Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Texas is batting .100 here today. I would like to thank the gentleman for improving the proposed composition of the council. I thought your points about the healing that can come from wounded warriors being in these precious natural areas in our country is very well taken, and I appreciate that. Not to create any discord at the moment, but there was another amendment that wasn't allowed by the Rules Committee, offered by the gentleman from California, Representative Ruiz, which is in the purview of the gentleman whose bill is on the floor today, which would have waived recreation fees for veterans with disabilities, and I hope we can revisit that issue in the future. I congratulate the gentleman on his improvement and his recognition of our veterans.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration is retreating from previous demands of strong international environmental protections in order to reach agreement on a sweeping Pacific trade deal that is a pillar of President Obama's strategic shift to Asia, according to documents obtained by WikiLeaks, environmentalists and people close to the contentious trade talks. The negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would be one of the world's biggest trade agreements, have exposed deep rifts over environmental policy between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations. As it stands now, the documents, viewed by The New York Times, show that the disputes could undo key global environmental protections. The environmental chapter of the trade deal has been among the most highly disputed elements of negotiations in the pact. Participants in the talks, which have dragged on for three years, had hoped to complete the deal by the end of 2013. Environmentalists said that the draft appears to signal that the United States will retreat on a variety of environmental protections-- including legally binding pollution control requirements and logging regulations and a ban on harvesting sharks' fins--to advance a trade deal that is a top priority for Mr. Obama. Ilana Solomon, the director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, said the draft omits crucial language ensuring that increased trade will not lead to further environmental destruction. ``It rolls back key standards set by Congress to ensure that the environment chapters are legally enforceable, in the same way the commercial parts of free-trade agreements are,'' Ms. Solomon said. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Wildlife Fund have been following the negotiations closely and are expected to release a report on Wednesday criticizing the draft. American officials countered that they had put forward strong environmental proposals in the pact. ``It is an uphill battle, but we're pushing hard,'' said Michael Froman, the United States trade representative. ``We have worked closely with the environmental community from the start and have made our commitment clear.'' Mr. Froman said he continued to pursue a robust, enforceable environmental standard that he said would be stronger than those in previous free-trade agreements. The draft documents are dated Nov. 24 and there has been one meeting since then. The documents consist of the environmental chapter as well as a ``Report from the Chairs,'' which offers an unusual behind-the-scenes look into the divisive trade negotiations, until now shrouded in secrecy. The report indicates that the United States has been pushing for tough environmental provisions, particularly legally binding language that would provide for sanctions against participating countries for environmental violations. The United States is also insisting that the nations follow existing global environmental treaties. But many of those proposals are opposed by most or all of the other Pacific Rim nations working on the deal, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Peru. Developing Asian countries, in particular, have long resisted outside efforts to enforce strong environmental controls, arguing that they could hurt their growing economies. The report appears to indicate that the United States is losing many of those fights, and bluntly notes the rifts: ``While the chair sought to accommodate all the concerns and red lines that were identified by parties regarding the issues in the text, many of the red lines for some parties were in direct opposition to the red lines expressed by other parties.'' As of now, the draft environmental chapter does not require the nations to follow legally binding environmental provisions or other global environmental treaties. The text notes only, for example, that pollution controls could vary depending on a country's ``domestic circumstances and capabilities.'' In addition, the draft does not contain clear requirements for a ban on shark finning, which is the practice of capturing sharks and cutting off their fins--commonly used in shark-fin soup--and throwing back the sharks to die. The dish is a delicacy in many of the Asian negotiating countries. At this point the draft says that the countries ``may include'' bans ``as appropriate'' on such practices. Earlier pacts like the North American Free Trade Agreement included only appendices, which called for cooperation on environmental issues but not legally binding terms or requirements. Environmentalists derided them as ``green window dressing.'' But in May 2007, President George W. Bush struck an environmental deal with Democrats in the Senate and the House as he sought to move a free-trade agreement with Peru through Congress. In what became known as the May 10 Agreement, Democrats got Mr. Bush to agree that all American free-trade deals would include a chapter with environmental provisions, phrased in the same legally binding language as chapters on labor, agriculture