Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, last night the Democratic leadership announced under considerable pressure that the continuing resolution to keep our government operating will not include an extension of the moratorium on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, the moratorium on drilling in Alaska, the moratorium on extracting oil from the oil shale in the Rocky Mountain States. That's good news. That's a step in the right direction, but it's only the first step. The American people at this time, as the Congress addresses concerns about the financial crisis facing the country, need to know that the Congress is also going to stop the hemorrhage of money out of this country, at the rate of $700 billion a year, buying foreign oil. We need to have the American Energy Act that the Republican leadership and the vast majority of Republican Members have offered, the all-of-the- above energy act, energy that will increase drilling on our Outer Continental Shelf in Alaska and in the Rocky Mountain States, increase natural gas production, clean-burning coal, nuclear power, and alternative forms of energy like solar, wind, hydrogen, geothermal, and biomass. We need all of the above, and we need it now before we go home.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and yield back.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I support H.R. 6849 which voids the payment prohibition to farmers who have fewer than 10 acres of working farmland for the 2008 and 2009 crop years. This measure protects farmers who would be denied benefits because it addresses a specific provision in the farm bill that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has misinterpreted. The intent of that original provision was to stop gardeners in New York City from getting program payments. It was never intended to prevent bonafide farmers from participating in commodity programs. The farm bill provision and the accompanying report encourage the Secretary of Agriculture to allow farmers to aggregate base acres from multiple working farms to qualify for those program benefits. However, the USDA has decided to interpret the language of that provision differently and prohibit aggregation. It is unfortunate that we are forced to pass further legislation to make sure this intent cannot be misconstrued. However, if we do not take action, the result will be damaging to thousands of farmers who depend on program payments. I believe it is necessary that we pass this bill in order to protect those thousands of farmers who are being adversely affected by the USDA's interpretation of a specific provision in the farm bill. This is a growing concern throughout the country. Specifically, in my State of Virginia, the Virginia Farm Bureau contacted me directly because it was worried about the negative impact this interpretation would have on the livelihood of its producers. I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the ranking member of the Commodity Subcommittee, such time as he may consume.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I have only myself to close. If the gentleman is thinking that we're close to closing, then I am prepared to do that.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for such time as he may consume.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the ranking Republican member on the subcommittee with jurisdiction over commodity futures trading.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I say, I appreciate working with the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Minnesota on this legislation. I think this legislation gives to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the necessary tools for appropriate oversight and enforcement. I think this is a light touch. I do not think that it interferes in the marketplace. And I think that the evidence that was brought forth by the recent report submitted by the CFTC is very strong evidence that the marketplace is working very well, but it needs constant vigilance. We can see that with the difficulties that are being experienced around the country and around the world in other types of markets. Certainly in the mortgage area and other financial areas, the risk of not giving the regulatory agencies the appropriate authority to do oversight and to act is certainly a grave concern. But I think we are doing that in this area. I think the CFTC is doing that in this area, and I think this legislation will help to enhance their ability to remain vigilant in making sure that this market operates properly; that there is not excessive speculation; that there is not manipulation of this marketplace. Having said all of that, I will say, once again, that this is not the issue that we should be debating here today. I support this legislation. I will vote for it. But we deserve an opportunity to vote on what the American people want. And poll after poll have shown that they want to see a real energy act. They know that the problem with the high price of energy is the lack of supply. They know the problem with the disruption of our energy supply that just occurred due to Hurricane Ike is because we have not enough refinery capacity in this country, and that it is not distributed around the United States. The American Energy Act provides for using abandoned U.S. military bases to build new refineries. We haven't built a new one in more than 30 years. And the bill that was brought to the floor of the House by the Democratic leadership earlier this week did absolutely nothing in that area. We're now importing refined petroleum products, paying a higher