Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1150 and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman has said, we have worked, and the executive branch has worked, to enhance the security of this Nation since the terrible episode of 9/11. However, I think it would not surprise people to understand that we put primary focus on aviation safety since that was the means, that is aviation, that was utilized by the terrorists on 9/11. We have done a good job with it. A couple of years ago, we passed the SAFE Port Act, which I think gave tremendous enhancement to the security measures that are utilized in our ports. This resolution recognizes that we need to do more in the area of rail and mass transit. I do not view that at as a criticism of anybody. Rather, I view that as a call to arms, so to speak, an urgency imprinted on the concern that we have in this area of potential vulnerability. I would particularly point to the part of the resolution that states that TSA should continue to develop the National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program and to utilize it with respect to our Nation's rail and mass transit line. One of the things that I think we have realized, on both sides of the aisle, is the tremendous capabilities of canines and the application of canine teams in a number of different areas of security in a number of different transportation modes. I would say that I would hope that at some point in time, we might also be able to bring to the floor legislation dealing with the trucking industry. There is bipartisan commitment to do that. The gentleman from Mississippi has had a bill that a number of us have worked on, along with the gentlelady from Texas and others, that would enhance the security nature of our trucking system and would, at the same time, make careful distinctions between security-sensitive materials and otherwise hazardous materials. And that distinction would therefore not disadvantage certain drivers in the United States that otherwise might be prohibited from being able to drive hazardous material that is not security sensitive. I know the gentleman from Mississippi and the gentlelady from Texas are committed to that. I hope that we might be able to see some progress on that in the future as well. Again, I think this resolution is worthy of support by all in this Chamber. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Madam Speaker, I rise again in support of H. Res. 1150, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that TSA should in accordance with the congressional mandate provided for in implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, enhance security against terrorist attack and other security threats to our Nation's rail and mass transit lines. I think we have already spoken about why this is important, why we need to move in this area, as we have moved in effectively in the areas of aviation safety and port and marine safety. We cannot leave out any element of our overall programs. And I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman, for informing me that we should expect to see some action on legislation dealing with the trucking industry, a goal that he and I share. Madam Speaker, as I have reflected on much of the rail industry, I have noticed that they are powered oftentimes by diesel engines. As I have reflected on mass transit in most of our intercity and intercity communities where we are dealing with buses, I have noted that they have been powered by diesel. In some cases for environmental purposes we have encouraged the use of natural gas. That is why, Madam Speaker, it is disappointing to see that we have made it more difficult and more expensive for those who operate those buses and operate those trains to continue to operate because of the increasingly high energy costs. I have been informed that my home State of California has a substantial portion of its electricity that is produced by way of natural gas. So when we talk about the need, the demand, it seems to me we should also look at the supply side equation as well. Not even talking about offshore potential for oil and gas, we should look at onshore oil and gas and the potential for creating more product, American product, for these mass transit systems that we are talking about here today with this bill. So, if we would just look at total onshore oil and gas, not including oil shale, we would find this: Onshore Federal lands contain an estimated 31 billion barrels of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. I am not misstating that. That is 31 billion barrels of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, those figures according to the Bureau of Land Management. The Federal Government currently denies or restricts by way of congressional mandate, denies or restricts access to 92 percent of this oil and 90 percent of this natural gas. In other words, we are saying to the American people who want to use these mass transit systems as well as use their own automobiles, that the very source that provides the energy for those modes of transportation, that is oil and natural gas, we are going to deny 28.5 billion barrels of the oil and 207.9 trillion cubic feet of this natural gas. Now, it is beyond the scope of this bill perhaps to talk about heating. We are going to be in winter, even though it seems difficult in some of these sweltering summer days or pre-summer days to think about that, but we will be in winter when we are talking about the heating needs of the American people, and we should look at the price of natural gas, as it is going up and on up and up, as are our gas prices. Only 8 percent, that is 2.48 billion barrels of the oil out of the potential 31 billion barrels of oil, and 10 percent of the natural gas, 23.1 trillion cubic feet of the 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, are accessible under standard leasing terms. So what we have done to the American people by way of congressional action is say that we are only going to allow you to have access to 8 percent of the oil and 10 percent of the natural gas. Or another way of saying it is we are going to lock up 92 percent of the oil and 90 percent of the natural gas, even though you are desperate in terms of the impact of energy price increases on your everyday living. It's not just at the gas pump, it is as it trickles through or ripples through the entire economy. Every bit of food that we buy today is transported from somewhere else, so the costs of transportation are going to be included in the cost of food to the American people. As we talk to the need for us to enhance our security against terrorist attack and other security threats to our rail and mass transit lines, let's understand the national security implications of denying those very lines, rail and mass transit lines, the energy that they need to move. Again, I support H. Res. 1150 as a bipartisan product of the Homeland Security Committee, which, I think we can proudly say, works on a bipartisan basis. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, before I begin I would ask that the Record include a letter from the National Tactical Officers Association to Congressman King and Congressman Rogers in support of this bill. National Tactical Officers Association, Doylestown, PA, January 27, 2008. Hon. Peter T. King, Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Mike Rogers, Committee Member, Homeland Security and the House Armed Services Committee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman King and Congressman Rogers: The National Tactical Officers Association strongly supports Congressman King's Bill (HR4749) amending the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish the Office for Bombing Prevention and addressing terrorist explosive threats. We also continue to support Senator Collins' and Senator Lieberman's Bill (S2292) to increase funding for the Department of Homeland Security Office for Bombing Prevention. Both amendments provide important resources against the use of terrorist improvised Explosive Devices, including coordination of national and intergovernmental bombing prevention activities, requirements, capabilities, gap analysis and information sharing and awareness. The Department of Homeland Security Office for Bombing Prevention coordinates national and intergovernmental bombing prevention activities in our national bombing prevention posture and runs information sharing and awareness programs for State and local governments, law enforcement, first responders, the private sector and the public. As recently demonstrated in Glasgow, London and in daily news reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorist use of IEDs is a primary threat. We commend you for your support and your leadership in focusing the attention of the House and the nation on this serious issue and on the role of the Department of Homeland Security Office for Bombing Prevention in leading national efforts to prevent the use of explosives by terrorists in the United States. The NTOA is the professional association for law enforcement personnel, sworn correctional officers, tactical emergency medical personnel, military police and special operations personnel who specialize in the resolution of critical incidents. Since 1983, NTOA has worked to provide professional education, training and research for law enforcement personnel engaged in tactical missions and currently has over 30,000 members representing over 1,600 police agencies. NTOA has worked with the Department of Homeland Security Office for Bombing Prevention to integrate SWAT and bomb squad personnel and capabilities to protect soft targets against threats for an armed adversary using explosive devices, as seen in the 2004 Beslan School attack in Russia. OBP provides an invaluable resource to State and local law enforcement through the Tripwire system which allows responders to access an unprecedented library of information and analysis on terrorist IED tactics, techniques and procedures. TRlPwire provides SWAT operators with the knowledge needed to identify explosive hazards, including IED components and potential terrorist tactics, during high risk operations. The Department of Homeland Security's Office for Bombing Prevention has been an exemplary partner for its State and local stakeholders in the bombing prevention and law enforcement communities. The National Tactical Officers Association applauds Senator Collins, Senator Lieberman, Representative Rogers and yourself for your support for the bombing prevention community. Sincerely, John Gnagey, Executive Director. Madam Speaker, the ranking member of Homeland Security, Peter King of New York, introduced this bill to authorize the Office of Bombing Prevention within the Department of Homeland Security. He would obviously be here were he not attending the family funeral for Tim Russert, and I am here in his stead. The Office of Bombing Prevention provides the necessary analysis and coordination of our Nation's bomb prevention capability to best protect our citizens from the threat posed by explosive materials. We only need to look at terrorist activities overseas to understand that conventional and improvised explosive devices, IEDs, are a terrorist's weapon of choice against military and civilian targets. Within the United States, we have been subject to our own share of explosive attacks, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the Centennial Olympic Park bombing, among others. State and local authorities have developed the capabilities to respond to potential explosive threats and to neutralize them. As a matter of fact, these are among the bravest men and women that we have as our first responders. Yet without the office established in this bill, there would be no analysis of our nationwide capability to respond to explosive threats, or where gaps exist in training, equipment and personnel against a national baseline. This analysis will assist State and local officials in applying for Homeland Security grants to fill these gaps. As has been mentioned many times on this floor, there has been a bipartisan effort through our committee to ensure that we take a risk-based approach to the terrorist threat. It makes the most sense. It is one that both sides of the aisle have been committed to, and this enables that even further. Furthermore, this legislation will authorize the Office to continue to promote information sharing and IED security awareness through advanced bomb prevention techniques and usable information. The Office uses a secure Web site known as TRIPwire to provide to bomb prevention officials across the country access to current terrorist IED tactics, techniques and procedures, along with expert analysis and reports, making it a one-stop shop for actionable information. As we all know, our troops have had extensive experience with IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. This legislation instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to work closely with the Department of Defense to take advantage of what our troops have learned on the battlefield, both in tactics and technology, to improve the capability of our first responders here at home. Preventing a bomb from going off should involve more than just those first responders attempting to neutralize the threat once the bomb has been placed. Education and awareness programs regarding the threat of IEDs are also included in this legislation to ensure information on explosive precursors is provided to merchants so that they can recognize suspicious purchases. Additionally, this legislation includes an amendment from our committee colleague, Mike Rogers of Alabama, to improve the canine explosive detection teams in use around the country. These canine teams are invaluable resources to detect and deter IED attacks before they occur. It is important to note that this office is not designed to replace existing elements of counter-explosive expertise already found in the Federal Government, but, rather, to assist in coordinating State, local and tribal capability. In fact, as I said, the National Tactical Officers Association supports this legislation in the letter that has been entered into the Record. The need for this Office of Bombing Prevention is clear. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 4749. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Does the gentleman have any further speakers?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I support this National Bombing Prevention Act for 2008. As the gentleman who just spoke from the State of Texas has said, this is a rather inclusive bill. It has a component of operations and training in it; also a component of awareness. And together, they combine to make an excellent bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again I rise in support of H.R. 5909, the Catching Operational Vulnerabilities by Ensuring Random Testing Act of 2008. I just wish we had the Catching Operational Vulnerabilities by Ensuring Real Energy Production in this Country Act of 2008. The gentlelady from New York has suggested that it's almost insignificant what we do offshore and that we are not actually going after those things right now. Well, let me just put some facts on the table. According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service--not a Republican or Democratic operation--America's deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf contain 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Now, to put that in perspective, the United States consumes 23 trillion cubic feet per year; so 20 times, almost, what we get per year. And 86 billion barrels of oil contained in the deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf; 86 billion barrels of oil, and currently the U.S. imports 4.5 billion barrels of oil per year. So that's about the equivalent of a little less than 20 years of our imports. But 85 percent of the lower 48 Outer Continental Shelf energy resources remain under the lock and key of the Federal Government. Now, why do I say this deals with operational vulnerabilities? We have said in this bill that if you tip off people that they're being investigated, they might not act as they normally do. They might take advantage of you because they know that you are doing these covert operations. Similarly, we are the only developed Nation in the world that forbids safe energy production on our Outer Continental Shelf. No other country in the world does that. Brazil just explored on theirs, and they found the largest single gas find in modern history. In fact, some people are saying that Brazil will now be energy independent and not even have to deal with their ethanol production by way of sugar. Oh, by the way, we could be importing ethanol from sugar from Brazil at much lower costs than ethanol produced by corn in the United