Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Member what the focus of our attention should be: David Branning, Dale Burger, Robert Guy, Jason Mileo, Adam Mooney, Bryan Nicholas Spry, William Allers, Samuel Bowen, Jarrett Thompson, Patrick Adle, Neil Prince, and Keith Mariotti. They are the dead, short days ago they lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, and now they lie in Flanders Field, from my district. What are they asking us with a sense of urgency for the living? What are the quick and the dead asking us to do: Know more than they did. Why are our troops successful in harm's way? Because our troops bond together with an integration of integrity bound with trust. Let us debate how to finish the war, not how to continue to fight the war.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his initiative to give us an insight into the world of peak oil and all its ramifications. I just wanted to speak briefly tonight in support of the gentleman's effort to bring this information across the board to the administration, to Members of Congress, and to the country as a whole so that all of us can understand what is transpiring over the next couple of decades to have an enormous impact on not only our Nation's economy but on the world's economy. The question that I would pose that I think everybody should think about is what is at the bottom of the bottomless well. I think most people think that oil will go on forever, that there is plenty of reserves out there, that they will never dry up, they are not a finite resource, they are there for the foreseeable future, and that nature is not dynamic, but it is static. Well, I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is bringing to the forefront that what is at the bottomless well is not oil; and if it is not initiative, ingenuity, and intellect, we are in for a lot of problems in the very near future. If, at the bottom of the bottomless well is initiative, ingenuity, and intellect, we will take the next logical step in cultural evolution. We all used to burn wood for thousands of years. People burned wood for energy, for heat to make their communities whole. Then we discovered coal, and coal was a lot more efficient. It burned a lot better, and our industries prospered, plus we had better uses for wood than just to burn it. Coal was then, to a large extent, supplemented by oil, and oil was more efficient. Our industries could prosper even more, and it increased the ability to advance technology. Now, coal has more hydrogen than wood. Oil has more hydrogen in it than coal. And then we discovered natural gas, which was even more efficient than oil or coal, and that expanded our markets for our economic progress even more, and natural gas has more hydrogen than oil. We are running out of oil, and I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) said we have about 2 percent of the known reserves in the United States. Many people say it is a little bit more than that; but whether it is 2 percent or 3 percent or 4 percent or whatever, it is a limited resource. In 1970, we produced in the United States 11 million barrels of oil a day, in 1970. In the year 2004, we produced 5 million barrels a day. We produce less than half now than we did 30 years ago, and yet we are burning a lot more. We burn 20 million barrels of oil a day. Now, if we compared what we have done in the last 100 years in BTUs as far as oil energy use is concerned, we can put it into the number quadrillion. This is what a quadrillion looks like. In 1910, our BTU energy output from oil was 7 quadrillion BTUs, 7 quadrillion. In 1930, it was 35 quadrillion BTUs. In 2004, it was 100 quadrillion BTUs. The point here is that as supplies go down from this finite resource, demand goes up exponentially. And what are we going to do? I would just like us to think about a couple of things. Oil is not going to last forever. The horizon is seeing to its completion in a number of decades, and so the transition to find alternatives to that type of fossil fuel is now. There are a number of alternatives that some of the other Members will talk about, whether it is solar or even hydrogen or using soybeans or corn or wind or other technologies, advancing nuclear. The idea that we need to transition and find alternatives to our transportation needs is vital. The second thing is we have the technology right now to more than double our efficiency across the board. The technology exists right now to more than double what you can get out of an automobile, from 20 miles a gallon to 50 miles a gallon. We have the technology to make all of our appliances way more efficient. When we burned coal, we found a lot better uses for wood. If we know what uses there are for oil, other than burning it, we would be astounded. Our whole economy, our medical field, our industry, our clothes, our trinkets, the things that we have in our house, it is all a byproduct of oil. So we have better uses for oil than putting it in, pardon the expression, a gas hog, so we can run off to the 7-Eleven and buy a cup of coffee and maybe some item that is made in some other part of the world. So think about peak oil. Think about energy efficiency. Think about alternatives. These are not 100 years away. And think about your own lifestyle and how that fits into the mix. Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, thank you very much for joining us. You mentioned gas hog. The other day my wife read a new definition for SUV, it was a suddenly useless vehicle with the high gas prices we have now. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) mentioned conservation and efficiency. I just wanted to come back for a moment to this chart to point out something that is quite obvious when you think about it. If we are here, and I am going to call next on my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). And I see he has the same article that I started with. But here we have a curve that shows that as we approach peak oil that our demands for oil are going to exceed the supplies of oil. What that means is that there will not even be enough oil to fuel our present economies. And if we are going to have any oil to invest, any energy to invest in alternatives, we are going to have to reduce our use of oil. Now we have blown, if you will excuse the term, 25 years. We absolutely knew in 1980 that M. King Hubbert was right about his 1970 prediction that we would peak. By the way he predicted the world would peak about now, and we knew in 1980 that he was right about our country. Should not we have assumed that maybe, just maybe, he was right about the world and we ought to do something about that? We did absolutely nothing about that except grow an ever more and more lavish lifestyle that used ever more and more oil. And so now just emphasizing what this curve tells us is if we are going to have any energy to invest in the renewables, we should have been investing for the last 25 years at least. We were not doing it. If we are going to have any to invest now, we would like to use this much oil, only this much is available totally so we cannot even use that much for ordinary activities, we are going to have to reduce that so that we have something to invest in the alternatives. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I hope I am wrong. I hope all of these experts are wrong. Because if we are not wrong, the world and the United States mostly, because we are the biggest consumers of energy, are in for a very rough ride. Let me turn now to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of this rule. I also want to compliment the chairman of the Committee on Resources. He has been in Congress for seven terms. He has worked very hard on the things that he believes in. He has been relentlessly patient to deal with a number of issues that have affected his district and those in the western areas of the United States, and he has presented to us today a bill that will reform, refine, and reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. Now, I do not agree with everything in the chairman's bill or his approach, but I want to state here this morning that I respect his courage and his relentless patience to take years to bring something to the floor that he believes in. The substitute which I support, and I hope my colleagues in this body will support, is not a whole lot different than the base bill. We went through the base bill hour after hour after hour, members and staff; and we changed a few words here and there that we feel will present the approach to protecting endangered species in the appropriate way. Most people who are concerned about the Endangered Species Act either are concerned because, like the chairman here from the Committee on Rules stated this morning, if you see a dam and it creates deep water and you can get your barges down with your grain, you appreciate the fact that the dam is there. So you have some concern about that. Or if you are downstream and you want more coho salmon and you believe the dam is degrading the habitat for coho salmon or other species of salmon, you are less likely to appreciate the dam; but both sides look at the Endangered Species Act as either reducing their economic viability or reducing species viability. I think we need to do a number of things that we have done in the substitute. We have taken the words out of the base bill. We create a scientifically acceptable procedure, look on page 2 of the substitute, methods, practices and procedures that are acceptable science. We have made a requirement for making a determination for what species are listed. Look at page 4 of the substitute, five specific criteria before you can list that species. We are reviewing all species every 5 years to see if the change of status is there, page 5. We repeal the critical habitat requirement in the base bill and replace it with a slightly different recovery plan. The recovery plan has a number of significant and important elements: a time frame for that recovery plan; objective measurable criteria; a description of where the site should be, and the emphasis is on Federal land and not private land; and an estimate of the cost and time it will take to recover that species. Look on page 20. There are a number of changes that we have made here to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) which I think improves on the bill. Support the substitute.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I, too, come from a rural area. The two major industries in my district are agriculture and fishing. So we know the landscape and people cooperate. The present ESA, maybe it is because we are on the east coast, the present ESA bill is working fine. I know we need to tweak it because it does not work the same way all over the place, but I would urge my colleagues to support the substitute. Here are some reasons why: In the substitute, there are specific criteria for science laid out. Members want good science; the methods, procedures, and practices are laid out. What species should be determined endangered, there are five criteria laid out on page 4 of the substitute. Members should review all species that are designated every 5 years. We have repealed the critical habitat designations, but we have replaced it with recovery plans found on page 20 of the substitute. It has time frames and objective, measurable criteria. It has a very specific description of where that species should be recovered, and the emphasis of where that species should be recovered is not private land; it is public land. The emphasis is on public land; but whenever you go on private land, there should be some restitution, some sharing of Federal dollars with those private landowners; and 10 percent of the appropriated amount on an annual basis of this substitute will go for that very specific purpose. What if livestock are endangered or threatened by a reintroduced species? That is taken care of. Landowners are going to be reimbursed for that lost livestock. What about national security? Take a look at the substitute. There is a very specific exemption. Page 43 of the substitute, there is a national security exemption. I urge my colleagues to vote for a specific, balanced ESA bill. Vote for the substitute.