and intellectual property. The Democrats also insisted that the chapter require nations to recognize existing global environmental treaties. Since then, every American free-trade deal has included that strong language, although all have been between the United States and only one other country. It appears to be much tougher to negotiate environmental provisions in a 12-nation agreement. ``Bilateral negotiations are a very different thing,'' said Jennifer Haverkamp, the former head of the United States trade representative's environmental office. ``Here, if the U.S. is the only one pushing for this, it's a real uphill battle to get others to agree if they don't like it.'' But business groups say the deal may need to ease up. ``There are some governments with developing economies that will need more time and leeway,'' said Cal Cohen, president of the Emergency Committee for American Trade, a group of about 100 executives and trade associations that lobbies the United States trade negotiator on the deal. ``When you think about the evolution of labor provisions, you realize how many centuries the development of high standards took.'' Since the trade talks began, lawmakers and advocacy groups have assailed the negotiators for keeping the process secret, and WikiLeaks has been among the most critical voices. The environment chapter is the third in a series of Trans-Pacific Partnership documents released by WikiLeaks. In November, the group posted the draft chapter on intellectual property. In December, the site posted documents detailing disagreements between the negotiating parties on other issues. The site is expected to release more documents as the negotiations unfold.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank one of my constituents, Laura Mason Caldwell of Eugene, Oregon, for her tireless advocacy on behalf of breast cancer patients. In large part thanks to Laura's work, we have a new law in Oregon that requires doctors to inform patients in writing if they have dense breast tissue. This is a small change that could have a major benefit. Dense breast tissue has been associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and routine mammograms are less likely to effectively detect tumors in women who have dense breast tissue. Had Laura been informed about these risk factors early on, she may have been able to catch her cancer before it spread. Oregonians now have that information, but women in many other states do not. For that reason House leadership needs to bring up the bipartisan Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act, H.R. 3404, for a vote. Passing H.R. 3404 will make sure that women across the country have access to the information necessary to detect breast cancer early when it is most treatable.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 3811 with significant reservations. There is no question that Americans must be quickly notified if their personal information on Healthcare.gov or a state exchange website is compromised. Current law accomplishes this without a hard and fast deadline. H.R. 3811 aims to add a hard deadline for notification, and that is why I voted for it. Unfortunately the bill is poorly drafted. H.R. 3811 fails to provide any delay for public disclosure if immediate disclosure would derail a federal investigation. Americans have a right to know if their personal information has been stolen or misused, but it is also critical that our federal law enforcement agencies be able to hunt down and prosecute those responsible for a data breach. Republicans need to work with the Administration and Democrats in Congress to come up with a bipartisan solution that makes sure that enforcement can do their job and establishes prompt but reasonable disclosure requirements to protect consumers.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Speaker, on the 50th anniversary, the Republicans just got it a little bit wrong. The war on poverty, they thought it was the war for poverty as they are dismantling one by one the most important programs that help lift and keep people out of poverty, like extended unemployment insurance. Let me read a few subjects here. Roseburg, Oregon. A 61-year-old woman working since she was 14: I don't know if it is my age, but I am having great difficulty finding a job. A 62-year-old woman from Coos Bay, Oregon, went back to her former employer and said: ``Are you hiring?'' He said: ``You can't be serious. Not at this time of year. Come back in the spring.'' Unfortunately, she can't make it until spring. A Eugene veteran. A two-income family, but she lost her job: Since I haven't been able to find a job, we are close to losing our house and declaring bankruptcy. I am actively seeking employment every day. Then we go to Springfield, Oregon, my hometown. We have a woman whose son is in the Army. She says: I can't find a job. I have been looking. I have to give notice to my landlord and become homeless. Then Corvallis, Oregon. A 54-year-old man. He had been working his whole life since 17. In his last job, he was there for 13 years, but he can't find a job and he is going to be forced into homelessness. Then, finally, another gentleman from Springfield, Oregon: $330 a week I received wasn't much, but it helped keep me from having to go to food banks and asking for help. We went just before Christmas. The food bank had run out of food. I have to decide now whether to buy medicine or food or heat my house. That is the legacy of the cruel cuts of these Republicans. These are people, hardworking Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and they want to work. If they fall into poverty, they lose their home, they lose their cell service, their telephone, their car. How are they ever going to get a job? We need to help them now before they fall even more off the cliff. Extend unemployment benefits today as a celebration that we, as the American people, do not tolerate poverty in this country.