Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) who wishes to engage in a colloquy with the chairman on an issue in which I share the concerns raised by the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to recognize the Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for 1 minute.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) who is the ranking Republican on the subcommittee of jurisdiction.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from North Carolina, for their hard work, particularly the gentleman from Minnesota. He thought that, following the passage of the farm bill earlier this year, that he would have a lighter burden. And instead, we have devoted a substantial amount of time to this legislation. Six hearings were held, more than 30 witnesses were invited before the committee, and literally, dozens of meetings took place as well to reach the point we are at. And I want to commend him for that work. And I think that he has done a very good job in fending off some very bad ideas that the committee heard about from other Members and from others who wanted the committee to do a whole lot more than we are doing in this legislation. But I will tell you that I think, quite frankly, the whole process is one that is not complete. We really shouldn't be bringing this up the day before the Congress recesses for August. We should take it up in September, after this particular bill has been examined more closely by more people and has, perhaps even held a hearing on the legislation itself. Nonetheless, I understand the constraints he is under. He has been advised that we have to take this legislation up now. And that is what is really troubling to me the most about the legislation. I am going to support it. I think it is a modest improvement in the oversight of our commodity markets. And certainly, if there is excessive speculation in the energy markets, we all favor curbing that abuse. But quite frankly, what we really are not getting to do is what took place in the last vote we just cast, the decision to adjourn this Congress this week without anything on the calendar this week to deal with the problem that is most concerning the American people, and that is the fact that we do not have a program to increase the domestic supply of American energy. And we, on the Republican side, just last week, introduced legislation that already has 120 cosponsors or more, the American Energy Act, that would do all of the above. It would increase production of oil and natural gas, which we badly need, given the price that we are facing at the pump. It would have incentives for the development and expansion of nuclear power, clean burning coal technology. It would have incentives for the development of exciting new prospects for new types of energy, it would promote solar and wind power and renewable fuels and hydrogen technology. It would promote conservation, which the American people are already being forced to do because of the high price of energy they are facing at the gas pump today. And I talked to a woman just last week who informed me that to fill the tank at her home with kerosene that will heat her home next winter she has been told will cost her $2,400. We need to be producing increased production, American production of energy. That is what we should be debating here today. That is what should be on the floor today. And I do not understand why the leadership on the other side of the aisle will not allow us to have a vote on this. It is very clear that the overwhelming majority of the American people want to see us take action on this. It is very clear that the significant number of Members on the other side of the aisle would join with virtually all of the Republicans on this side of the aisle in supporting legislation to make America energy independent. But we are not getting that vote, and the reason we are not getting that vote is because the leadership on the other side will not allow it. What do they have to be afraid of in an American democracy that we can't vote on the American Energy Act? That is what this is really all about. They want to go home and say they have done something about energy, when, in point of fact, they have done nothing about the supply of energy in this country because they will not allow us to vote on increasing the supply. That is what this legislation should be addressing, but instead, we are going to address legislation that simply reforms what is being done in the commodity futures trading markets. Certainly, that is a good thing and an important thing for us to look at, but it does not get at the crux of the problem we are facing. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, but I would urge my colleagues to point out that this is not what we need to be debating here today at the end of July just before we go home for the August recess. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment of the gentleman from Georgia about the fact that he favors drilling. I favor drilling. Most of the people over here who have had the opportunity to speak favor drilling. We favor doing a whole lot more than drilling, too. We would like to see increased incentives for nuclear production. We would like to see incentives for coal liquefaction and clean burning coal technology, coal sequestration technology. We would like to see legislation to encourage hydrogen fuel cell technology, solar technology, wind technology to be expanded to make America energy independent. But instead, today we're voting on legislation--which I support, which does a good job of enhancing the ability of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to oversee futures trading, brings more transparency to that, and I support it. But it is not going to solve the problem that the American people face, with the high cost of gasoline going into their tanks, of fuel oil that they're going to have to purchase to heat their home this winter, the higher cost of electricity that they're facing because this Congress refuses to allow us to vote on the American Energy Act and other good pieces of legislation that have been offered here in this Congress to increase the domestic supply of energy. That's what we should be spending our time doing, not voting to go home for the August recess and leaving that very, very serious problem--which is having a very significant impact on our economy-- unaddressed. We should have a vote on the American Energy Act. I think it is a very serious mistake for the Democratic leadership to deny this Congress and bipartisan Members on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to vote on what the American people want us to vote on. That's the problem that they see here in Washington. They don't understand it. And I don't understand why the Democratic leadership is afraid of allowing democracy to work and have the vote that we need to have here in the Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, but I urge them to continue to fight for the legislation we need to have on this floor.