Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6524.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6524, a bill to authorize the administrator of General Services to transfer a parcel of real property in Eastlake, Ohio, to the city of Eastlake. Further, the bill authorizes the transfer of real property in the Koochiching Army Reserve Training Center in Koochiching County, Minnesota, to the County of Koochiching. The city of Eastlake will compensate the General Services $30,000 for the real property transfer and the County of Koochiching also will compensate the General Services $30,000 for the real property transfer. The General Services Administration will forward to the Secretary of the Army the net proceeds for the transfer. The parcel of real property in Eastlake is an approximate 10-acre site, which includes the John F. Kennedy Senior Citizen Center. In 1964, the city of Eastlake purchased the property and, consistent with the deed restriction, used the site for recreational uses for over 40 years. The bill will lift the deed restrictions and thus allow the city to use the property for economic development purposes. The senior center has been moved to a better location. Further, the city has purchased over 17 acres for parks and recreational uses, increasing the overall acreage devoted to open space and parkland. The first parcel in Minnesota is 5\1/2\ acres, which includes the U.S. Army Armory Building, which will pay to have the roof replaced, install a new boiler and heating system, and make extensive repairs to the ceiling. The Army reported the property excess in January 2006 and GSA accepted the report of excess in February 2006. GSA screened the property with other Federal agencies, but there were no expressions of interest. Likewise, no expressions of interest from homeless shelter providers were received by GSA. Mr. Speaker, I commend both Chairman Oberstar and my colleague, Congressman LaTourette, for working on these essential pieces of legislation and for ensuring compensation will be made to the General Services, and the Federal taxpayers will be fully protected. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thought that we could have this issue resolved before we came to the floor. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has to actually contract for a survey, which, through the Federal procurement process, takes a while. But I can assure the gentleman that there are a number of other bills I'm familiar with, mostly under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee, that have had similar problems, and these issues were resolved before the interagency transfer was finalized and took place. That just is sort of logical; they need to know what they're transferring, and they need to have a legal description and map. So I assure the gentleman, to the best of my ability as a member of the legislative branch, that the administrative branch will fulfill their duties in this matter. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6370.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Oregon Surplus Federal Land Act requires the Commandant of the Coast Guard to transfer the Cape Arago Light Station and the surrounding area in Coos County, Oregon, in my congressional district, to the Secretary of the Interior to hold in trust for the benefit of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians. Under this bill, the Confederated Tribes will assume responsibility for maintenance of the light station and must provide reasonable public access. I would also like to point out that H.R. 6370 leaves it to the Secretary of the Interior and the Commandant of the Coast Guard to determine the exact amount of land that will be transferred and to develop the appropriate maps. This body has passed similar bills in the past. H.R. 6370 clearly leaves all authority of the transfer and trust with the relevant agencies. The Coast Guard and the Coos County Commissioners support the transfer. And this bill will put an historic piece of land to good use while protecting and preserving its cultural significance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, we are going to give the Republicans another chance today. They have been standing up for Big Oil this week and their obscene profits, but we are going to give them a chance one more time. Twice they have killed legislation on the floor of the House to rein in energy speculators. Now they are creating this fantasy that George Bush lifting the moratorium on offshore oil drilling drove down the price of oil. Well, no. Actually, the price of oil started to drop when we first debated reining in energy speculation on the floor of the House. It had already dropped considerably before Bush lifted the moratorium. Oil 10 years out is doing nothing for this year's speculation. Going after the speculators by releasing oil from the SPR and breaking their backs, or just reining them in with regulation, which this administration hates, which has brought about the crash on Wall Street, will bring much more immediate relief to the American consumers. If we rein in speculation, then we won't see these obscene run-ups again next year around Memorial Day. $600 billion of speculative money flooded into that market. When it started flowing out, the price of oil dropped. Rein in the speculators. Come on, GOP; stand up with us and take on Wall Street.