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the arctic vortex blast coincides with the return of Congress to Washington, D.C.; wind chills well below zero. Now, no surprise, a number of my Republican colleagues who are dyed- in-the-wool climate change deniers, and some of the blathering idiots on talk shows said, Whoa, look at this. Arctic vortex proves that there is no climate change; there is no global warming. It is all a hoax. Well, I would like to begin this new year with a little optimism, and hope Congress will take on big challenges, some of the biggest challenges of our time, including climate change, but the bizarre theories of the climate change deniers, and the excuses they will use, probably preclude that. Now, given the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change will spur more extreme weather events, yes, including record cold and arctic vortexes, with shifts in the jet stream, and droughts and a whole host of other things--we had about the driest year on record in the Western U.S. this year, in Oregon and California. This is a serious challenge. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, this Congress, because of denial, is pretty much incapable of dealing with this challenge. Luckily, we do have an alternative, and that is the President's Climate Action Plan, and the fact that the EPA has been found to have the authority by the Supreme Court of the United States to regulate carbon emissions as pollution. Following through on the President's Climate Action Plan is critical to show the rest of the world that the United States can again lead on this issue, and we are serious about it, and use that leverage to bring other countries into line. Now, the EU and others are dealing with it, but there is total denial in China. Back in 2005, the U.S. and China emitted about the same amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, about 7 million metric tons. Five years later, the U.S. is down a little bit. China is up to 10 million and growing every day. China must be part of this. Now, how are we going to get countries like China and others lined up on this? Well, I think we have got a strong tool. We can demand reductions. We can demand that trade agreements with these nations will level the playing field in many ways. We have ignored labor and the environment in many of these trade agreements. We can't put U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage when they are dealing with climate change issues and carbon dioxide emissions and the Chinese aren't, because we live, unfortunately, on the same planet as the Chinese, and they are destroying the world's climate very, very quickly. So, even if we take strong measures here, we have got to force those measures on other countries. Now, I think that the trade agreements are an ideal place to do this. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is of two minds on this issue. I have been acting very forcefully to protect the President's authority to regulate carbon emissions and encourage the EPA to go ahead with strong measures. The Republicans are attempting to overturn and preempt that authority, but it does exist. Unfortunately, in the Office of the Special Trade Representative, appointed by the President of the United States, they are busily undermining the President's climate change agenda. Yes, they are acting at complete odds with the Environmental Protection Agency. The European Union has adopted measures to reduce the global greenhouse gas emissions from all fuels and transportation fuels included by 10 percent within a relatively short period of time. One of those provisions would score the dirtiest sources of fuels as the way they should be, for emitting more carbon. That would mean there would be a penalty against oil, gasoline, diesel extracted from tar sands-- the dirtiest, most polluting way to obtain oil that anyone knows of. Now, the European Union is moving ahead, but now the President's Special Trade Representative, appointed by the President, somehow is saying that the EU shouldn't do this; the U.S. objects to that, and they are in league with Canada in attempting to overturn these steps by the European Union. The President needs to rein in his Special Trade Representative, and we need to protect and encourage the President to deal with this very serious issue.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the chairman for his tremendous efforts on this. I believe this is an improvement over the SHIELD Act, which Jason Chaffetz and I authored a couple of years ago. Here is the thing: we have got a nationwide protection racket going on here. It is a little more sophisticated than the gang that says, Hey, we are going to smash the windows of your store unless you pay us 50 bucks a week. What you have here are hugely sophisticated, well-funded patent assertion entities across America; and they did file 62 percent of the patent litigation, not 5 percent, as we heard earlier asserted by one of my colleagues. The payoff here is that if you pay us $50,000, we won't drag you through endless court proceedings that will cost you $1 million or more. All they have to do is assert something very vague, such as we own this patent and you are infringing on it. That is it. That is all they have to assert. It is up to the small business to figure out what that infringement is, which means they have to hire attorneys, they have to go through discovery, which is an incredibly lengthy and expensive process. I found out about this in my district while visiting a small software firm with less than 100 people that was about to launch a new product, and the owner told me it is going to be delayed because I had to hire new employees to launch this product, but