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment with the bill before us today, H.R. 5541, the Forest Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act or the FLAME Act. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the authors of this bill are well intentioned and truly want to solve the wildfire funding problem, but, sadly, the FLAME Act does not provide the comprehensive solution needed to adequately resolve this problem. With the unhealthy conditions in our forests, extreme drought, and the increasing influx of people building in fire-prone areas, the size and severity of wildfires has dramatically increased. In the 1990s, an average of 3.2 million acres burned each year. Since 2000, that annual average has doubled to 7.1 million acres. The cost of fighting these wildfires has skyrocketed, from averages of $400 million annually in the 1990s to roughly $1.4 billion in 2007. This year an area roughly the size of Connecticut has already burned, at cost of over $665 million to date. This is not just a western issue. In my home State of Virginia, more acres have burned already this year than in any single entire year since 1963 at a cost of millions of dollars. As firefighting costs have increased, the overall USDA Forest Service and Department of the Interior budgets have not. So, the Forest Service and DOI are footing the bill for these large, unpredictable emergency wildfires within the confines of a flat budget. For the Forest Service, this has meant a 77 percent increase in fire expenditures, a 23 percent decrease in funds to manage the national forests, and a 38 percent decrease in funds to help States and private owners manage their forests. Whether you're a wilderness advocate, a hunter, a mountain biker, or a logger, everyone will be impacted if we don't solve this problem. Wildfires are not only consuming more forestland, they are consuming the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior themselves. The FLAME Act falls short of protecting the Agencies' budgets from this continued erosion. H.R. 5541 does not change the current budget practice of funding firefighting based on the average expenses over the previous decade. Without this change, we will continue to see more and more of the Agencies' budgets go toward fire and less towards taking care of our Nation's forests. In addition to this shortfall, the FLAME Act lacks a comprehensive set of solutions to the problem. Fixes to the wildfire budgeting system must be accompanied by strong cost containment and accountability standards while also ensuring firefighter safety, incentives to encourage communities to step up to the plate and reduce wildfire risks, and more tools to prevent or minimize damage due to catastrophic wildfires, particularly in our Federal forests. H.R. 5648, the Emergency Wildland Fire Response Act of 2008 which Chairman Peterson and I introduced along with a bipartisan group of our colleagues, provides this comprehensive solution. Unfortunately, negotiations for a more comprehensive solution were cut short. I'm pleased to see that the authors of the FLAME Act have incorporated aspects of H.R. 5648 that encourage communities to step up to the plate and become ``fire-ready'' and encourage the Agencies to contain costs in their firefighting efforts. Unfortunately, even with these improvements, the FLAME Act ignores the underlying problem causing the increases in firefighting costs--the unhealthy condition of our Federal forests. We will continue to see skyrocketing firefighting costs and more damage to our forests, watersheds, and communities unless we take steps to reduce fire risk in our Federal forests. We must provide the Agencies additional tools to get our Federal forests in a healthy, more fire resilient condition. My alternative bill, H.R. 5648 provides a new contracting tool for the Forest Service to partner with States to address these unhealthy conditions in Federal forests. This authority has been tested in Colorado and Utah where it's proven to be very effective. Unfortunately, H.R. 5541 contains no such tools. Mr. Speaker, as California and other States are dealing with massive wildfires even as we speak, we shouldn't squander our time with legislation that is only half the solution. H.R. 5541 is akin to using the watering can to fight a wildfire: it might have some short-term benefit of slowing down the flames, but ultimately, it won't stop the fire. That being said, I will vote for this bill because it does move the ball forward. I'm hopeful that we can improve it as we move forward and ask my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a joint analysis prepared by the majority and minority staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the testimony of Michael Greenberger before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on June 3, 2008. It responds to a number of assertions made about what might happen to the market. And while I certainly would hope that something could be found to lower gas prices by as much as Mr. Greenberger suggested in his testimony, here are several pages of reasons why that may indeed not be the case. Select Excerpts of the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 8. STATEMENT: ``Overnight, [prohibiting the trading of energy commodities in Exempt Commercial Markets) will bring down the price of crude oil, I believe, by 25 percent.'' RESPONSE: According to recent market data, there is little to no trading of crude oil contracts on exempt commercial markets in the United States. Prohibiting the trading of energy commodities in a market in which no trading is currently taking place is, thus, unlikely to have an effect on the price of crude oil. Moreover, although there have never been any Exempt Commercial Markets for agricultural commodities, many agricultural commodities have recently experienced substantial price spikes. There is no credible evidence that simply amending the CEA to regulate energy commodities as if they were agricultural commodities will lead to lower energy prices. 19. STATEMENT (p. 8): ``The Senate Permanent Investigating Subcommittee has now issued two reports, one in June 2006 and one in June 2007, that make a very strong (if not irrefutable) case that trading on ICE has been used to manipulate or excessively speculate in U.S. delivered crude oil and natural gas contracts. The June 2006 report cited economists who then concluded that when a barrel of crude was @ $77 in June 2006, $20 to $30 of that cost was due to excessive speculation and/or manipulation on unregulated exchanges.'' RESPONSE: The 2006 and 2007 PSI reports focused on the role of excessive speculation in U.S. commodity markets; neither report contained any findings on whether traders manipulated crude oil or natural gas prices.