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I think we are here in some sense, past all the clutter of people articulating their most emotional feelings, is a bill set aside some 30 years ago to have an understanding about how we as Members of Congress, the government, can restore the prodigious bounty of God's creation. How do we understand nature's design? How do we use our intelligence to understand the facts behind how nature sustains itself? Well, in the real world, well, actually, in the real world which is nature, but in the reality of the human condition, we have a lot of other little things that we have to take into consideration. How do you afford an Endangered Species Act? What do you do about private property rights? Do you get enough science? Is the recovery plan appropriate? Do you deal with farmers that have a problem with reintroduced species on the property eating their sheep or their cows? All these things have to be taken into consideration so that we create a policy that protects private property rights, that brings individuals on those farms and that landscape into the process and helps pay for their contribution to the process, that brings Federal agencies in so they can view the landscape, not from just one small little fly or tiger beetle or some other particular species, but upon which the landscape that supports that species, supports clean water, supports clean air, supports the whole ecosystem including human beings, including us as a species. We are not separate from clean water. We are not separate from clean air. We are part of nature's design. We are part of this bounty of God's creation. So how do we clarify all these different perspectives and views based on different things that happen in our districts? Well, we come up with the best available science. We come up with the best available recovery plan. We come up with the best policy for not only the species but for private property, and we come up with the funds that are appropriate to deal with all these issues. I would tell my colleagues that I feel strongly this is the best policy change, the best reauthorization plan that we can use to deal with the Endangered Species Act that will deal with nature's design and man's impact on nature's design, which includes private property rights, which includes reimbursements for helping to preserve endangered species, and by the way, in this substitute is a provision to pay those private property individuals. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the substitute.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for the vote on passage of H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005. If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me this time, and I thank him for bringing this supplemental to the floor this evening. I am also encouraged that I am sure all of my colleagues will vote for this today. I want to make sure that another voice is heard. I am a veteran, as there are many veterans on this floor. I have been in Navy hospitals, I have been in veterans' hospitals, and I have gone through the veterans' health care system. I also want to say that in the last 10 years, in my district, there have been three health care clinics for veterans built just in those 10 years that provide excellent care. We have a veterans' hospital for the psychiatric problems that veterans often experience that go from Alzheimer's to posttraumatic stress syndrome from Vietnam and other conflicts, to people with schizophrenia. Nothing is perfect. There are no utopias on the planet. We need to provide this supplement until the end of this fiscal year, and make sure we do not make the same mistake in the next fiscal year. But we have done a great deal, and we will continue to work hard for the veterans of this country, and we have.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to ask the chairman to engage in a colloquy. While I applaud the appropriation subcommittee's overall efforts to contain the Federal budget, I have some concerns about ocean issues. And when we talk about ocean issues, these are critical issues crucial to the survival of humans on the planet when we consider the extent and the complexity of the oceans and life on the planet. The over-500-page report of the U.S. Ocean Commission emphasized the need to take action now to invest in ocean and coastal programs to ensure conservation and the sustainable use of resources for future generations. The Ocean Commission report called for doubling the investment in the coastal and ocean science and to provide an additional $500 million to $1 billion in assistance over the next several years to support ocean programs and fisheries management. In April of this year, I joined over 100 House Members deeply concerned about the health of our oceans and coastal areas to request support for additional funding for key National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration programs, or NOAA. After considering other competing priorities, the subcommittee approved the NOAA budget of $3.43 billion, almost $500 million below last year's level. Now, I understand the Federal budget constraints, and I understand the constraint of the subcommittee and the appropriations process; but I would ask the chairman to consider looking at these issues as we move this bill through to the conference.

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his consideration; I thank the chairman for his effort to balance the budget and to allocate the funds equitably to all the various programs. I look forward to working with the chairman in the future on this issue.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to compliment the gentleman from California on this amendment and I understand the gravity of the situation. I just wish the money did not come out of NOAA. If we look at NOAA's budget this year, it is millions of dollars below where it was last year. Let us take a look at what that section of NOAA has to deal with: the effect of oceans on climate; the effect of oceans on the air we breathe; weather patterns that direct where the forests, deserts and agriculture are going to be; the effect on aquaculture and fish farming on the natural environment in the ocean; ocean currents that distribute the heat and the balance of the planet. The ocean currents right now are beginning to slow down in the North Atlantic because of a redistribution of salt and fresh water in the ocean. The magnitude of the impact on that on the northeastern parts of the United States and Western Europe, if you look at London, on the same latitude as Labrador, the climate is like the State of Maryland. Finally, red tides, poisonous, deadly to humans, but do not impact the shellfish. The huge magnitude of the research that is lacking now as a result of our lack of understanding of oceans on life on planet Earth is staggering. NOAA should be at the same level of funding and have the same understanding in our educational institutes as NASA. So I compliment the gentleman in trying to fix this terrible problem with our border crossings and the criminal activity that results all across the United States, but the issue of our oceans I do not think is adequately being addressed.