I have got a shadow over the business right now. I said, What is that? The owner said he had been sued over a patent troll. They are claiming that this very simple, common thing that is part of their software is their patent and they must pay them $200,000 to make them go away. He said, I can't do an expansion and $200,000. His company can't be named because these patent trolls are so aggressive. When NPR ran a story about this--and one company was featured with an egregious story of one of these patent trolls, one of these blackmailers. They went public, and then they immediately got a pile of new assertions on them by patent trolls. The patent trolls have lots of attorneys, lots of money. It is a very lucrative extortion racket to go out and do this. Some companies will fight. EMC out of Massachusetts fought. The claims were totally specious, but they fought. This is what it takes. They had to go to this one district in Texas where all these cases are heard. They had to go to one hotel and rent it for their team. The electricity wasn't adequate. They didn't have broadband. They had to install all that so they could be there and defend themselves because no one goes there to defend themselves against these patent trolls. It is too expensive. They just pay the bribes. They went there, and it cost them over $2 million. The jury was out less than 10 minutes because it was a totally specious claim. Most things don't go that far because most people have to pay because they can't afford the disruption or the litigation; or other times after they are halfway through paying for the litigation, the patent assertion entities drop their false claims. Some people are saying we are closing the courthouse door, we are barring litigation here. In fact, the standard is no reasonable basis in law and fact. Universities and innovators don't bring those kinds of suits. Patent trolls do. Stop the patent trolls.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, now here, a group has done an assessment of the various State regulatory regimes, and as you can see, they vary tremendously. They think that the best is Maryland. There are others gathered toward the top, the middle, and then way down here at the bottom, you have Virginia. Some States require comprehensive pressure testing of the casing. That is essential, particularly if you are going through the water table to get to the gas. If you get the leaks, then you destroy the water table. Some States don't require that. Some States require that you contain the fluids that come back up, the waste products laden with toxic materials not only from the fluids but from the ground itself. Other States allow it to be in open pits. Some States require disclosure of the chemicals that are used. Now how can you say there has been no contamination when there are contaminated wells in many places across the U.S.? Some of it has to do with baseline contamination with arsenic or other things, but if you don't know what they are sticking into the ground near your well or water table, you can't track what it is that was a baseline before and/ or what is pollution that has resulted. We don't know that. So why not require disclosure of the chemicals? We are having a gold rush right now for fracking. It is not exactly like this is going to have an impact if we put in place a reasonable floor of Federal regulations. One Macondo, just one Macondo in this industry, one well that blows out in a large aquifer or some other disaster, and this whole thing is going to come grinding to a halt, and then you are going to see a strong push-back for strong regulations. Quite frankly, I don't think that the regulations being proposed by this administration are stringent enough for a floor. They are probably above maybe some of these people on the bottom, but they are way below some of the best-performing States here. Why should it be different State to State to State? What is it? Do we want to protect the above ground resources and not have open pits? Well, under this bill, if you have an open pit, it is on a flyway, migratory birds land there and die quickly, the Federal Government can't do anything about it. If that State allows open pits, we can't do anything about that. That is up to that State, and that is a fact. A number of States allow open pits. We should have a regulatory regime where the Federal Government, on its lands, which belong to all the people of the United States, sets a reasonable floor for regulations. If a State like Maryland wants to go above good, solid regulations, well, then, good. But if someone else is a bad actor, and they want to drag it down, and they want to have open pits, they don't want to test the casing, they don't want to do other things that are absolutely essential to protect resources, then they can do that on Federal lands? It is bad enough that they are allowing people to do it on private lands and do it on their State lands. But these are Federal lands. We are going to require and should require a higher bar to protect the public, to protect the environment, to protect these precious resources and do this responsibly.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for the question. It was done by an advocacy group called Resources for the Future. It is kind of like your study that says it will cost $350 million, which was done by industry. It is an advocacy group. You have an industry advocacy group. We have an environmental advocacy group.