Mr. GOODLATTE. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

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

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. I support this resolution because it gives nothing new to the CFTC but it gives it encouragement to do its work. It does not make any finding that there is excessive speculation in the market, and if there is excessive speculation in the market, then I certainly expect and support action by the CFTC to exercise its emergency powers to do so. But the gentleman is exactly right when he notes that India and China are increasing their consumption of all different types of sources of energy, and they're not the only ones. They're just the largest ones.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the chairman if he has additional speakers. I have only myself to close.

Mr. GOODLATTE. That being the case, I will yield myself the balance of my time to say to the chairman again, I thank him for his work on this issue. I support this measure. Certainly, I expect the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to address any problems with excessive speculation in the energies markets and to use their emergency powers to do so, if appropriate. But I will tell you that this is a problem that's been going on a lot longer than recent speculation in this market. It's been going on for years because of a lack of increase of supplies of oil and natural gas and other basic sources of energy in this country. All we ask of the Democratic leadership is to put the bills on the floor that get what the American people want, and that is a vote to open up America to increase domestic supply of energy. The Speaker of the House doesn't have to support the legislation. The majority leader doesn't have to support the legislation. All they have to do is let this happen on a bipartisan basis, and we will have a bipartisan vote to do what the American people want. Let us have that vote. Let us have that debate on the floor of this House, and we will do what the American people want.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the CFTC, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Peterson, for his work in this area. We held a hearing on this issue on Tuesday of this week. In the farm bill which the Congress just passed overwhelmingly several times, we overrode the President's veto, it includes legislative language that takes further steps to complete the closure of the Enron loophole. In that testimony we received on Tuesday, we received assurance that between the language that was in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act passed in the aftermath of the Enron scandal, and in the language that was included in the farm bill, the Enron loophole is now closed. I have no reason to oppose this legislation and I therefore will support it. It simply tells the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to do what it already has the authority to do, and based upon the testimony that we received on Tuesday is already doing to ensure that there is not excessive speculation in the energy futures markets. I have every confidence that they will do so, that they will heed this additional voice of support for their doing their jobs. But, quite frankly, this legislation does not do what needs to be done by this Congress. The Democratic leadership in this Congress is continuing a pattern that the American people are increasingly concerned about, and that is to do everything they can to try to blame everyone but themselves for the problem that we face in this country of having years of neglect of not having a domestic energy policy dedicated toward increasing the supply, increasing the supply of oil, increasing the supply of natural gas, increasing the supply of clean-burning coal, increasing the supply of nuclear power, increasing the supply of alternative fuels, increasing efforts to bring about new technologies. This is the all-of- the-above approach that this Congress should be taking that our conference has taken. In fact, we have worked very hard to see that this policy be brought to the floor of the House. Yes, I will support this bill telling the CFTC to use its authority to curb excessive speculation, but I think it appalling that we aren't doing the job that needs to be done. It is being blocked by the party that controls the access to the floor of this House. H.R. 2279, to expedite the construction of new refining capacity on closed military installations in the United States, and for other purposes, sponsored by Representative Pitts of Pennsylvania with 55 cosponsors. From the House Energy and Commerce and Armed Services Committees, last major action taken, a motion to discharge petition filed by Mr. English, petition 110-9. Why haven't we seen this bill brought to the floor of the House? H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007 sponsored by Representative Thornberry of Texas, 77 cosponsors, referred to the Committees on Natural Resources, House Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce. Last major action, June 10, motion to discharge petition filed by Mr. Walberg. A motion was filed to discharge the Natural Resources, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce Committees of this action. No action taken. Why hasn't that bill been brought to the floor of the House? We have this week another discharge petition on H.R. 5656 which repeals the requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition of alternative fuels, a discharge petition filed this week by Representative Hensarling. Why hasn't this legislation been brought to the floor of this House? There are scores of other bills sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats dedicated to relieving this energy crisis that have been bottled up by the Democratic majority. When, Mr. Speaker, will we get the chance to vote on these very worthy bills? When will we get the chance to actually start offering relief from the outrageously high gas prices that American consumers are facing? That's the problem we are confronting. That's the problem that the leadership in this Congress is not allowing us to address. That's what needs to be done, not telling the CFTC to do the job that they are already doing and already have the authority to do, but acting to make sure that we are increasing supply of all sources of energy, new sources of energy, traditional sources of energy, acting to make sure that the incentives are in place for Americans to conserve. My goodness, they are already doing that. We are seeing that reflected in their activities. This Congress could be helping them out. It is failing to do so. And that, Mr. Speaker, is why we are failing the American people when the leadership of this Congress does not allow us to have these votes. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to say further to the gentleman that when demand around the world, and not just in China and India, is increasing as steadily as it has in recent years and the United States sits back and waits for other countries to increase that supply and increases our dependence upon foreign oil from such unreliable sources as Venezuela and Nigeria and the Middle East, and we then think that simply asking the CFTC to do its job will solve this problem, that is a very serious problem. At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Agriculture Committee and the ranking member of our Department Operations and Oversight Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor James Madison University and ask my colleagues to support House Resolution 1051. I want to thank my colleague from North Carolina and my colleague from Maryland for managing this legislation on the floor, and the chairman and ranking member of the committee for their support of this resolution, which recognizes an outstanding institution of higher education which I am proud to represent in the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia. This resolution celebrates James Madison University on the occasion of its 100th anniversary, which held a week-long celebration culminating with the centennial celebration on March 14, 2008. The entire JMU community celebrated with galas, portrait unveilings of JMU dignitaries, statue presentations, and a photograph of nearly 3,000 students, faculty, staff and alumni forming a ``human 100'' to celebrate the centennial. James Madison University, located in my congressional district in Harrisonburg, Virginia, is surrounded by the beautiful Shenandoah Valley and has proved to be a catalyst in Western Virginia, building on the agricultural base of the region to create a center for higher education and innovation. James Madison University has grown from its establishment as the Normal and Industrial School for Women in 1908 to its renaming to Madison College in 1938 and eventually to James Madison University, where it presently enrolls nearly 17,000 students and employs 3,000 full-time and part-time faculty and staff. Since its establishment, James Madison University has been led by Presidents Julian Ashby Burress, Dr. Samuel Page Duke, the namesake of JMU's mascot, the ``Duke Dog,'' Dr. G. Tyler Miller, Dr. Ronald Carrier, and the current President, Dr. Linwood H. Rose. In my service of representing the Sixth District of Virginia and JMU, it has been a true pleasure to work with former President Dr. Ron Carrier and current President Dr. Linwood Rose as they have skillfully guided James Madison University into the 21st century. Madam Speaker, from its inception, James Madison University has been at the forefront of education. Originally a teachers college, today JMU provides groundbreaking research in information technology, security and alternative fuel sources, and offers more than 100 degree programs, including 68 undergraduate, 30 masters, two educational specialists and six doctor programs. In its 100 yearlings of existence, James Madison University has conferred more than 98,000 degrees. Based on this outstanding curriculum, in 2007 U.S. News and World Report, for the 17th time, ranked JMU as the top public, masters-level university in the South, and JMU's graduation rate, 80 percent, was the highest among all public and private schools in the South. Madam Speaker, James Madison University's alumni have impacted the Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States and the entire world. Madison graduates travel to the farthest corners of the Earth to perform groundbreaking research and provide leadership in corporate boardrooms, athletic fields, State legislatures, and even here on Capitol Hill. I am pleased to have introduced this resolution, cosponsored by the entire Virginia delegation and more than 50 Members of Congress, that recognizes the rich history and accomplishments of this remarkable institution on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. I urge all the Members of this body to join us in congratulating James Madison University on its 100th anniversary and to support this resolution.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the farm bill veto. Currently, 14 of the farm bill's 15 titles have been enacted into law, and the passage of the veto override will ensure that the whole bill, including the trade title, becomes law. The content of the bill before us today is the exact same as it was when 317 of my colleagues joined me in May in support of the reform-minded farm bill the House and Senate Conference Committee produced. The only things that have changed are the bill number and the title, all else remains the same. This farm bill has enjoyed significant bipartisan support in both Chambers. This bill was a collaborative effort crafted by Members on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol and is historic in the amount and degree of reform that it contains. We brought this bill a long way with a long list of reforms that lower cost to the taxpayer and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the programs, yet retains the fundamental purpose for having farm programs to begin with, guaranteeing a stable, reliable, and affordable food supply for the American consumer. Unlike the last farm bill, which was signed into law by the President of the United States, this farm bill is less expensive and contains many of the reforms that the President requested. So I urge my colleagues to support the farm bill override and ensure that the very same farm bill that has garnered significant bipartisan support in this Congress already can finally become law in its entirety. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona.