Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is exactly right. That is the law currently. Whether that law violates the Constitution is an open question. Nevertheless, because it has not been contested, it is the law, and the President, the administration, all of us have to live by that law. There is nothing that gives the President of the United States or anyone in this administration the authority to engage in surveillance of the American people, not a single American citizen, outside of the definition requirements within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the background is obvious and well known to all of us. The fact of the matter is we are now living in a moment which is among the most difficult and dangerous periods in the modern history of our country. It came about as a result of the administration sending our military to attack Iraq. There was no justification, certainly no adequate justification, for that attack. The rationale for doing so as it was presented to the Congress was falsified, unjustified. I think that we all see that today very clearly. The consequences of that action are afflicting our country very decidedly. We have now lost 4,500 American servicemen and women killed, tens of thousands others very seriously wounded. The dollar cost to our country is now approximately $400 billion. By the end of this year it is anticipated to be $450 billion. The costs to Iraq are even more severe. The loss of life in that country may be as many as 100,000 people. Circumstances of life in that country are worse than they were 3 years ago when the invasion occurred in March 2003. And we have now been engaged in an occupation of that country for more than 3 years. The fact that we all have to face is that it is becoming increasingly apparent that the administration has no plan for ending that occupation, and so it will continue. The loss of life will continue, the loss of funds will continue, and the deterioration of our reputation in the world will continue to decline. This Congress has been derelict in its duty. We have not examined the administration in its activities related to the attack on Iraq, the falsified way in which it presented the rationale to this Congress, the way in which it failed to adhere to the recommendations of the military with regard to actions taken prior to the attack and subsequent to it, right up to the present moment. So now we are faced with another potential problem that would magnify the one that we currently confront, and that is we have come to understand that there have been serious considerations within this administration to engage in a military attack on Iran. The rationale for that attack as it has been presented to us is that Iran is engaged in a nuclear weapons development program. Of course, that was part of the falsified rationale that was presented for the attack on Iraq. We also know, of course, that the President in his State of the Union Address here, the address that attempted to justify by presenting false information to the Congress, attempted to justify the attack on Iraq, associated Iraq with the phrase ``axis of evil'' with two other countries, North Korea and Iran. We now learn that there are discussions within the administration for a potential attack on Iran. And in the context of those discussions, it has also been suggested that the administration has the authority to engage in such an attack based upon the vote that was taken here to authorize the attack on Iraq based upon falsified, misleading information, information that was presented to us intentionally falsified and misleading. So the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that none of the funding in this defense appropriations bill is used to engage in any military operation against Iran without a full vote of the Congress of the United States in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. It is a very simple, very straightforward amendment, and I hope that this Congress will live up to its obligations and this House of Representatives in accordance with its responsibilities will pass the amendment. While our Chamber is on track to complete another lightning round of spending bills during this appropriations cycle, we have abdicated our oversight responsibilities across the board in the process. We are writing blank checks for bankrupt foreign policies without having sufficiently robust debate on the administration's actions abroad. Our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a terrible mistake resulting in an inextricable quagmire. And regardless of what our friends across the aisle claimed during our waste of a discussion last week, we are still not on the road to success in that country. Now that other legitimate hot spots in the world, such as Iran, are heating up, we are a passive audience sitting on the sidelines as the Bush administration uses its damaged credibility and poorly-conceived diplomacy to try to head off a nuclear crisis within the most volatile area of the world. We should be an active participant in the formulation of our foreign policy. The Bush administration must be held accountable by Congress for its failings on the world stage. In addition, the administration must work with Congress before it stretches our already-depleted defense capabilities to the breaking point in another ill-conceived engagement. And while the administration's recent efforts to engage with the European community in diplomacy on this issue are a welcome change, their international dealings have not proven to be trustworthy--another cause of our diminished credibility abroad. This administration is tone-deaf when it comes to understanding the diverse religious beliefs and cultural principles of countries in the Middle East. It does not sufficiently support the troops that are already engaged abroad, and it does not understand the damage that this engagement has done to our armed services. We must rectify these problems, and Congress must be an active participant. Iran presents our Chamber with the opportunity to right past wrongs, and to assume the responsibility for oversight and management that we tragically abandoned in the months leading up to our invasion of Iraq.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, late last year a number of American news agencies blew the cover off a covert propaganda operation pursued by the Department of Defense in Iraq. Through this operation, members of our Armed Forces write articles and have them planted in Iraqi newspapers. They also engage with private contractors to do that as well. DOD works with a contractor, the Lincoln Group, who actually pays off Iraqi journalists and publications to get their words printed in Iraqi newspapers and other media. According to a November 30 Los Angeles Times report, many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents, and tout U.S.- led efforts to rebuild the country. By December 2005, the Lincoln Group had paid to plant upwards of 1,000 of these articles in the Iraqi and Arab media. I was shocked by this revelation, which is completely antithetical to what we should really be doing in Iraq. In fact, it is completely antithetical to what other U.S. agencies are doing in Iraq. With one hand we are trying to develop a free, fair and independent news media in that country. But with the other, we are manipulating that media and breeding distrust among Iraqis of their democratic institutions and our efforts at reconstruction. That distrust is a direct threat to our troops in Iraq and a direct impediment to efforts to end our involvement in Iraq. This revelation shocked a lot of people across our country. Both Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush were reported as being concerned about the effort. In fact, National Security Advisor Steven Hadley predicted that the program would soon end. A USA Today-CNN Gallup poll taken immediately after the program was exposed showed that nearly 75 percent of Americans thought it was wrong for the Pentagon to pay Iraqi newspapers for made-up articles. In early March, General Casey announced that an internal review conducted by DOD had concluded that its own activities were legitimate and would continue. Mr. Chairman, these efforts need reconsideration and careful scrutiny. With the Internet and the round-the-clock news reporting, as well as the unfortunate development of media consolidation, the boundaries between international and domestic news are increasingly fuzzy. There is no guarantee that articles sold by the Lincoln Group to the Iraqi press will exist alone, in a bubble, ignored by other media outlets. There is an ever-increasing likelihood that these stories will make their way into our media, which directly contradicts our own laws. These reports are strangely similar to stories that we were seeing here in the United States last year about the administration's developing packaged news articles that they paid to have placed in our own news outlets. I want to know if the Lincoln Group effort is a continuation of that behavior, which was strongly condemned by this House. The program appears to violate a directive that was signed by Secretary Rumsfeld on October 30, 2003, which restricts psychological operations, or PSYOPS, from targeting American audiences, military personnel, and news agencies or outlets. DOD's decision to continue this effort in one country could easily lead to a decision to expand the effort to other countries, a wholly inappropriate idea that is very plausible in the current environment. That needs to be stopped. And DOD is conducting this program with a company called the Lincoln Group, whose beginnings, current activities, and partnerships are cloaked in confusion and deception. This amendment prevents the Department of Defense from spending any of the money it receives in this bill on contracts with the Lincoln Group, its coconspirator in this inappropriate and damaging program. I believe this amendment will send a clear signal to the Department of Defense that Congress and the American public do not agree with this administration's continued efforts to manipulate the media, especially when those efforts jeopardize the safety of our troops and the always shaky trust that we are fighting to maintain with the Iraqi people. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues here in the House to join me in celebrating the life of an outstanding American, an American who was a boxer and the heavyweight champion of the world. His name was Floyd Patterson. He died recently, on May 11 at the age of 71. He was a truly outstanding athlete and, I think even more importantly, an incredibly outstanding human being. All of us who had the opportunity to know him benefited from that knowledge and our association with him, and I am proud to be one of those people who knew him well. Floyd Patterson was born in a rural cabin in Waco, North Carolina, one of 11 children. When he was still young, his family moved to Brooklyn, New York. As a young child there, he struggled in a tough urban environment and as a youngster got into a certain amount of trouble. He was sent upstate to Wiltwyck School For Boys where, under the proper kind of supervision, he began to turn his life around. He did so in a very dramatic way. He became associated with a very important boxing trainer named Cus D'Amato, and at the age of 17 Floyd Patterson won a gold medal in the 1952 Helsinki Olympics, boxing as middleweight. He was known as a ``gentleman boxer.'' He was known as a gentleman boxer because in the ring he knocked a number of people out and a lot of people down, but he always helped them to their feet. He had an amazing boxing career. In 1956 he became the youngest boxer to win a world heavyweight championship, and in 1960 he became the first boxer to ever regain the world heavyweight championship. After an outstanding career in the ring, where he set an extraordinary example for other athletes, he eventually retired to a 17-acre farm that he purchased in New Paltz, New York. While in his retirement, he served as the chairman of the New York State Athletic Commission. He counseled troubled teens through the New York State Office of Children's Services. He welcomed dozens of young men into his home and he trained numerous boxers in the boxing ring that he built in the barn on his farm. He gave generously of himself to the young men he trained and to the communities of the Hudson River Valley in New York, including his generous support of the athletic facilities at New Paltz High School and the State University College of New York at New Paltz. Floyd Patterson was an extraordinary, one might say almost unique, individual. He came from a very difficult set of circumstances. As a very young child he grew up in a set of very dangerous circumstances, but he managed to move himself away from all of that and to realize the extraordinary physical potential that he possessed as a human being and became the kind of champion that I just described. He is an American worthy of honor and tribute and worthy of the recognition of this Congress. I hope that all of the Members of this Congress will join me in a resolution honoring him, his athletic career, and the contributions that he made to countless other individuals whom he helped succeed in realizing the potential of their lives. Floyd Patterson, an extraordinary boxer, an extraordinary American, an outstanding, extraordinary human being. I am proud to celebrate his life.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us, House Resolution 861, is an unfortunate farce. It is part of an extension of the political propaganda, which has come from the Republican Party in defense of their so-called war on terror. It is not the first example. We have had many others. Some of the highest-ranking members of this administration have purposefully and intentionally misled this Congress and the American people by providing them with wrong information. We saw it right here in the House of Representatives when the President himself talked about how the British had learned that Iraq was importing enriched uranium from Niger. He was told before he delivered that speech that there was no evidence that that was true. Yet he came here and said it and put the responsibility on Great Britain knowing that what he was saying was untrue. It is a criminal violation of Federal law, two criminal violations of Federal law to consciously, purposefully, intentionally, mislead the Congress, particularly when you are trying to obtain actions from the Congress which result from that purposeful and intentional misleading. What has been the cost? So far, 2,500 American service men and women killed in Iraq. We hear today from the Republicans how they honor the servicemen, but they continue to have them killed, wounded, continue to have them suffer on the basis of false information, deceit and lies. They claim that this is continuing the war on terror. Well, what happened to the real war on terror? We were attacked by the al Qaeda. The al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq. We know that to be the case. We know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know that to be the case. Yet, after we went into Afghanistan, which was providing solace and security for the al Qaeda network, and chased Osama bin Laden up into the Tora Bora Mountains, the administration decided and the Defense Department decided that they were going to abandon the search. Why did they not pursue the person who was responsible for this attack? Well, there is one logical answer to that question, and the answer is if they had found Osama bin Laden, the rationale for the attack on Iraq would disappear. That is why we need to get out. That is why we need to pass the Murtha resolution.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Vermont, for offering this amendment which I think is very appropriate and very much to the point these days. But before I begin with that, I also want to express my deep appreciation to my friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Kolbe, the gentleman from Arizona who is the chairman of the committee which is overseeing this bill. I want to just thank him for the good sound solid work that he has done, and I want to also tell him that I have very much appreciated having the opportunity to be associated with him in his work. I think he has done an extraordinary job in chairing this subcommittee on appropriations, and I think he has set an excellent example for his successor, whoever that may be. Of course, we hope that successor will be from this side of the aisle, but we will await and see what happens. Whoever it is, the example that Mr. Kolbe has set is one that is important for all of us, and I thank him very much. Last year, the world's five biggest oil companies recorded a staggering $111 billion in profits. And for the first quarter of this year, these same companies have racked up about $28 billion in profits which puts them right on track for even exceeding the record profits that they established last year. The contrast between Big Oil's prosperity and the economic conditions of the vast majority of Americans is very, very obvious and deeply divided. People all across this country are finding it more and more difficult to heat their homes, and they are finding it true that each week a bigger chunk out of their paycheck is going to pay for the gasoline that they need just to get back and forth to work. So Americans are getting gouged twice. They are getting gouged at the pump and they are getting gouged in their tax bills. So what this amendment does is begin to focus attention on this situation where we are subsidizing American oil companies that are making record profits to go off and spend the taxpayers' dollar to develop energy sources in some other part of the world. It just does not make any sense. They have more cash on hand right now than they know what to do with, and now we are providing them with additional subsidies. So I thank the gentleman from Vermont for giving us the opportunity to vote on this amendment, to establish some clarity here with regard to how we use these funds. The kind of corporate welfare that is exemplified here in this particular example of taxpayers' dollars going to the richest companies in the world making the biggest profits in the world is just another example of how we have misallocated the taxpayers' dollars in this country, denying them the things they need in order to subsidize the coffers of people who do not need it. Let's pass this amendment. Last year, the world's five biggest oil companies--ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron Texaco--recorded a staggering $111 billion in profits. For the first quarter of 2006, these same companies recorded almost $28 billion in profits. The contrast between Big Oil's prosperity and the struggles of ordinary families to pay for the high cost of energy has never been clearer. Americans are getting gouged twice: once at the pump when they pay high prices and twice, when they pay taxes that end up in the pockets of some of the most profitable energy companies in the world. Yet, despite these record profits, the oil industry continues to benefit from billions in giveaways--courtesy of the American taxpayer. This amendment would put an end to one such egregious subsidy. As my good friend from Vermont has explained, since 1995, the Export- Import Bank has provided more than 7 billion US taxdollars for loans and loan guarantees for oil and gas projects all over the world--all funded by Uncle Sam, or should I say, by taxpayers? And look where our tax dollars are going: $1.3 billion to Exxon- Mobil; $162 million to BP; $300 million to Chevron; and nearly $2 billion to Halliburton. Can anybody tell us without laughing up their sleeve that these corporate giants need more help from the very people who are having a difficult time affording to heat or cool their homes or put gasoline in their cars? And what's more, should we ever be subsidizing a foreign firm? As the gentleman from Vermont has already pointed out, the top recipient of this corporate welfare is Pemex, which is wholly-owned by the government of Mexico. Since 1996, Pemex has benefited from over $4 billion in financing from the Export-Import Bank. In fact, roughly 70 percent of total Export-Import Bank financing for oil and gas projects since 1996 has gone to Pemex. So why can't we see the absurdity of American taxpayers who are already $8.3 trillion in debt, subsidizing the Mexican government's oil and gas operations? American tax dollars should not be publicly financing oil and gas projects for a company that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mexican government. We should be embarrassed to ask that of our constituents. This amendment would simply provide a time-out for more of this corporate welfare benefitting the most profitable companies in the country when they want to develop energy overseas, at the expense of ordinary Americans. This amendment would acknowledge that we are finished with putting American taxpayers at risk when we guarantee Export Import loans for risky oil and gas ventures overseas. It would end the bilking the public trough for private gain. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is again about fairness. Why should the US taxpayer prop up the oil and gas industry in times like these? I can see no good reason, nor should my colleagues. These companies can afford to do their risky business with no assist from the public. They can get loans from banks. They are not strapped for cash to invest overseas. They have told us loud and clear that they do not need our subsidies, so let's take them at their word. Unfortunately, every time we do take them at their word, these same companies come back begging to Washington for more corporate welfare and taxpayer dollars. This simply has to stop. If American companies want to invest in energy resources overseas, have at it, and good luck to you. Just don't expect hard-working, underpaid Americans to foot the bill. Support your taxpayers. End corporate welfare. Support this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, my friend and colleague, for giving me this time to discuss this rule and the bill that it controls. I hope that the majority of the people in this House will vote against this rule. This House of Representatives is supposed to provide the American people with a free, open and fair discussion of the most critical issues that affect them and this democratic Republic. This rule does just the opposite. This rule closes down the debate on one of the most important issues before the American public and before this Congress, and that is the free and open, fair dissemination and discussion of information. What this legislation does is it curtails the free, open and fair discussion of information, even more so than we have currently, and the situation that we have currently is bad enough. A large part of that badness comes out of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which the Republican Party pushed through this House of Representatives back then. Remarkably, there were 16 of us who voted against that bill. A lot more wish they had voted against it today, and those people who vote for this rule and vote for this bill, at some point in the future they will regret having done so because what this rule does is close down debate on a bill which closes down discussion of important issues before the American public. Let me just give you a quote from the Supreme Court. Almost 60 years ago the Supreme Court declared: ``The widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public. A free press is a condition of a free society.'' What do we have today? Today we have five companies that own the broadcast networks. They own 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks. They produce three-quarters of all prime-time programming, and they control 70 percent of the prime-time television market. These same companies that own the Nation's most popular newspapers and networks also own 85 percent of the top 20 Internet news sites, and you are going to close down the Internet even more with this legislation. One-third of America's independent TV stations have vanished. There has been a 34 percent decline in the number of radio station owners since the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed. I want to say this to my dear friend from Chicago for whom I have the greatest affection and affiliation: there has also been a severe decline in the number of minority-owned broadcast stations since the end of the 1990s. Minorities now own little more than 1.5 percent of U.S. television stations, and they own 4 percent of the Nation's AM and FM radio stations. This bill now closes down the process even more. It closes down the last free, open element of communication not controlled by big corporations in America. It closes down the Internet. It is going to make the Internet less available to Americans. It is going to make communication through the Internet less available to Americans. And it is going to further stifle debate on the most important issues confronting our country just in the same way that this Republican rule stifles debate on this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of my friend and constituent, Shirley Kobran. For more than four decades, Shirley has been an active resident of Ulster County, New York where she has dedicated much of her time to serving her community in various manners. Most notably, Shirley committed much of her energy over the years to environmental protection programs and served as the catalyst for several important local initiatives. I'm proud to join the Ulster County Jewish Federation in honoring Shirley for her lifetime achievement and service to the communities of Ulster County. Upon her arrival to Ulster County from the Bronx, Shirley quickly became active in various community service organizations. It was in her capacity as editor of the League of Women Voters' monthly newspaper that she featured environmental articles prominently on the front page and began to organize the League around relevant environmental matters. On Earth Day in 1970, Shirley, along with her League colleagues, founded the Environmental Task Force of Ulster County. One of the most notable public policy initiatives to emerge from the Task Force was a broad-based recycling program that laid the groundwork for the county's current recycling program. Shirley later became the first chairperson of the Ulster County Environmental Council where she brought attention to the environmental concerns surrounding the generation of nuclear power and oversaw the organization of various environmental fairs. Shirley went on to serve on the Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency where she formalized a recycling program that continues to exist in the county. She oversaw significant expansion of the Resource Recovery Agency and its recycling program, including the construction of the agency's first sorting facility. In addition to these notable endeavors, Shirley has been deeply involved with the Ulster County Jewish Federation and many of its programs that support the community. She volunteers regularly at her synagogue, Ahavath Israel, and participates in many community service programs including the Federation's Book Rescue Program and Project Hope. Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with Shirley Kobran for more than thirty years. She has been a friend and a valued adviser and we have worked closely on many issues of importance to the residents of Ulster County. Her work on behalf of environmental issues and her community is inspiring and commendable. It is with great pleasure that I join the Ulster County Jewish Federation in recognizing her outstanding contributions and achievements.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California, for organizing the time for this discussion this evening. I think this resolution before us at the moment is very, very important. It calls upon the House of Representatives to recognize the importance of National Women's Health Week. The importance of National Women's Health Week is to draw people's attention from all across our country to the issues that affect the health of women in America. And those issues affect women of all ages. One of the things that we are attempting to do with regard to National Women's Health Week is to draw attention to the necessity to try to live better lifestyles, healthier lifestyles, and to take advantage of the opportunities for medical screening. One of the unfortunate situations that we confront in our country, of course, is the fact that we still do not have a system of national health insurance. And so consequently, many women will not be able to take advantage of opportunities to get medical screening because they do not have insurance. But, in the meantime, this resolution focuses attention on the need to live healthier lifestyles, to be aware of the various diseases and other health concerns that affect women, to take the necessary precautions to deal with those issues, to live the healthiest possible lifestyle, and to get the best appropriate medical attention. It also thanks all of the agencies, and organizations across our country that devote their time and attention to the issue of womens' health. Womens' health is important for all of us, and that is why this resolution is so important for the Members of this House and for all of our constituents all across America. I ask my colleagues to devote their attention to this resolution, to support it favorably, and to ensure its passage, because this issue is critically important to every single family in America. I ask that we give it the appropriate attention that it deserves and that the resolution be passed unanimously.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Oregon for yielding me this time. I also want to express my admiration, respect and affection for the gentleman from California, who is the sponsor of this legislation. But I do disagree with him on the effects that this legislation would have. I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel. As such, I believe it is important to maintain independent and principled positions on Middle East issues. I believe that that requires a ``no'' vote on resolution 4681. Hamas' victory in the elections for the Palestinian legislative council was indeed regrettable, and Hamas government's failure to condemn, much less take steps to prevent acts of terrorism is abhorrent. It is appropriate that the international community, including, of course, the United States, make a concerted and coordinated effort to pressure Hamas. However, H.R. 4681 risks undermining such efforts, harming United States national security and undermining those Palestinian officials and activists who do recognize Israel, who do reject terror, and who do support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. H.R. 4681 subjugates U.S. national security interests to political grandstanding. It does so by eliminating the President's authority to waive sanctions in the interests of United States national security, a waiver that is a standard component of virtually all U.S. sanctions legislation. H.R. 4681 risks undermining Palestinian moderates and strengthening extremists by providing no political horizon that an alternate Palestinian leadership can strive to reach. H.R. 4681 preconditions U.S. relations with the Palestinian Authority and imposes sanctions based on criteria that are unrelated to the issues raised by the Hamas elections, and 4681 makes it more difficult for the United States to engage with alternatives to a Hamas-led government like President Mahmoud Abbas or the PLO. This proposal, unfortunately, is itself extreme, and as such, I believe, would do no good. Rather, it will strengthen the position of extremists and increase the violence and destruction which has become more prevalent as the result of the expression and implementation of policies such as those contained in H.R. 4681. I believe that we should defeat this proposed legislation and instead focus on something that would be more productive to achieve the kinds of solutions that we need to the problems that exist in the Middle East.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration has allowed these leases to continue for 5 years, and they haven't renegotiated them. I would just like to draw that to the attention of my friend from Idaho. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have at the desk is a simple one. It says that none of the funds made available in this act may be used to issue any new leases that authorize production of oil or natural gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to any lessee under an existing lease where such lease is not providing the proper royalties based upon market price. We have a situation here where the American public is being gouged for the price of oil on two separate occasions, once at the gasoline pump and once when their oil and natural gas is being drilled and obtained by oil companies that are not paying the royalties on those leases. This is something that needs to stop. We have right now over 1,000 leases, roughly 1,032 leases, to major oil companies to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere, and there is no provision for those oil companies to pay royalties on the product owned by the American citizens that is being taken out of the ground, whether it is dry or under the Continental Shelf. That needs to change. We are losing roughly $1 billion a year, and unless this is changed over the course of the next 20 years, we will lose more than $20 billion. So we need a situation that is going to address this, and this amendment will do so. It simply says that anyone who is interested in having leases to extract oil or natural gas from the Outer Continental Shelf, and they have already leases upon which they are not paying the proper royalties, is not going to be permitted to take those new leases. Those new leases provide for royalties between 12 and 16 percent. The royalties are on a product that is owned by the citizens of this country, whether it is the oil or the natural gas; and any oil company that is taking those products out of the ground, out of public lands, taking this public property and not paying royalties on it should not be provided with additional leases unless they are willing to pay royalties both on the additional leases and the leases that they already have. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to my friend from Idaho that the Congressional Research Service has told us that the enactment of this amendment would not constitute a taking of existing leaseholders' rights, and goes on to say that this amendment is perfectly appropriate and should be adopted. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), my friend and colleague. (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of discussion about the amendment that has been put forward by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson). There are some technical problems with this amendment that I think have not been adequately addressed in the context of this debate thus far. One of those technical amendments has to do with the fact that the experts on this issue, both within Interior and Energy, believe that it may not be possible to give leases for the extraction of natural gas alone. All the leases that we have currently are for natural gas and oil. And the reason for that is, if you drill for natural gas, the likelihood is that you are going to hit oil. And if you hit oil, and you are not capable or prepared to deal with that, then you are going to encounter some very serious problems. So the amendment that Mr. Peterson is going to bring before the House sometime later this afternoon or this evening has within it this very serious technical problem, and for that reason alone it ought to be rejected. The gentleman from Florida, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, was up here just a few minutes ago talking about the serious damage that this amendment, if it is passed and put into action, might have on the tourist industry in Florida and on the general situation of the coastal region in Florida and California and in parts of the gulf. So when you are thinking about this particular amendment, keep in mind that if you think you are going to drill just for natural gas, the likelihood is if you hit natural gas you are going to hit oil too. And if you are not prepared for it, you are going to have some very serious problems. We ought to address this issue, but address it in a much more comprehensive way. As has been pointed out, again by the gentleman from Florida on the other side of the aisle just a few minutes ago, we have not had adequate hearings on this. This is an issue that has not gone through the appropriate authorizing committee. We are attempting to inappropriately put it into the context of this appropriations bill, and for that reason also that amendment ought to be rejected. Furthermore, we need to be conserving our natural resources, particularly our energy resources. Anything that you find anyplace in the world on energy resources, natural gas and oil, these materials are fungible. They go out anywhere. If we are smart about our natural resources, we ought to be doing everything we can to conserve them, keep them where they are because the value of those natural resources is going to dramatically increase over time. If we exploit them now, extract them now, exhaust them now, we are going to be very sorry for it later on. In addition to that, we have another circumstance with regard to this amendment and the ideas behind it, and that has to do with the fact that we are not now receiving adequate royalties from the natural resources, particularly petroleum and natural gas, that are being extracted by oil companies from public lands, whether those public lands are dry or under water. And there will be an amendment coming up later this evening, in all likelihood towards the end of this bill, which will deal with the need to get those royalties. So for those reasons I think that this amendment ought to be rejected. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have.

Mr. HINCHEY. The entire time for the bill?