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. The oil and gas industry contributed $166 million to the Republicans since 1990, 75 percent of their political contributions. Fact: When President Bush took office, gas cost $1.47 a gallon. Today gas costs $3.79 a gallon in my district. Fact: In 2002, the oil companies made $30 billion in profits. In 2008, it's projected they will make an unbelievable record $160 billion in profits, every penny of that extracted from American consumers and American small businesses and borrowed from overseas, putting us in huge trouble. The oil companies took care of their Republican cronies and the Republicans legislated on their behalf. When they controlled everything, the House, the White House and the Senate, they passed the so-called energy bill. It took them 5 years to write it. And they passed it. We're living with the consequences, which is the huge increase in profits and the huge increase in prices to consumers. The choice is clear. Do we pass a bill written by Democrats who are not beholden to Big Oil, or do we pass another Republican bill, those who legislated this mess in the first place? Do we break our dependence on fossil fuels and mandate renewal energy, or do we ignore the ravages of global warming, drill, dig, burn and borrow our Nation to debt and dust? Today I will vote for energy independence, sustainability and affordable energy prices. Many of my Republican colleagues will vote yet again for bigger oil company profits. Congratulations to the Grand Old Oil Party. They're very consistent.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, the Grand Old Oil Party has a case of collective amnesia. They would hope that the American people will share in their amnesia. The American people should forget that for 6 years they controlled everything, the House, the White House and the Congress. And for 6 years they labored and they brought forth the Bush-Cheney energy policy. I voted against it, as did most Democrats. We said it would make us even more dependent upon Saudi Arabia--one of the President's best friends here, the King of Saudi Arabia--and it has. It has worked exactly as they designed. Now they're born again into caring about other forms of energy and energy independence and American consumers. It's just a smoke screen to cover for their continued addiction to the contributions of the oil industry and to fighting for the oil industry to continue that addiction. We're bringing forward a bill to break that dependence, to break the enslavement to OPEC, and to move this country toward true energy independence on domestic resources and new technologies and jobs. I don't think anybody believes that they really care about the American consumers.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. This bill would also reform royalties. It would end the party. The Minerals Management Service under the Bush administration was swapping oil or something for royalties, or maybe it was sex, drugs and rock and roll. This bill would reform that process. This bill would bring back integrity, fiscal responsibility, and give us a sustainable, renewable and cleaner energy future. Vote for a new future, not the same old Big Oil, Grand Oil Party plan.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. If you listen to the Republicans here today, you would think that Detroit can't make more efficient automobiles, something the Republicans blocked for 12 years, which we did within the first year of taking back power here in the House. They are saying that our electric generators can't produce 15 percent, one-sixth of their energy from renewable resources. In the United States of America in the 21st century, we can't get 15 percent from renewables? We have to rely on fossil fuels? Do you believe that they say that the oil companies can't afford to pay the American taxpayers fair royalties for the nonrenewable resources they are extracting from our Federal land? If you do believe all that, then you probably believe that they do have a plan for independence and energy sustainability for the future. Now the gentleman there spoke earlier, the gentleman from Washington, a good friend, about a fig leaf hiding an embarrassing fact or problem. There is one huge fig leaf over this debate today, and here is what is under the fig leaf: George Bush, holding hands with the King of Saudi Arabia. Now the Bush administration, last time I checked, same party affiliation as that side of the aisle, the Republicans, led by Vice President Cheney, last time I checked, a member of the Grand Old Oil Party, wrote an energy bill in secret. They pushed for it for 5 years. When the Republicans controlled everything, the House, the Senate and the White House, they jammed through their energy bill over the objections of many on our side of the aisle who said wait, no, this isn't a forward-looking energy policy. It's going to make us actually more dependent on imported oil, and it's going to make us more dependent on fossil fuels, and it's not going to give us a new energy future that the American people need. It's not going to make us more efficient, more sustainable and more affordable. Now they are trying to hide that fig leaf. Now they have also talked about the price per gallon, that when Speaker Pelosi became Speaker almost 2 years ago, there has been a big run-up in prices. Whoops. Here is when George Bush took office. Gas was about $1.45 a gallon; today, bumping back up, over $4 in some hurricane areas. Now there is something else that goes along with that that they don't want to talk about, and this is what's really going on here, folks. They want to talk about relief for American consumers. They don't give a fig leaf about relief for American consumers. This is what the debate is all about. Look at the obscene growth in profits of the oil industry since the oil men in the White House, George Bush and Dick Cheney, took over; from $30 billion a year to $160 billion this year, every penny of that extracted from the pockets of American consumers and American business. An unbelievable, unprecedented breath-taking run-up in profits. And they say now they are concerned and want a change. They don't really want a change. They don't want this to change. They want us to continue to be dependent on oil and foreign oil and, yeah, maybe a smidgeon more of domestic oil. Now they have a few other whoppers out there today. They say no drilling in Alaska. Whoops, sorry, wrong, guys. Actually, this bill would push the industry to get off its rear and begin to extract oil from the former