price. We're seeing more and more billions of dollars going out of this country every week, costing America jobs, harming our economy because we are so dependent upon foreign oil, at the same time that we have huge resources, not just oil, but natural gas, coal, the potential of new nuclear power, as well as a whole array of alternative sources of energy like wind and solar and geothermal and biomass and hydrogen. All of these things are available to us if we will take the leadership here in this Congress and get the American Government out of the way of developing these new sources of energy. But, instead of doing that, we bring a no drill, no energy bill to the floor that was clearly a sham, a hoax on the American people. We have abundant resources in oil. The estimates are that we could be producing 3 to 4 million barrels of oil from the Outer Continental Shelf. The bill that was brought forth on the floor of the House shuts off 80 to 90 percent of that oil from access to the marketplace because they don't allow drilling. I introduced legislation, as have other people, to allow drilling off the coast of our respective States. I've introduced one for Virginia that has strong support in our delegation. And yet the legislation that was brought forward earlier this week does not provide any royalties for the States. So our Governor, Democratic Governor of the State has already indicated that if the State can't benefit from deriving royalties that can be used for developing better transportation systems, alternative forms of energy, public education and so on, if it can't be used for that, he's not interested in participating. So that bill was meaningless. It was a sham. We need to bring forth real legislation like the American Energy Act that shares those royalties with the States so that they're able to do that. It's estimated that we could have a million barrels of oil a day coming down the pipeline that already exists in Canada, if we would drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area the size of the State of South Carolina; and the area that would be utilized for drilling for oil is about 2,000 acres, like a postage stamp on a football field. That's how much of this land of this huge area would be utilized. The people of Alaska support it. The Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, supports it. Are we doing that? No. Wouldn't even bring it up. Wouldn't bring up a bill that we could even offer an amendment to to allow for that to take place. Meanwhile, the oil that comes from the Prudhoe Bay area is declining. It was 2.1 million barrels a day at its peak. It's now down to 700,000 barrels a day. We're told that when it gets down to 300,000 barrels a day, we'll have to close down the pipeline because it's not economically efficient to transport the oil. At the same time we could be adding a million barrels of oil a day for an estimated 30 years, we're at risk of losing not just that million, but an additional 300,000 barrels of oil a day, about 6 percent of the consumption in this country every day for 30 years. And then look at the oil shale available in the Rocky Mountain States. Here we have an estimated somewhere between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil that can be extracted from that oil shale, much like the Canadians are extracting oil from tar sands in Canada. So while they're doing that in Canada, this Congress last year passed legislation that prohibits the United States Government from buying that oil from Canada. And then in terms of our own reserves which are huge, to just give you an idea, since the first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859, until today, the entire world has used about 1 trillion barrels of oil. And yet we're leaving untapped, because legislation was not brought forward to address it, untapped, 800 billion to 2 trillion barrels of oil available to us in that oil shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain States. It's a shame, Mr. Speaker, that we're not doing that today. Coal reserves. We have more coal reserves than any other nation in the world. New technology exists to convert it to liquid that can be used for transportation purposes. We have new technology that is cleaner burning coal, and yet we're not doing anything in the legislation that was offered here earlier this week to tap into that. Nuclear power. It's been correctly noted here today that while the United States still derives 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, France today gets close to 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. They continue to develop that technology. We haven't, for 30 years. We haven't for 30 years built a single new nuclear power plant. There are now some on the drawing boards, thanks to legislation that the Congress adopted 2 years ago to incentivize that. But because of regulations that stand in the way, we will not have the opportunity to see a single kilowatt hour of electricity generated from those new nuclear power plants for at least 10 years. Why? Because this Democratic leadership would not bring up legislation like the American Energy Act that enables that. The same thing with the development of alternative fuels like wind and solar and geothermal and hydrogen and biomass. What do they do to incentivize? They increase taxes. That's the last thing we need right now when the American economy is in the condition that it's in, to have tax increases to pay for something that we could pay for with the royalties that would come from drilling offshore, from drilling in Alaska, from tapping into that oil shale, from drilling