobs, American jobs. Our inability to produce natural gas is 
one of the barriers, and it is driving jobs overseas. Now, why would 
Congress force jobs overseas? Well, you are seeing that reason today.
  Some say this is bad legislation; it is ill conceived. My view of 
that congressional interpretation of that language is ``so long 
American jobs.''
  Some say it is not in your backyard; you do not produce it. Well, in 
Kansas, it is in my backyard. We have been producing oil and gas for 
over 100 years. So my interpretation of that phrase is it means ``good-
bye American jobs.''
  Some say this will damage the coastline. Well, natural gas production 
has continued through today. It occurred even through Hurricane 
Katrina, and not one environmental spill or any coastline was damaged. 
So the congressional speak for ``it will damage our coastline'' means 
``adios American jobs.''
  This is good legislation. It has gone through a compromise process. 
It passed out of the subcommittee with a good, strong, bipartisan vote.
  Let us remove a barrier to keeping and creating jobs here in America. 
Let us pass this rule. Let us pass this bill. And, in doing so, we will 
help keep and create jobs right here in America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield at 
this time 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak) who also has a district that has environmentally sensitive 
areas.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, as Congress gets ready for the Fourth of 
July recess, I am reminded again that we do not have a Federal price 
gouging law on the books. And just in time for the Fourth of July.
  In Marquette, Michigan, last night, gas prices were $2.89. When my 
constituents woke up this morning, it is now $3.09. Just in time for 
the Fourth of July.
  For almost a year now, we Democrats have been calling on the 
Republican leadership to allow a real gas price-gouging bill to be 
passed in the law. One hundred and thirty-five Members of this body 
have signed a discharge petition requesting that my legislation, the 
Federal Response to Energy Emergencies, the FREE Act, be brought to the 
floor for a vote. After continued lobbying from Democrats, Republicans 
finally introduced their own legislation, which was called ``price 
gouging,'' and it is price gouging in theme only, and that bill was 
passed by this body in May.
  Unlike the Republican price-gouging legislation, my legislation, the 
FREE Act, would specifically set guidelines for the Federal Trade 
Commission to use to define price gouging, including provisions that 
would make illegal unconscionable pricing, providing false information, 
and market manipulation.
  The FREE Act also contains a provision that would promote price 
transparency, helping the consumer to understand the information to 
know what gas and oil prices should be that would be fair and 
reasonable.
  The FREE Act would also apply to natural gas and propane. Neither 
natural gas nor propane is addressed in the Republican bill.
  Despite efforts to sugar-coat the Federal Trade Commission's recently 
released Investigation of Gasoline Price Manipulation and Post-Katrina 
Gasoline Price Increases, the FTA, the Federal Trade Commission, did 
find that, after Hurricane Katrina refiners, wholesalers, retailers 
charged significantly higher gas prices that were not attributable to 
either increased costs or international market trends.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are fed up. They know price gouging 
when they see it, and they are being gouged like my constituents in 
Marquette, Michigan, just today. The Federal Government has a 
responsibility to protect consumers from price gouging. Price-gouging 
legislation is long overdue.
  Congress needs to pass legislation to allow the FTC to prosecute 
price gouging. Our constituents are looking to us, to Congress, for 
relief. It is our duty to approve legislation that would provide that 
relief, to protect Americans from increased financial hardship that 
price gouging and high gas prices create, especially during the summer 
tourism months.
  Whether you support the Pombo bill or not, I encourage my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can consider the 
FREE Act, a real price-gouging bill that can provide relief for gas 
customers today.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule 
to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will 
take up legislation to do as Mr. Stupak just rightly said, stop price 
gouging at the gas pump and provide some immediate relief for the 
American consumer.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as we consider this bill today 
that further opens up our precious coastal resources to the oil 
industry, should we not also be talking about how those oil companies 
treat Americans at the gas pump? Should they be allowed to drill the 
oil that belongs to the American people and then turn around and sell 
it to us at unconscionable prices?
  They did not drill 3 years ago because the price of a barrel of oil 
was $30. Now it is $70, and they are ready to go drill. By that time, 
it will be $80, and then turn around and sell it to us at prices that 
are unconscionable.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will ask the House to take up 
H.R. 3936, Representative Stupak's bill.
  Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent 
consideration of H.R. 4761 and it will not affect any of the amendments 
that are in order under this rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to 
vote on something to bring real relief to the American people and not 
degrade the environment in our Outer Continental Shelf.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have certainly had a lively and spirited debate on this rule, and 
I am sure it will continue as we debate the legislation.
  I would like to remind Members that for 6 years we did not have a 
comprehensive national energy policy, and the result has been higher 
prices for consumers and businesses. This underlying legislation is one 
component that will help ease the burden on consumers and 
manufacturers, and we all look forward to future debates on a myriad of 
energy solutions so we are better prepared for our future.
  I see this as a jobs bill. I also see it as a helping hand to those 
seniors and those lower-income citizens who are having to pay the high 
cost of heating their homes and gasoline at the gas station.
  This bipartisan legislation received the vast majority of votes in 
the Committee on Resources, and I encourage all Members to support an 
improved energy policy for the future.
  I urge all Members of this fair rule and the underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

[[Page 13620]]



  Previous Question for H. Res. 897--Rule on H.R. 4761 The Deep Ocean 
                      Energy Resources Act of 2006

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec. __. Immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3936) 
     to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other 
     fuels during energy emergencies, and for other purposes. The 
     bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) 60 minutes of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Energy and 
     Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.''

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule * *  * When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________