Naval Petroleum Reserve, renamed the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska by the Republican Congress and put out for leasing. It has been leased. Bill Clinton, in fact, did the first leases. But guess what, 10 years later not a drop of oil, even though the known reserves, and why was it the Naval Petroleum Reserve for 80 years, because we knew there was a pile of oil under there, a huge pool of oil under there, more than 10 billion barrels. No one knows if there is any oil under the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, but they want to talk about the refuge. They don't want to talk about the fact that their friends in the hugely profitable oil industry have failed to extract any oil from the known 10 billion barrels of reserves in the Naval Petroleum Reserve Alaska. This bill would push for production there, push them to connect it to the existing pipeline, and push them to bring that oil down to the lower 48. As Members on my side said earlier, we need a transitional fuel. We need to enhance our oil supply; this bill would do that. We also need to go after natural gas in a much more robust way, a cleaner fuel, a fuel of which we have significantly more reserves here in the United States of America which we don't need to import if we develop those reserves. This bill would do that.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Duncan Hunter was mistakenly added to the list of cosponsors on H.R. 5977. I ask unanimous consent to have his name removed.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I have the right to close, and I will be the last speaker.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to restrict this debate to the failings of the Republican Bush administration in protecting the safety of the American traveling public and the jobs of American truckers. Unfortunately, the gentlelady before us apparently has amnesia because she forgets that the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House for 6 years. And during those 6 years, Vice President Cheney wrote an energy policy in secret with the big oil companies. George Bush walked hand-in-hand with the King of Saudi Arabia, and they designed a policy. That policy that was actually designed to make us more dependent on foreign oil rather than less, and many of us who opposed it then in the minority said this is not a solution to America's energy problems. You are going to make us more dependent on foreign oil, and we are, exactly as was designed by Vice President Cheney, endorsed by President Bush and passed by the Republican House and the Republican Senate. That's the energy policy we're living under, that. Now, today, they're born again as defenders of the American consumers, and they pocket hundreds of millions--sorry, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars in contributions from Big Oil. They want to rush forward yet again with a shortsighted policy while giving lip service to a long-term solution to our energy needs. We will have a comprehensive bill on the floor later this week, and we will see where the Republicans really stand on this issues. Do they stand with the American people, with American consumers? Will they look forward to the future and finally freeing us from the trial and enslavement to the OPEC nations? We will see later this week. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to point out that I believe that this is a long-standing desire on the part of both the President--whose name shall not be mentioned at least on the Republican side of the aisle--George W. Bush and other members of his administration. In fact, as early as December 26, 1996, the headline of the Journal of Commerce, Texas, ``Governor Berates Clinton Over Delay in Border Opening.'' And then June 17, 1996, Texas Governor George W. Bush, now the President of the United States, issues a call for the start of NAFTA trucking. George W. Bush has long been an advocate of fully opening the border. In fact, before 9/11 he wanted to move to a borderless state between the U.S. and Mexico. Security concerns overrode him there. But he's trying to do it with trucks. And hand-in-glove with the President is Secretary of Transportation, Mary Peters. Her track record on this is disingenuous at best, deceitful, or perhaps she perjured herself. She said in her Senate confirmation hearing, ``There are no immediate plans to pursue a pilot program.'' But since she made that statement, we find that while she was head of the Federal Highway Administration from 2001 to 2005, plans were well underway by the Bush administration to open the border. It was first raised in the fall of 2004 between former Secretary Mineta and Mexican Secretary Cerisola in November of 2004. And in early 2005, DOT actually was crafting a proposal. In a document entitled, ``Implementing NAFTA's Commercial Motor Carrier access Provisions--A Pilot Approach,'' outlined early plans for pilot programming. And it said, ``The essence of a pilot would be to create a crack in the current impasse and allow the pressure of time, and most importantly, the Mexican carriers not participating in the pilot, to enlarge the crack, to a point that a complete liberalization of the border becomes a fait accompli.'' They used French despite their disdain for the French position of not invading Iraq. However, you know, as I said, Ms. Peters contradicted that. So what we have here is an administration that is dead set to defy the will of the United States Congress as expressed in a bipartisan way to protect the safety of the American traveling public and to prevent the continuation and/or expansion of this program. We should, Mr. Speaker, pass this bill with hopefully a unanimous vote or near unanimous vote to send yet one last message to this Bush administration and the law defiers and the dissemblers downtown and tell them to bring this program to a halt as they promised. It would have halted on September 6, 2007. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6630.