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, I would like to say that the oceans are an important aspect of funding, but I want to say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) have a very critical issue that needs to be addressed as well.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 243) recognizing the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the National Safe Boating Council for their efforts to promote National Safe Boating Week.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 243 was introduced by my colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and recognizes the work of the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and the National Safe Boating Council in promoting boat safety. I represent a district in which recreational boating plays a huge role in the lives of many of my constituents. Sailors, waters sports enthusiasts, and fishermen enjoy recreational boating on the Chesapeake Bay and the ocean side of my district. Recreational boating is one of the Nation's most popular pastimes, and while the number of recreational boating fatalities has declined by more than half since 1970, many lives are still lost each year. More than half of these lives could be saved with the proper use of boating safety equipment. This resolution highlights the importance of safe recreational boating, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for sponsoring this piece of legislation as well. I would like to reiterate some of the comments that the gentleman made about boat safety, and that is when you get in a boat, it is like getting in a car. Do not drink and drive; do not drink and boat. Snap your safety belt in the car; put your life jacket on in the boat. Respect the people in your boat and respect other people in their boats; and respect the ecosystem that you are now treading on. When you go out in a boat, enjoy yourself, enjoy the people that you are around, and enjoy the pristine nature of that particular environment. Boat Safety Week hopes to motivate people to understand the nature of their responsibility when they step in a boat, whether it is one with a big, powerful engine; whether it is a small motor boat; or I would recommend you try a kayak and canoe. Of course, wear your life jacket regardless, respect yourself, respect your passengers, respect other boaters, and respect the pristine nature of the water.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time, and urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. 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. Res. 243.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for the fascinating discussion mixed with science, history and a little poetry there, I think. Mr. Speaker, I hope many of our constituents across the country are listening to this most important topic. My colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), began to speak about energy as not something that you can see or touch, and very few people think about that or think about where energy comes from. It comes from that fuel tank that you lift to fill your car. It comes from someone delivering it to your house. But I would suspect that many Americans and many of our colleagues here in the house feel that energy is a resource that will last forever. I would like to pose a question tonight to follow on with what my colleague from Michigan was saying, and that is: Is energy infinite? Is energy a bottomless well? And if we look at the bottom of the bottomless well, what do we see? If we are to have a cohesive energy policy in this country and in this world, in fact, we need to know what that is at the bottomless well, because I happen to think there is no bottom to the resource of energy. But we have to know what that is. What is that resource? What energy source can we rely upon for the unforeseeable future, for generations to come? The modern world right now is dependent, the industrialized world and the new industrializing world are enormously dependent on an energy source known as fossil fuel. That is coal, natural gas and oil. We also know that the demand is increasing as the supply is diminishing, dramatically. The U.S. oil reserves peaked in 1970. What is at the bottom of the bottomless well? I think it is initiative. It is ingenuity. It is intellect, and it is logic. Oil, or natural gas, is not at the bottomless well. Oil or natural gas or fossil fuel are finite, and they will not last forever. So we are in a transition period, because the demand is increasing dramatically, and the supply continues to decrease. The gentleman from Michigan gave us a history lesson about transitions from one energy source to another over a long period of time and showed how our cultures, our industry, our economy, and our cultures have changed. We know that coal in this country some time ago replaced wood and actually saved the forests. Coal was actually more efficient and better for burning or for heating in those earlier years because we stopped burning our forests. Our forests create habitat for wildlife; it is an environmental issue. So coal replaced wood. Oil supplemented coal and oil is more efficient than coal and it is actually cleaner burning. Natural gas supplemented oil. Natural gas is cleaner than oil. If we looked at it a little bit closer from a chemist's perspective, we would show that there is more hydrogen in coal than there is in wood. There is more hydrogen in oil than in coal. There is more hydrogen in natural gas than there is in oil. So we are moving up the ladder of a better understanding of what sources of energy are important. But all of them are finite. And as our demand increases, our supply diminishes, and we need to begin to rethink our energy sources. In 1910 if we look at BTUs, British thermal units, if you buy a heater of almost any sort, it will have the number of BTUs that it puts out, the energy output. If we are to measure BTUs from the perspective of how many BTUs the United States uses, what is our energy output, it is measured in quadrillion. If we looked in the year 1910 as an example of BTUs, the United States burned 7 quadrillion BTUs. That is a 1 with 15 zeros. Seven quadrillion BTUs in 1910. If we looked at 1950, we burned 35 quadrillion BTUs. If we looked in the year 2005, it is up to 100 quadrillion BTUs. The demand is increasing exponentially. In 1970, the year we peaked in our oil, we produced, the United States, 11 million barrels of oil a day. In 2004, we produced 5 million barrels a day. In 2005, we burn roughly 20 million barrels a day of oil. We import about two-thirds of our oil, and that will continue actually to worsen, and we have about 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, or less, and our demand is increasing while our supply is diminishing. We are actually beginning to see the end of cheap oil in the United States. And burning this resource, burning oil, is not the