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I think will help deliver on some of the promises being made here today. This would say that natural gas produced on Federal lands, on Federal lands only, would not be allowed to be exported from the United States. Now, the principal argument we are hearing on the Republican side is that, by adopting their standard, which they say is the states' rights standards--I have already raised concerns about that on fracking--that it will encourage yet more development on Federal lands, increase our domestic energy supply, and free us from the OPEC cartel. Okay. But that won't work if we produce energy on Federal lands and then we export it to other countries like China or Japan or elsewhere. The Energy Information Administration has done a study. They say there will be a tipping point in the export of liquefied natural gas where we will create a world market; we will be subject to the world price. That means that there would be a dramatic increase in gas prices here in the United States both for residential, factory use, and as an input for manufacturing fertilizer or other sorts of manufacturing. So, suddenly, we would see an advantage which we have only very, very recently developed. We have manufacturing companies bringing production back to the U.S. because of our plentiful natural gas and saying it is to our advantage, our energy is cheaper here, our feed stocks are cheaper here. This is a tremendous advantage for us, and they are producing here and exporting finished goods. If we begin to export in great volume the raw material, the feed stock, the natural gas through a liquefied process, then suddenly it will be we are in the international market. It means a dramatic run-up in natural gas prices. We lose our competitive advantage for domestic manufacturing, and we are back where we are with oil, despite the idea that if we produce more oil we will somehow become free of OPEC or other countries around the world. The fact is that oil is traded as an international commodity, and no matter how much we produce here, it is going to be priced internationally at the highest price being paid in the international market. That is not so today for natural gas. But if we export enough of it and create enough capacity to export it, that will become the case. So this would have no impact on gas produced on State lands, Indian lands, private lands. It just simply says that that approximately 15 percent of the natural gas being produced on Federal lands could not be exported, must be used domestically to keep prices down here at home to advantage manufacturers here at home. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. To the gentleman's point, it is absolutely clear. It says ``gas.'' It does not say products derived from gas, fertilizer, or manufactured plastic or anything else. It just says the gas must be sold here in the United States. He admits and says that it will make it less valuable. That means he is looking at increasing the price of natural gas here to accommodate exports overseas to put us in a world market. Then we are, yet again, screwed, just like we have been with oil for years. We are back to the point where we are competing in an international market. We lose international competitiveness. We lose more manufacturing. This is pretty transparent here. I mean, the industry is pressuring, I am sure, on their side of the aisle, saying, Oh, my God, don't do that. Don't say that that 15 percent of the gas produced on Federal lands, belonging to the taxpayers of United States, has to be used here to help keep down our prices for our homes, for our manufacturing, to give us a competitive world advantage. Let's do it like all our other free trade, which is bankrupting the country and exported millions of manufacturing jobs over the last few years. He talked about it again. Globally decided free market. He used those words. If we go to a globally decided free market in the export of natural gas, we lose the advantage, and their basic premise that this will lower prices for Americans is stood on its head. If you don't adopt this amendment, if you vote against it, you are voting to increase the price of natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration, for all consumers and manufacturers and the downstream products from those in the United States of America. So, if you really want to lower the price to consumers, vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I was listening with interest to some of the statements made earlier in the debate about the administration deliberately restraining the oil and gas industry in this country. Actually, the facts belie those statements. The Federal lands oil production is growing faster than that on private lands--plus 30, plus 35. Obviously, they start with a larger base, but still it is growing faster. So that hardly shows any deliberate attempts by the Obama administration to limit this production. And, again, Republicans talk about that the President had not leased an adequate amount of land. But if you look, these little photos are of former President George Bush, and when the lines start to go up, these are from the current President, Barack Obama, and onshore oil production on Federal lands is up 35 percent. So let's deal with what the real intent here is. The Obama administration has an all-of-the-above strategy. They are trying to produce these resources responsibly. The other side of the aisle would have us believe that environmental laws and other restrictions and an intentional campaign by the Obama administration are making us vulnerable to foreign influences. Actually, our imports were at the lowest level in recent history in the last year. We are producing more and more of our own oil and are headed toward self-sufficiency. But we also have to deal with climate change, and we also have to deal with prices to consumers. Now, with this legislation, we are actually celebrating Thanksgiving a week early. I would call the bill a turkey. But it is not just a turkey; it is leftovers from Turkey Day, because we have actually passed this legislation previously, and it went nowhere previously, as will this legislation here today. But they want to pretend that this will somehow benefit consumers and that somehow there is a campaign by the Obama administration to restrain the supply. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will have an amendment later. If we want to drive down prices at the pump tomorrow by 70 cents, it is pretty simple: just stop the speculation on Wall Street. But I will talk about that more later. There are a number of provisions in this bill that are egregious. I don't have time to go into all of them, but there are a few things. As I mentioned earlier, basically do away with environmental protections, muzzle the public's voice in terms of them appealing decisions by the distant Federal Government to develop in their backyard or next door, you know, to elevate oil and gas drilling to the predominant use on any Federal public lands--yes, predominant use over and above hunting, fishing, recreation. Anything else, oil and gas is predominant. Now, the President also said, You know what? I think that we ought to go out and look at these parcels before we lease them. That is something they didn't do in the Bush era. We have 25-year-old land use plans at many of these agencies. They are understaffed. They are behind. They haven't revised their land use plans in a long time. A lot of things have happened in the last 25 years, and it might be that there is now a ski resort right next to an area that was previously available or was potentially available for oil and gas leasing. The Obama administration said we ought to go out and look to see how it can impact other activities that have come to the floor in the last 25 years. They are being criticized for that. Now, that does take a little bit of time, but they are saying, hey, some States are allowing private lands to go forward in 10 days. These aren't private lands. These are the lands of the people of the United States of America. I think a little more due diligence is in order. We don't want to mimic a State that says, Oh, you want to drill there? Okay. Here you go. No one gets to say anything about it. It is your land. You go right ahead. Then, this is amazing. This is kind of a fun math issue. They say that the industry can nominate land, which is the current law, but they are saying the government must lease 25 percent of whatever the industry chooses to nominate in a given year. So there are 130 million acres available for oil and gas leasing in the United States, predominantly in the West. So in the first year, the industry nominates 130 million acres. That means the Interior Department has to offer 32 million acres to lease. Now, next year, well, we have only got 100 million left, so they would get 25 percent of that. That is 25 million acres. As you can figure it out, we are sort of infinitely headed toward zero here. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is a scientist. He can probably figure it out better. I don't know if we would ever get to zero. But it would be in ever and ever smaller increments that we were leasing here. And yet there are 25 million acres that the industry has under lease that they haven't yet developed, but they could get this astonishing increase.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, according to MIT, then, the head of Exxon Mobil perjured himself under oath at the Senate and the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis is wrong because they have an in-depth study not paid for by the industry that says, indeed, speculation is a major factor. Here is over 1 month where you see the price vary by up to $11 per day.Now, you tell me that the supply changed by $11 worth in a day and then, whoops, the next day it is back down? Then, Ben Bernanke said he saw a further decline coming and the industry tanked oil futures by $6. This is pure speculation. Don't defend it. Support the amendment and give the American people real relief from high gas prices that are unnecessary.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, much of the majority's argument here is based on providing relief to the American consumer, and this amendment would provide a real and potentially immediate relief to American consumers. Two years ago in the Senate, in the spring when we were having a big run-up in oil prices, they had the head of Exxon Mobil testify. He said, Hey, don't blame us for those high prices. He said, Blame Wall Street. He basically said that 60 cents to 70 cents per gallon at the pump is going to Wall Street speculators. So if we want to provide real relief to the American people, we need to rein in speculation. But the Republicans only have one watchdog out there--the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. They are supposed to set up position limits for nonparticipants, people just speculating on price, not people actually utilizing these commodities. That hasn't been done, and they are otherwise under relenting attack, including a $10 million cut in their budget by the Republicans. So if we really wanted to do something to help consumers, we would pass this amendment, get a few more watchdogs downtown, put in place those position limits on speculators, and next May you wouldn't see prices run up $1, $1.25, $1.50 a gallon like we see every May. That has to do with two things: refinery manipulation by the industry and speculation by Wall Street. We are not addressing either of those things. Today, we are talking about putting more land up for leasing. And today, we have a total of 35,397,010 acres of active leases, and the nonproducing leases are 30,019,256, i.e., that is about 85 percent of the leases that are nonproducing leases. They have got plenty of places to go now. It is in their interest to constrain supply somewhere along the way. It hasn't been on the side of production because we are exporting crude oil. We are still exporting gasoline, even. It has been on the refinery side and has been speculation by Wall Street that has driven up the price. I urge adoption of this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I was thinking of bringing a map of all the leasable land, but it would be difficult to produce. But you can get it in your imagination. So let's deal with the real problems before us. If we are going to produce energy on Federal lands, make sure there is no real conflict. Let's keep the multiple use concept. I think most members of the public support that, not give oil and gas a predominant use. Let's also keep in mind that we have to look at alternative energy development on Federal lands so that we can deal with climate change, which some of us believe in. This warmed-over leftover turkey proposal will pass the House, of course, but that will be the last that anyone hears of it. Happy Thanksgiving.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on July 27, 2013 we celebrated the 60th anniversary of the end of the Korean War. By signing the armistice agreement, the border between the Koreas near the 38th Parallel was established. It was in the wake of this armistice that Holt International Children's Services first began its compassionate work, and today continues to be a leader in the field of adoption and child welfare issues. Harry and Bertha Holt of Eugene, Oregon were from humble means--Harry a lumberjack and a farmer and Bertha a nurse. In 1954, the Holts went to a small high school auditorium to view a film about Amerasian children living in South Korean orphanages. Moved by the film, their faith and a firm belief that all children deserve permanent, loving homes, the Holts began their lifelong mission in 1955 to revolutionize intercountry adoption. At the time, there were no laws allowing children to immigrate from one country to another for the purpose of adoption. Overcoming legal and cultural barriers, Mr. and Mrs. Holt sought families for children orphaned by the Korean War. The Holts persuaded Oregon United States Senator Richard Neuberger to introduce legislation titled ``The Relief of Certain Korean War Orphans.'' The legislation became law on August 11, 1955, enabling the Holts to adopt eight Korean War orphans: Joseph Han, Mary Chae, Helen Chan, Paul Kim, Betty Rhee, Robert Chae, Christine Lee and Nathanial Chae. With this act of love and the founding of their agency, Holt International Children's Services, two farmers from rural Oregon pioneered international adoption. Today, Holt International strives to uphold Harry and Bertha's vision to find loving homes for children regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender. Holt is committed to finding families for children, not children for families, an important distinction that sets the tone and priorities for Holt. Since the 1955 act, Holt has placed 49,630 children from 31 countries with families in all fifty states. As the oldest intercountry adoption agency, Holt is the only organization that has more than three generations of adult adoptees. Holt continues to play an active and vital role in establishing policy and practice for intercountry adoption. In 1993, Holt adoptees Susan Cox and David Kim were members of the U.S. delegation to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, an agreement which sets international standards for intercountry adoption that protects the child, the birth family and the adoptive family. Later, in 2008, Holt was a leading advocate in ensuring the U.S. ratify the Hague treaty. Holt believes that adoption is a life long experience and has been at the forefront of developing post adoption services to ensure that adoptees grow and develop to their fullest potential. In addition to these monumental accomplishments, Holt International has become much more than an adoption agency. When considering a child's future, Holt always keeps the child's best interest at the forefront of every decision. For some children adoption is the only option, but Holt realizes that it is not the first option for children without families. Holt believes that it is best if children can stay with their birth family. Over the years, Holt has worked to develop and maintain programs overseas to give orphaned, abandoned and vulnerable children safe and nurturing environments in which to grow and thrive. These overseas programs include initiatives directed at Family Preservation, Nutrition Support, Child and Maternal Health, Income Generation, Assisting Children with Special Needs, and Shaping and Establishing Intercountry Child Welfare Systems. Through these initiatives, Holt impacts approximately thirty thousand children each year and helps to ensure that children at all stages of need are provided for in an effort to avoid the separation of families. In November, as we celebrate National Adoption Month, it is appropriate to recognize Holt International Children's Services for its diligent efforts and accomplishments in the field of child-welfare and intercountry adoption that have impacted thousands of children in the United States and around the world.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the chairman for his generosity, and I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I think there is substantial agreement here in that we need to put more investment into critical water infrastructure projects. This bill begins to do that. We want to do it in the most thoughtful way possible. Some of these projects will alter local or regional environmental resources forever, sometimes to mitigate, sometimes, perhaps, not so much if they are not well thought out. Many of these projects are designed to last for 100 years or more. It certainly would behoove us to spend a little bit of time fully vetting these projects before we authorize them and move forward. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.