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last Saturday, September 6, marked a dark day in the transportation history and the safety of the traveling public in the United States of America. It was the 1-year anniversary of the so-called cross-border demonstration project of the Department of Transportation under the Bush administration. When this pilot program began, 1 year and 5 days ago, they assured us it would be a 1-year pilot. They further assured us that they would fully evaluate the program before opening our border to all Mexican trucks. Unfortunately, Secretary Peters, under the tutelage of the Bush administration, announced last month that they intend to continue the program for two more years. You know, given the fact that they have ignored Congress' will on this issue repeatedly, I wasn't surprised. But I am outraged. I am outraged that the Bush administration, for political purposes, would jeopardize the safety of the traveling public in the United States of America. Since the beginning of this idea in the Bush administration, there has been strong and bipartisan congressional objection to the program. There are a number of concerns regarding Mexico's less stringent or nonexistent regulations on hours of service, vehicle safety, driver training and licensing, their nonexistent commercial driver's license database, or the meaningless database that they contend is a registration of commercial driver's licenses, and the fact that there is not one single certified drug testing laboratory in Mexico. And I am further concerned that our government, under the leadership of the Bush administration, has said that, don't worry; they'll take care of all of these problems at the border. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will inspect every truck every time, or so they purport. There are questions about whether or not they're delivering on that pledge. There are also certainly questions of diverting our already inadequate force of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration officials, officers to the border to just inspect the trucks of a few Mexican companies that want to drive long distance in the United States. The House has already voiced opposition on the implementation of this pilot program in three separate pieces of legislation: H.R. 1773, the Safe American Roads Act of 2007, which the House passed in May 2007 by an overwhelming vote of 411-3, and we'll hear a little bit later from the author of that legislation. Provisions were also included in the 2007 Iraq war supplemental spending bill to impose strict measures to ensure the pilot program adheres to safety and security guidelines. And then finally, last December, Congress included a provision in the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act to prohibit DOT from using funds to, unfortunately, using the Senate's language instead of ours, establish a cross-border motor carrier program. The Bush administration argues that it was already established and they are just continuing it. The legislation that the House had passed would not have allowed them to parse those words and to continue to violate what is the very clear intent to Congress, despite the bungling of the wording by the Senate. Because of DOT's blatant disregard of congressional intent, I introduced this bill, H.R. 6630, in July, to ensure the Mexican truck pilot is terminated, and that the results are fully evaluated before the program is either expanded or continued, and to reassert the authority of Congress in this matter. So this is something that should be virtually noncontroversial in this House, this House having spoken previously on this issue, this House being, on a bipartisan basis, fully concerned with the safety of the traveling American public, unlike the administration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6630) to prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from granting authority to a motor carrier domiciled in Mexico to operate beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border unless expressly authorized by Congress, as amended.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me about the remaining time?

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for returning to the subject at hand, which is the safety of the traveling public and American jobs which the Bush administration would disregard by continuing their pilot program, violating their promise to only continue the program as a pilot for 1 year, 1 year having expired last Saturday, further violating and ignoring the intent of the Congress which has on numerous occasions expressed concerns regarding this program and its effect on the traveling public. So I would hope that, on a bipartisan basis, we can send a message to the Bush White House by passing this bill unanimously, or nearly unanimously, and say that the Congress cares about the safety of the traveling public. The Congress cares about the fact there's no meaningful commercial driver's license database in Mexico. We don't really know who these people are. The Congress cares about the fact that there is no meaningful hours of service program in Mexico and that many of these drivers may be crossing the border fatigued to the point of endangering public safety. The Congress cares about the fact that there is no certified drug testing laboratory in Mexico, no meaningful program of testing for drugs of truck drivers in Mexico. The Congress cares about the potential for insurance fraud and other things as mentioned by our colleague from California (Mr. Filner). And the Congress is determined that this administration, the administration of George W. Bush, this Republican administration, should stop violating the law and violating the law and jeopardizing the American public for their own ideological ends in their hope that they can pry this program open wide enough that a future Congress or a future administration won't be able to slam it shut again.