for natural gas where the largest deposit known in the world is in the Gulf of Mexico, and yet we can't have access to it. There's natural gas all down the eastern coast of the United States. We can't have access to that. Why? Because they won't share the royalties with the States and it won't happen. And they've kept some of these areas off limits in their legislation as well. This is a travesty, Mr. Speaker. We should be having the American Energy Act on the floor today. That's what the American people want. That's what will create millions of American jobs in creating this new energy, and in revitalizing our industry and revitalizing manufacturing and strengthening agricultural production in this country and strengthening all of American commerce, making us more competitive with the rest of the world if we would simply seek to be energy independent, which we could accomplish in 10 or 15 years if the leadership of this Congress would simply bring forward legislation that would enable us to empower America to have real energy independence and real American jobs and save this economy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For the past few years, the Committee on Agriculture has taken a proactive approach to try to understand and monitor the issue of trading activity in the futures markets and conduct appropriate oversight. This was so we could make an informed decision about whether or not commodity markets need greater transparency and accountability. Last week, CFTC Acting Chairman Walt Lukken presented a 6-month study of the futures market to the committee. Chairman Lukken and his staff spent a lot of hours and a great deal of work over the past 3 months to produce that report. We appreciated their efforts, especially for keeping an aggressive timetable. The CFTC report was useful in providing a reference point in determining the relationship between index fund-related activity in the over-the-counter markets and commodity futures, and energy and agriculture prices in the United States. However, as we move forward today with H.R. 6604, there are key factors for us to consider. One, after hearing testimony from Mr. Lukken, and after examining the findings of this report, it is evident that our priority should be ensuring that the CFTC has the tools and resources it needs to protect and preserve the integrity of our futures markets. The CFTC devoted more than 30 employees and 4,000 staff hours to produce this report. Those who have read the report all agree that these broad snapshots of the markets are necessary, but the CFTC does not have the staff to dedicate to similar projects. This bill directs the CFTC to hire 100 additional employees. But because there has not been a single appropriations bill passed by both Chambers and presented to the President, I have no idea how the already underfunded agency will be able to do so. The Democratic leadership is fond of pointing the finger of blame, but ultimately the Democratic leadership has one duty, to consider and pass the appropriations bills that fund the government. The Democratic leadership has refused to execute this duty and has failed the American taxpayer. Second, this bill will not reduce the price of oil. It will not relieve the burden many Americans face at the gas pump. In order to achieve that very important goal, Congress must focus on creating a viable energy policy that goes beyond the measures passed thus far to increase the domestic supply of energy sources and promote energy independence. Though I have concerns that some of the provisions in H.R. 6604 are too far-reaching, I will continue to support this bill to ensure that the CFTC has all the tools it needs to preserve and protect the integrity of our futures markets. But I know, as I have worked closely with the chairman of the committee, who has worked in a very bipartisan fashion to fashion this legislation and address these concerns and make sure the CFTC has the necessary oversight authority and capability, that this bill would provide for it. I also know that this is not what the American people want and need when it comes to energy. I know that there are many on the other side of the aisle who are hoping still to have an opportunity to vote, not on a hoax, not on a sham like we did 2 days ago, but on a real American energy bill that provides for real offshore drilling, not a bill that would shut off 80 to 90 percent of the known oil and natural gas reserves from access, not a bill that does nothing to promote nuclear power, not a bill that doesn't take up consideration of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not a bill that shuts us off from tapping into the oil shale reserves that are in tremendous abundance in the Rocky Mountain States, not a bill that does nothing for coal-to- liquid and other clean coal technologies that would benefit the American people, since we have the largest coal reserves in the world, not a bill that imposes tax increases in order to get to the alternative forms of energy that the American people want to have, but, rather, the American Energy Act, something that we asked this Congress to bring up before we went into a 5-week August recess. While the Speaker of the House ordered the microphones turned off, the C-SPAN cameras turned off, the lights turned down low, we stayed here day after day, week after week, calling for a vote on the American Energy Act. We didn't get it. Instead, we got this sham hoax that won't produce a drop of new oil, won't produce a cubic foot of new natural gas, will do nothing for nuclear power, will do nothing for coal, will do nothing for alternative forms of energy. It is simply an effort to try to derail what the American people clearly wanted to see on the floor of this House. We still haven't seen it. This bill doesn't do it. We need to have that vote, and that's what the debate should be about here today, not this legislation which is good, but does not do what the American people want. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would join him in supporting this motion to recommit because it would help to assure a great many Members on our side of the aisle that the concerns raised about the legislation that somehow this might prove to be disruptive of the markets would indeed not occur. It would simply require that the CFTC examine that and certify that they do not believe that that would be the case, and then the legislation could proceed to be fully implemented, and I think this is a wise consideration. The evidence that we have before us from the findings of a recent CFTC report is that these markets are functioning well. I think this legislation will enable them to continue to function well, but it does not, I think, in any way hurt and could, in fact, indeed enhance the operation of CFTC for them to require to make this investigation and make this certification that people, millions, tens of millions of Americans whose pension funds may include some investment in commodity futures markets will be unaffected by the legislation in terms of empowering the CFTC to conduct further oversight and to take further action as is allowed by the legislation. Again, I would point out that the best thing we can do to secure the pension funds of Americans would be to create more energy in this country that would meet the supply demands that are necessary, would help to hold down the cost of oil and natural gas and electricity and everything else that drives this economy, both in terms of our transportation, our manufacturing, the heating of our homes. All of these things would be greater enhanced if we would have the American Energy Act brought before us. Unfortunately, I believe the American Energy Act would not be a germane motion to recommit. Otherwise, we'd be offering it right now, but I believe the gentleman's alternative is a good one, and I support it.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Minnesota is. I would again thank the gentleman for his hard work on this legislation. This is not legislation that this committee has in any way taken lightly over the past several years. We've conducted oversight into the activities of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the futures markets. We've done it in a bipartisan way. We have watched closely to make sure that the commission has the resources it needs to do its job. We found some areas where we think it could use some additional help in terms of personnel, in terms of the authority to gather information, and in a few instances in giving them additional authority to act if they find that there are indicators in the marketplace that it's not functioning properly, that there is excessive speculation and that there is manipulation; and this legislation does that, and I support that. Although I do have some reservations about the legislation, I think it is legislation that deserves to be passed into law. However, I will say it once again that this is not the legislation that the American people want and expect to see us debating on the floor of the House today. They want real energy legislation, not the sham bill that was offered 2 days ago, but legislation that would allow for real drilling for American oil and natural gas and would allow for utilizing new clean-burning coal technologies, that would expand our nuclear power generation of electricity, that would expand our alternative forms of energy. And as we move in that direction, utilizing the resources that are created by producing American energy to accomplish more in the areas of wind and solar and geothermal and hydrogen and biomass and tidal energy production and a whole array of others, that we are simply neglecting because this Congress, the Democratic leadership, refuses to bring to the floor for a vote the American Energy Act, which would command very, very overwhelming bipartisan support if it were brought to the floor for a vote. But it's more than just what consumers are paying at the gas pump. It's more than what they're worried about having to pay to fill their tanks with oil or kerosene to heat their homes this winter or their natural gas bills or their electric bills that are going up and up. It's more than that. It's about the American economy, and it's about American jobs. This legislation would create millions of American jobs, not only in energy production but also in manufacturing and agriculture, in a whole host of areas that would make America more confident, would make America more competitive with the rest of the world. We need this legislation. We need it badly. It will be a shame, Mr. Speaker, if we leave town without passing the American Energy Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, during the month of August I was pleased to join over 130 of my Republican colleagues in Washington to represent the American people on the floor of this House. It is undeniable that the American people want us to develop our Nation's resources. This is demonstrated in poll after poll and exemplified with the meetings I have with my constituents. I always hear: Congressman, we must do something about energy costs! When I heard that the Speaker had announced she would be bringing a bill to the floor to allow us to expand energy production, I felt that