best use of that resource. We use it, as the gentleman from Michigan said, for a whole range of things, for heating our homes, for air conditioning, for airplanes, for electric lights, for clothing, much of the clothing that we wear, for plastics, for fertilizers, for modern agriculture, for asphalt to maintain our roads. Can you imagine the interstate highway system if we did not have oil to make the asphalt to maintain those many millions of miles? Surgical devices, hip replacement, national defense, all of these things come from oil. It is an integral part of our economy. Should we really be burning it as fast as we can, as if oil were at the bottom of the bottomless well? Are there other better uses for burning oil? There are. Can we improve our resources here in the United States with something other than fossil fuel? If we continue to rely on fossil fuel, we will never be energy independent and our security will be reduced because most of the oil we import right now comes from areas of the world that are not very stable. We should begin to seriously think about three things and think of these three things in the way that we use our initiative, our ingenuity, and our intellect to understand what lies at the bottom of the bottomless well. The first thing is fuel efficiency. That is one of the first things we can actually do, tangible things we can do. We have the technology right now to double fuel efficiency. We should start immediately, because it takes about a decade before you see any results. We could save billions of dollars, reduce our trade deficit, save oil supplies so they last longer. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that we have 25 years of oil left with present demand. That is not with any increase in demand. Is demand going down? Will we burn less than 100 quadrillion BTUs? I do not think so. What will we do about importing the millions of barrels of oil every day? So doubling our efficiency with oil and natural gas will spread these supplies longer and offer us that transition period between a new fuel economy that we desperately need. The second thing are alternative fuels. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and I know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) will mention these. There is solar. It is a small piece, but it is a piece. There is wind. It is significant, but it is a small piece of the pie. There are biofuels, a whole range of biofuels from corn to soybeans to poplar trees, to certain grasses, to a range of things that we have already mentioned here tonight; but they are a small piece. There is hydropower. There is hydrogen which does offer us some hope. It is not a fuel. You can produce it from solar, from wind, from nuclear, from coal. What we have here is a membrane; it excites the molecules and you produce electricity without combustion. But we do not have the technology to mass produce hydrogen to take the place of oil. There is methane from landfills and livestock. There is nuclear power, which is cleaner. The storage of fuel rods is difficult and also, even though it is nuclear, it is a finite source. We have to start now to make the transition to a new energy source smooth and not disruptive. We must understand the dynamics of this from an economic standpoint, a geopolitical perspective, and cultural life- style. The third thing is life-style. Our lives, our culture right now, dependent on fossil fuel, our lives are filled with things, things and more things. Look around your home. Where do these things come from? What are they made of? And how do they get delivered to us? The world is dependent on fossil fuel, mainly oil, to make those things, transport those things, and bring them to your home. We import them from all over the world. Oil is related to every aspect of production, distribution, marketing, and consumption of the products you get from megaretailers like Wal-Mart and Sears to McDonald's and Burger King. Our culture. What will replace oil to keep this kind of economy ever expanding? We talk all the time about a growing economy. How will it expand without oil? We should start talking in terms of a dynamic, sustainable economy without oil. Without oil, our life-styles, in conclusion, our communities, are likely to be smaller and more compact. Our farms are likely to be smaller and more diverse. There will be fewer expanding suburbs wholly dependent upon the automobile. Solar, wind, biofuels can accommodate smaller communities. Nuclear at least for the time will be more significant. But if we use what is at the bottom of the bottomless well, ingenuity, initiative and intellect, we will have cleaner energy sources, more jobs, drastically reduced trade deficits, more of our own goods will be produced here, a stable economy, more security. What does the future hold for us? Look deeply at what is or should be at the bottom of the bottomless well. We need the time to transition to this new economy.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for this bill, especially for its Iraqi dollars, because this bill analyzes microscopically the kinds of equipment that is needed there now, and then surgically targets those dollars in a vastly efficient manner for our troops. The bill also deals with healing the wounds of both mind and body of those soldiers who are returning. The bill also deals with small businesses being able, through the H-2B process, to hire legal workers. And the bill also deals with enhanced technology for the tsunami situation that we saw so much, months ago. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for the legislation, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the $17 million included in the Supplemental that we are considering today, which will support the expansion of the U.S. Tsunami Warning Network. These funds will help NOAA to procure and deploy tsunami detection buoys in a system designed to provide continuous tsunami warning capability for both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the United States. Detection is a critical part of a warning system which I hope will ultimately include a comprehensive approach to educating communities about, and preparing them for, tsunamis. Comprising 70 percent of the Earth's surface area, our oceans support a growing source of protein for many developing countries, promising sources of medicines, and efficient transport of goods between continents and among nations. They also strongly influence our climate and weather and provide economic and unmeasurable quality of life benefits. For proof of this, one only needs to know that the U.S. coasts support over 50 percent of the U.S. population and comprise only 17 percent of our land base. When South Asia was struck by tsunami waves on December 26, the world's interest in tsunami detection and warning systems was heightened. The impact of these waves was felt around the world, and the tragedy of its immediate effect on Indian Ocean coastlines has painfully exposed our lack of ability to provide early warning and coastal community education and support. Many lifelong residents of Indian Ocean coastal towns fear the sea--the primary source of their livelihoods for generations. It is critical that individuals in high- risk areas are educated about and prepared for tsunamis before they strike. Coastal communities need assurance that technology exists and will be applied to increase warnings for such events and to prepare them for evacuation to avoid catastrophic loss of human life. In contrast, developed nations use increasing technological sophistication to acquire from the sea its bounty--with little thought for the long-term sustainability of this activity. In time, without increased understanding of our ocean ecosystems and the impact of our harvest and extraction of its resources, developed nations may also come to fear the sea. The antidote to the disease of fear is understanding. New technologies have already led to enormous advances in our understanding of the coastal and marine environment. However, advanced sensors have been deployed only on relatively small scales, and the systems that are deployed have not been coordinated into an integrated system that will optimize our understanding of the oceans. Since the U.S. hosted the Earth Observation Summit in July 2003, we have been working with our partner nations to adopt a comprehensive, coordinated and sustained Earth Observation System to collect and disseminate data, information and models for more effective and responsible use of our resources as well as to inform decision-makers about impending disasters. Most recently, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy made an integrated ocean observing system a top recommendation in its report, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. Our space exploration and our weather programs show that when our scientists and the Nation support a program and devote time, money and, most importantly, the human mind into these types of endeavors we are highly successful. The ocean, however, is often referred to as the last frontier, a place where we continue to find new organisms and species and where we still struggle to understand the profound implications for climate changes and more direct impacts of the oceans on our human habitats. There is perhaps no more motivating event, no louder a voice for attention and understanding than having the ocean engulf human habitats. Our failure to fully develop and utilize our technology to understand our oceans has many more implications, including the potential for permanent damage to fragile and complex ecosystems that have generously provided us with food, medicines, recreation, and other benefits. We are now awake to the power of the ocean, and it is my hope that we will use this opportunity to move more quickly toward integrated data collection and dissemination systems, as well as intensive education of coastal communities, to ensure that we and future generations can look to the sea for inspiration, sustenance, and life-giving support. I strongly support the inclusion of these funds to increase global monitoring capacity and public awareness about tsunamis and other disasters, particularly if they add to capacity of ocean monitoring as part of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I am only going to speak for just a couple of minutes because the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) has a fascinating story to tell, one that richly deserves everybody's attention. But, just briefly, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) will talk about energy, peak oil. As the demand increases enormously, the supply of the fossil fuel that we are using continues to decrease. We know that energy is power, and energy is what drives the Nation's economy. And we have assumed for a long time, for decades anyway, that energy supplies have a bottomless well. And that is correct. The energy source at the bottom of the well is bottomless. It is endless. But what is at the bottom of that well is not oil. It is not even natural gas. It is not coal. What lies at the bottom of the bottomless well is our intellect, our logic, our knowledge, our know-how. We used to the light our homes with whale oil. They did not stop lighting homes because we ran out of whales, thank goodness; but we transitioned to a number of other things. We used to use just wood all over the world, and thank goodness we transitioned from wood to coal because we were tearing our forests down, and there are a lot better uses for wood than to burn that wood. We transitioned for our transportation needs and many other needs from coal to oil, and oil is a lot cleaner and it is a lot more efficient. Then we went from oil and we found that natural gas is cleaner yet and more efficient than oil. We also began to realize that coal has more hydrogen than wood. Oil has more hydrogen in its content than coal. Natural gas has more hydrogen than oil. The transition through our energy sources has not come about because we ran out of those energy sources. It has come about because we got a little smarter. Our intellect, our quest for knowledge, our curiosity about something that is better overtook the status quo. And when the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) talks about peak oil, not only do we need to move away from the status quo when we hear his words about fossil fuel; it is essential. There is a sense of urgency to move away. In all our measurements of oil or natural gas, whenever one looks at a heater in their home, whether it is their oil furnace, a Carison heater or whatever it is, it is measured in Btus. I want to show a number. This is a 1 with 15 zeros. That is 1 quadrillion. In 1910 we used 7 quadrillion Btus in the United States. In 1954 we used 35 quadrillion Btus, energy demand increase. Right now we use 100 quadrillion Btus, and that is not slowing down. What we need in this country is logic and intellect to move us away from an energy source that has now lost its usefulness for a number of reasons. It is putting carbon dioxide into our atmosphere faster than we have seen that infusion of carbon dioxide in the last 400,000 years, and our supply is diminishing quickly as our demand is increasing even faster. There are a number of energy sources. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) will talk about some of them. We will have these on a number of occasions. We are looking at nuclear. We are looking at solar. We are looking at wind. We are looking at hydrogen. We are looking at a number of alternatives. But before we have the technology to move into those alternatives for energy security, which means energy independence, the transition has got to be vastly improved efficiency for oil, for natural gas, to move into biofuels, and I am not talking about ethanol, which is corn which will feed the world. I am not talking about biodiesel, which is soy beans, which is used to feed the world. What I am talking about are other sources like certain grass or poplar trees, which farmers can grow, which they can use to produce. So peak oil, the transition to a new energy source, has got to come now. We cannot wait a decade. It is vastly important. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) for yielding to me and I urge the Speaker to listen to the words of the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague, Representative Vernon Ehlers, in introducing a pair of bills that comprehensively address the growing problem of aquatic invasive species in the United States and its territories. These foreign invaders, from Sea Lamprey in the Great Lakes to Asian Carp in the Mississippi to Moon Jellies in the Gulf to Rappa Whelk in the Chesapeake Bay to Zebra Mussels across the U.S. and hundreds of other plants, fish, and invertebrates, cause significant economic and ecological damage throughout North America. In recent estimates, invasive species are demonstrated to cost the U.S. at least $138 billion per year. Forty-two percent of the species on the federal threatened and endangered species lists are negatively impacted by invasive species. Once established, invasive species displace native species, impede municipal and industrial water systems, degrade ecosystems, reduce recreational and commercial fishing opportunities, and can cause public health problems. Aquatic invasive species are a particular problem because they readily spread through interconnected waterways and are difficult to treat safely. Hundreds of exotic species arrive in U.S. waters every day through a variety of pathways such as ballast water, hull fouling, aquaculture and the seafood trade. Without effective federal policies to prevent and control these introductions, we willingly surrender our valuable resource assets to these invasive species. The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2005 (NAISA) will address these problems by: (1) Establishing a national mandatory ballast water management program, (2) Requiring ships to have an Invasive Species Management Plan that outlines ways to minimize transfers on a ``whole ship'' basis, (3) Creating a ballast water treatment technology certification program, and (4) Including incentives for ship owners to install experimental ballast treatment technology. NAISA would also prevent invasive species introductions from other pathways by: (1) Identifying and managing pathways that pose the highest risk of introducing invasive species, (2) Creating a screening process for planned importations of live aquatic organisms, (3) Supporting development and implementation of State Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plans, including early detection, screening and rapid response activities at state and regional levels, (4) Conducting ecological surveys for early detection of invasive species and analysis of invasion rates and patterns, (5) Making available federal funding and resources for .rapid response to introductions of invasive species, (6) Preventing inter-basin transfer of organisms by increasing funding and resources for dispersal barrier projects and research, (7) Establishing environmental soundness criteria to ensure all prevention and control measures enacted do not further harm the environment, (8) Creating education and outreach programs to inform the public on preventing transfers of invasive species by proper cleaning of recreational boats, and proper disposal of nonnative organisms for home aquaria, (9) Conducting research on high-risk invasion pathways and alternative prevention and control technologies, and (10) Making available $170 million in federal funds for aquatic invasive species prevention, control, and research. Congress has addressed this issue in two past legislative initiatives: the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA) and its reauthorization as the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA). Spurred by the growing concern over the zebra mussel invasion in the Great Lakes, NANPCA created a multi-agency task force, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, to address the issue of aquatic invaders and empowered the Coast Guard to develop guidelines for ballast water management for the Great Lakes. In 1996, Congress expanded the ballast water guidelines to a national voluntary program to be made mandatory if compliance is not sufficient. While these laws made some progress, they have not yet solved the problem of aquatic invasive species introductions. For example, the national ballast water guidelines have seen low compliance. In addition, the only prevention option currently available to ships, ballast water exchange, has varying effectiveness that is difficult to measure, causes vessel safety concerns, and is not appropriate for coastal voyages. Development of new methods of combating transfers of organisms from ballast water has been slow due to the lack of a ballast water standard and low funding for development of new technology. We need improvements in current law. Our bills have been carefully researched and subjected to broad stakeholder review, and we believe the public and industry stakeholders will support both. We are drastically underinvesting in research and efforts to prevent, control, and eradicate aquatic invasive species. We don't get a second chance to prevent an invasive organism from taking hold in our waters. Our bills would make the U.S. proactive in saving its citizens billions of public dollars by allowing us to stop future invasions while effectively controlling and eradicating current invaders. I urge my colleagues to support the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act and comprehensive prevention, control, and eradication of invasive species in the U.S.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, in just a few minutes, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) will address the House for some period of time talking about energy sources, oil in particular, and the fact that many experts say that oil production, especially in the United States, but actually throughout the world, oil production of conventional oil under current patterns is expected to grow at a rate much faster, that means the use of oil by the world community is supposed to grow much faster than oil discovery production. What is clear, because we are not sure exactly when that peak will come in oil production, some say it is peaking right now, some say it will peak in 10 years, the amount of oil we get out of the ground will exceed the demand; but what is clear is that at some point in this century, world oil production will peak and then begin to decline. There is uncertainty about the date because many countries that produce oil do not provide credible data on how big their reserves are. But more uncertainty calls for more caution, not less; and caution in this case means working to develop alternatives. When production of conventional oil peaks, we can expect a large increase in the price up to the price of the substitutes, whether so-called unconventional oil or renewable fuels. Although increasing domestic production may ease oil dependence slightly, the United States is only 3 percent of the world's estimated oil reserves and uses 25 percent of the world's oil. I want to explain just from the perspective of the United States the huge increase in energy demand in the last century. I am going to use the word ``quadrillion.'' Quadrillion is a number. If I put 1 followed by 15 zeroes, I have the number quadrillion. To measure energy use in a country, we use BTUs, British thermal units. A new furnace, whether oil or natural gas, you see the BTU to determine how much energy it is going to use. When you use BTUs to determine how much energy a country uses, you use a short term for quadrillion called ``quads.'' In 1910, the United States used 7 quads of BTUs. That is 7 quadrillion BTUs. In 1950, the United States used 35 quadrillion BTUs. In 2005, the United States uses 100 quadrillion BTUs, and we are accelerating that. We are increasing demand for oil for our energy needs. The world right now, 2005, uses 345 quadrillion BTUs, an enormous amount of energy. We know today that our appliances, whether a washing machine, a refrigerator or dishwasher, we know they are much more efficient than they ever were, certainly 20, 30, 40 years ago; and yet we are using more electricity, not less. We know that automobiles and trucks and our transportation is much more efficient than it was 20 years ago, and yet the demand is increasing. We burn more coal, more natural gas. Each home, as efficient as each home is today, burns much more oil and electricity because of the demand on energy needs. We are not decreasing by getting efficient. Because our demand is greater, we are using more and more. The question is if we are increasing demand and production is going to peak now or in the next decade or two and our production goes down while the demand goes up, especially with oil reserves, are we at the early stages of the twilight for oil as an energy source? And if we are, what do we do? Well, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) will speak on a number of aspects of oil production decline. We will talk much further about the details of the solution to the problems of our energy decline, but I want to close with two last things: How do we harness a new alternative energy source and make it replace what we have been using for more than 2 centuries? How do we do that? We do it with initiative, ingenuity, intellect, vision, and leadership. Remember when I said quadrillion was one with 15 zeroes and talked about how much energy we use, and right now it is 100 quadrillion BTUs, we are not too far away from understanding how to separate hydrogen and oxygen; that is heavy hydrogen from oxygen in seawater. If we can slow light down 186,000 miles a second to zero, we can stop light, we can put information in a molecule, we understand the human genome, we will be able to use our ingenuity to tap 10 trillion quadrillion quads of BTUs in seawater. Our energy demand is increasing; oil production is decreasing. With intellect and leadership, we can transition to a new fuel source.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman will yield, another analogy I heard recently about the efforts to bring out ever-increasing and diminishing oil reserves and how that simply is not going to work for sustaining our energy needs, this particular physicist gave an analogy that compared the oil to a lion in Africa taking the energy of catching two gazelles to catch one gazelle. How long would that lion last? It takes the energy of catching two gazelles to only catch one, but he needs it to sustain himself, and that simply is not going to work. I want to compliment the gentleman from Maryland, and I would like to be a part of the extra hour that we will do maybe this week to show what the alternatives are, simply because our energy requirements are increasing, they are not decreasing, and they will continue to increase. Political parties are not going to let the grid go cold, but what do we do when we rely on oil and natural gas as the predominant energy source for this country? We have to simply find alternatives. If I could just say briefly, there are two problems with our dependence on oil, and the gentleman has laid those out exceptionally well tonight. Part of the first problem is trade deficits and national security because of our oil dependence. When the price goes up, because we do not have most of the reserves, when oil peaks, we have no control over that. There will never be a decrease in demand. There will always be an increase in demand, no matter what happens, and our energy hunger is gargantuan. The other problem with our oil dependence is that we are burning fossil fuel. We are returning to the atmosphere carbon that has not been there in this amount for millions of years, and what we are burning in decades it took the natural processes millions of years to lock away. One other comment about letting the market forces deal with this fairly eminent problem. The global marketplace deals with the CEOs that are rightly so in the business to make a quick profit. The international marketplace is when nations get together, discuss an issue and they find mutual benefit to these vast problems. Vast solutions are available through what the gentleman has described so well tonight.