[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[House]
[Page 11063]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS PROGRAM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, this House will take up a 
critical piece of legislation, H.R. 3058. This legislation would extend 
the secure rural schools program for 4 years. If this legislation is 
not adopted, we expect that more than 7,000 teachers in rural districts 
across the United States of America will be laid off. We expect that in 
more than 600 counties critical services such as sheriffs deputy 
patrols, jail deputies who perform services in the jail, and other 
critical emergency services will end. Road funds will be impacted in 
terms of critical road and bridge maintenance. This is must-pass 
legislation.
  But we also recognize that the United States of America is in a 
fiscal bind here. So the Democrats have reimposed something pretty 
simple most Americans live by called pay-as-you-go. So we had to figure 
out a way to pay for this. We've gone through a whole ream of 
proposals, and we've found one that works, and I think in this time of 
record-high oil and gas prices, it's particularly appropriate.
  We would have in place a renegotiation of existing leases which 
omitted a price trigger at $35 a barrel or impose a conservation 
resource fee if those companies would renegotiate. A number of good 
citizen companies have renegotiated, including Shell, BP and Conoco. A 
number of other not-so-good citizen companies, those which are 
extorting incredible amounts of money from the American consumer, such 
as ExxonMobil, have refused to renegotiate, and they're trying to take 
their unintended windfall.
  Now, many on the other side of the aisle are going to say this is 
unconstitutional. Well, I would urge my Republican colleagues to read 
the CRS Report for Congress, No. RL 33974. It addresses those issues in 
depth. It's not a taking. It doesn't violate the doctrine of 
unconstitutional conditions. It doesn't violate substantive due process 
and equal protection. And it doesn't cause a breach of contract.
  In fact, CRS finds that the government, but of course not this 
administration, the Bush administration, may have a cause of its own 
under a section called unilateral and mutual mistake.
  Everyone admits these provisions, these triggers are supposed to be 
in the bill. At $35 a barrel, that's about $100 a barrel ago, the 
subsidies were supposed to go away for these oil companies. They didn't 
because some bureaucrat messed up. So, in fact, the preponderance of 
evidence is that the government has a cause of action to reinstate 
lawful charges against those oil companies. This bill would do that, 
and it would assure the future of more than 600 counties, hundreds of 
school districts, 7,000 teachers.
  If we don't pass this, if you lean on the slender read, if you're 
concerned about the wealth of the oil companies, I refer you to 
ExxonMobil's and others' most recent statements. I refer you to the 
Wall Street Journal to look at the price of oil hovering in the upper 
$120 a barrel when this fee was supposed to come in at $35 a barrel.
  You can't lean on the unconstitutional read, but if you do want to 
side with the oil companies over and above rural schools, public 
safety, maintenance of roads, bridges and highways in rural counties 
across America, then you will side with the oil companies in this vote 
tomorrow.
  I hope a majority of my colleagues join me on the right side of this 
issue.

                          ____________________