we had achieved success for the American people. Yes, the Speaker did hear the calls of the American people demanding increased energy production, but she isn't bringing a bill to the floor to expand energy production. Instead, she is bringing to the floor a sham piece of legislation that seeks to only give political cover to vulnerable Democrats who disagree with the will of the American people. Some have cited how this bill opens up areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS. It may technically remove some of the barriers, but it does not include provisions to provide the traditional revenue sharing between the Federal Government and States for the income generated from these developments. What incentive do coastal States have to then develop their resources? I represent a coastal State, a State that has expressed strong interest in developing the resources on our OCS. I think the Commonwealth of Virginia should benefit from revenue sharing, just as Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have. It is unfair for Virginia to be treated differently than these other States when sharing our resources. Sadly, this isn't the only provision that will unfairly harm Virginia. This legislation also contains a one-size-fits-all Renewable Electric Standard. This legislation assumes that all States have the exact same amount of renewable resources and can develop them, and punishes them when they cannot with penalties. The costs of energy due to the Renewable Electric Standard, as estimated by just one of Virginia's many electric utilities, will increase $900 million for its retail customers. My constituents are already paying high prices for energy; we don't need to further increase these costs! The fact is Virginia does not have as many wind and solar resources as other states. In Virginia, we have a voluntary RPS but our RPS contains nuclear and waste-to-energy, two things not allowed if this legislation becomes law. Proponents of this legislation will tout how green this bill is; however, if my colleagues really want to promote green energy they should encourage the production of more nuclear sites which provide CO2 emission-free energy. The rest of the world is far outpacing the U.S. in its commitment to clean nuclear energy. We generate only 20 percent of our energy from this clean energy, when other countries can generate about 80 percent of their electricity needs through nuclear. It is a travesty that this legislation does not once mention or encourage the construction of clean and reliable nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is the most reliable and advanced of any renewable energy technology, and if we are serious about encouraging CO2-free energy use, we must support nuclear energy. Furthermore, this legislation does not even address some of our most promising domestic alternative and renewable energy supplies. There is not one thing in this bill that addresses clean coal technologies. Coal is one of our Nation's most abundant resources, yet the development of coal-to-liquid technologies is completely ignored by this bill. What's even more troubling is the energy resources this bill continues to keep out of the hands of American consumers. The Democrats' legislation prohibits environmentally responsible exploration of American oil shale resources unless states ``opt-in'' to such a system and the bill does not allow local communities to share in the revenues generated from oil shale exploration. The Department of Energy estimates that 2 trillion barrels of oil shale exists within the United States, resources that the Majority does not seem to want to develop. Furthermore, this legislation does not permit responsible exploration of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, known as ANWR, in Alaska. According to estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey, ANWR holds between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable reserves, potentially producing nearly a million barrels of oil a day. Exploration and development in ANWR would open only 2,000 of the 19 million acres of the refuge, or the equivalent of an area one-fifth the size of Dulles Airport in an area the size of South Carolina. This legislation does nothing to address the energy concerns of our country. This legislation only makes the situation worse and it is the product of a flawed process that does not have bipartisan support! If we really want to make our country energy independent, this Congress must pass an energy bill that allows and encourages the development of our Nation's resources. Americans are tired of Congress playing politics when they are in desperate need of relief from high energy costs. It is time for Congress to get serious and allow Americans increased access to their energy resources.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, when Speaker Pelosi said that an energy bill that included drilling would be a hoax, she knew what she was talking about. Last night, in the dead of night, the Democratic leadership brought forward a no drill, no energy bill. That bill is a hoax on the American people, just as she said it would be. You can put lipstick on a no- drill, no-energy bill, but it's still a no-drill, no-energy bill. I have introduced legislation, many others have, to allow the States to participate in drilling off their coasts. Their bill prohibits that. We will see no drilling, we will see no oil production, no access to oil production in more than 90 percent of the areas where oil exists, and we should go after it. Nothing in this bill for nuclear power, nothing in this bill for coal-to-liquid technology, nothing in this bill for the American people, nothing in this bill for my constituents, nothing but a hoax on the American people.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act of 2008. I introduce this as a companion bill to legislation being introduced today by my colleagues in the Senate, Senators John Warner and Jim Webb. Mr. Speaker, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, NHPRC, is a statutory body affiliated with the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA. NHPRC was established by Congress in 1934 to promote the preservation and use of America's documentary heritage essential to understanding our democracy, history, and culture. Currently, NHPRC is authorized to administer grants to promote preservation and use of America's documentary heritage. The NHPRC supports projects that preserve and make accessible records and archives, and research and develop means to preserve authentic electronic records. The Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act of 2008 would allow NHPRC to make grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities to promote the historical preservation of, and public access to, historical records and documents relating to any President who does not have a Presidential archival depository currently managed and maintained by the Federal Government, pursuant to the Presidential Libraries Act of 1955. Mr. Speaker, in order to be eligible to receive these grants, an entity must qualify as a 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and be exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of that Code, or be a State or local government. In order to maintain the integrity of the grant program, NHPRC shall only approve grants to those entities that possess historical works and collections of historical sources that the Commission considers appropriate for preserving, publishing, or otherwise recording at the public expense. The entity must also have appropriate facilities and space for preservation of such historical works and ensure public access to these collections. Finally, to maintain the fiscal integrity of this Act, the receiving entity must have raised funds from non-Federal sources in support of the grant efforts. In addition, grants may not be used for the maintenance, operating costs, or construction of any facility to house the historical records to any President who does not have a Presidential archival depository currently managed by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the focus of the bill is preservation and access to documents, not constructing new buildings or monuments. This is important legislation that will preserve our Nation's documentary heritage, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, each week, folks across Virginia and the Nation are confronted with the rising cost of energy, from the cost at the pump to soaring electric bills. Energy is vital to every sector of our economy, including homes, small businesses and industries. When energy supplies are tight, families and businesses are severely impacted by the resulting increase in energy costs. While the majority has succeeded in strangling any efforts to tap into traditional energy resources in America, our Nation's citizens have suffered. They have suffered with skyrocketing gas and food prices, and they have suffered from the fear that we are ever dependent on foreign, and sometimes hostile, sources of oil. While the leadership of the majority in Congress can't seem to get its act together to solve this problem for the Nation, as a representative of the people of Virginia, I cannot stand by and simply watch this spectacle. The time for action is now. Virginians understand that a major component in lessening energy costs is to produce more energy. In fact the topic of energy production on Virginia's Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, has received serious discussion by the Virginia General Assembly. I believe that Virginia should have every tool available to access its energy supplies. Unfortunately, a congressional moratorium on exploration of the OCS prevents the Commonwealth from having every tool available to address rising energy costs. Therefore, I rise to introduce legislation to allow Virginia to request oil and natural gas exploration activities off its coast. Should these exploration activities prove fruitful, then the legislation would allow Virginia to petition for drilling for these precious resources. This bill does not mandate that Virginia explore or drill off its coast. It simply removes the Federal Government's longstanding barriers to these activities. The final decision of whether to explore or drill is placed squarely where it should be--in the hands of the people of Virginia, through their State legislature and Governor. This legislation is not a cure all, and it does not fix the problem all across the country. However, Virginia's two Senators, one from each political party, have introduced similar legislation over in the Senate, and this is promising. In order to demonstrate how broad the support is for allowing States to decide this issue for themselves, I would encourage Members from all States to introduce similar legislation until a threshold of support is achieved that breaks the Democrat leadership's logjam on this issue and allows the will of the American people to be heard.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the chairman how many speakers he has remaining. I'm the only one right now on the floor on our side.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I reserve my time.