States. We have a 53 cent per gallon subsidy for corn-based ethanol, and we have something on the order of a 51 cent tariff on any ethanol brought in produced by sugar from Brazil or anywhere else, and I believe the farm bill brings it down to 45 cents. So we basically have put ourselves in the hole by about 90 cents per gallon with respect to ethanol that makes more cents from sugar than that that we're producing in corn. But even though Brazil is the leader in the world in ethanol produced by sugar, it went ahead and explored on their Outer Continental Shelf. And what did they find? The largest single find. Now, if you had looked a year ago or 2 years ago about the proven reserves for Brazil, that would not even be there because we didn't know about it. The other thing is, with technology, already known fields can produce more than they ever did before. One of the reasons I have a little bit of knowledge of this, I grew up in Long Beach, California. We have been producing offshore Long Beach since before I was born. Every single citizen of the State of California who has any interest in the schools of California is proud of the fact, frankly, that there are subsidies that go to our schools from the royalties paid as a result of producing offshore Long Beach. Now we haven't had a major oil spill in my lifetime. We have I think over 1,000 rigs in the gulf coast that have been sitting there during these tremendous storms that we call hurricanes, including Katrina, that came through that area in the last few years. Not a single drop of oil has resulted, even though we have had massive destruction of all other kinds of facilities in that area. The United States companies, that some on this floor have berated, have spent billions of dollars in development of new technology to make it safer. And the suggestion that somehow they are hiding, somehow they are not utilizing these leases that they have, is just a fantastic claim, because it is utterly preposterous that they would pay money for leases and then not try to see what is there. The fact of the matter is that 52 percent of the oil and gas wells that have been drilled by American companies, 52 percent over the last 5 years, have turned out dry. Now, did they get these leases because they wanted to find dry wells? No. They went because there is a certain risk. It is not as easy as is suggested on this floor of the House that, okay, I am an oil company. I make money. I have friends who have worked on oil rigs who are missing fingers from the work that goes on there. I have friends that have worked in South and Central America who have worked on rigs at all time using what is called drilling mud, using those drill bits, losing fingers, working hard at it, realizing that you don't have a guarantee of every time you put a well down, you are going to get oil up. So I just find it fantastic that in this argument, number one, we are told, well, we don't have that much oil. It is really the fault of Americans because they use so much oil. I don't know whether that sells too much, blaming Americans for using energy that allows their lives to be better than our parents' and grandparents' generation was in terms of the standard of living. And secondly, to berate American companies that are leaders in the world in technology around the world. It is strange to me that some on the other side of the aisle believe that it is important for us to make sure we don't have any Outer Continental Shelf drilling off Florida, for instance, when Cuba has lease agreements with a number of countries, including China, although they haven't yet started to drill, that would allow them to drill within either 45 miles or 60 miles of our Florida coast. Now maybe it makes sense to tell the American people that they are at fault. I don't believe they are at fault. I think they are looking at us for some solutions. We have a solution here to the problem of the possibility of tipping people off to testing. It makes no sense to me, and most on my side of the aisle, for us to be the only developed nation in the world tipping off the rest of the world that we are going to close off most of our areas of natural resources. Remember, when we got Alaska, some referred to it as Seward's Folly. Maybe we didn't realize the folly until now when we intentionally cut off our ability to be able to environmentally and safely explore and produce energy in Alaska. But we divert a little bit from this bill. This bill is the Catching Operational Vulnerabilities By Ensuring Random Testing Act of 2008, COVERT testing. I congratulate the gentlelady for bringing this bill forward. I congratulate the chairwoman of the subcommittee for working on this along with those of us on this side. I congratulate the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, for bringing this forward. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5909, the Catching Operational Vulnerabilities by Ensuring Random Testing Act of 2008, otherwise known as the COVERT Act. This act simply would prohibit the disclosure of information concerning a covert test conducted by TSA, the Inspector General of DHS, or GAO to any individual prior to the completion of the test. The bill also requires any TSA covert testing team to be accompanied by a cover team to monitor the covert test and to confirm the identity of the covert testing team to any appropriate individual, if an individual or security screener not aware of the covert test identifies the covert testing team as a threat to security. This bill is substantially modified from the bill as originally introduced because there was some real give-and-take and compromise produced on the part of both sides of the aisle at the subcommittee level and with the full committee staff. And for that I am thankful and believe that we have a better product as a result of that consultation and that give and take. One of the things we wanted to make sure we did not do in attempting to prevent people spilling the beans, so to speak, on these kinds of covert tests was to have such a heavy-handed approach that it might tip off people by the presence of additional folks. We've worked that out here, and I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady for being able to do that. I would just have one small point, perhaps disagreement with the chairman. There are reports that there was a tipping off in one particular instance that was intentional, seemingly meant to give people notice that there was going to be a test or it was about to take place. In another case, at least from my review of the files, it appears to be inadvertent, and I believe something on the order of within 30 seconds the notice that was contained in an e-mail was retrieved by the responsible party when he realized someone else had put that out. And then there's a third one that's somewhat in dispute between TSA and some Members of the House, and others. And all I would say is, irrespective of how many there were, if there was just one, that's one too many. This bill I think helps us move in the direction of improving the circumstances so the likelihood of that occurring is much less in the future than it would have been without this legislation. And so for those reasons, I would enthusiastically support H.R. 5909 and ask my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, again, in closing, I rise in support of H.R. 5982, the BEAR Act, the Biometric Enhancement for Airport-Risk Reduction Act, brought to us by the chairman of this committee. This is an advancement. This is a push to where we need to go with respect to biometrics. We ought to understand that the United States is the leader in the world in technology and technology application. We need to do that here as well. And it sometimes seems strange that we don't take advantage of the leadership that we have in applying it to certain areas. The urgency that we need to adopt with respect to the threat that is out there is, I think, shared by this committee, but I'm not sure that it is shared totally by the full Congress, nor by the Federal establishment all together nor, in some cases, by the American people, where, after our successes in forestalling any major terrorist attack on our shores since 9/11, it allows us a certain relaxation that I think is dangerous. The gentleman moves us in the right direction with this bill. I might say that as we move with this bill I would hope we would move with some other bills on this floor dealing with the threat that we have to our national economy and our national security through our energy dependence on many, many others. The U.S. is the leader in the potential for oil shale, just as we're the leader in technology in this world. The U.S. might be called the Saudi Arabia of oil shale. According to the Department of Energy, this Nation is endowed with more than 2 trillion barrels of oil. To put this figure in perspective, the world has used 1 trillion barrels of oil since the first oil well was successfully drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859. According to the Department of Energy, let me repeat, we are endowed with more than 2 trillion barrels of oil, and we're talking about U.S. oil shale. The problem is that we had a rider on an appropriations bill just last year that makes this huge domestic resource off-limits. That would be as silly as us having a bill on the floor that would say, even though we're the leader in biometric technology, we will prohibit its use in the area of airport security. That would make no sense, Mr. Speaker, nor does it make sense for us not to utilize this tremendous resource we have. So again, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I would encourage all Members to support H.R. 5982, the Biometric Enhancement for Airport-Risk Reduction Act, otherwise known as the BEAR Act, brought to us on this floor by the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman of our committee. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I would just say that this bill deserves the unanimous support of the Members of this body. With that, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for granting me the time, and also for the work that he has done in working on a bipartisan basis with those of us on this side to bring a number of these bills to the floor. Every month, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government and local law enforcement officials screen some 270 million individuals against a new and constantly evolving consolidated terrorist watch list, we actually are safer as a result of those actions. Since the Terrorist Screening Center's establishment in December of 2003, front line screeners using this watch list have encountered known or reasonably suspected terrorists over 55,000 times. Now, I grant you that a name-based watch list certainly is not perfect. The problems are compounded by the fact that, in several cases, a single individual has over 50 identities on the watch list and, of course, this would eventually lead to misidentifications between law-abiding Americans and watch-listed identities. These misidentifications are not simply persons with Arab names, as the press would have you believe. Actors, writers, yes, even as the gentleman from Mississippi mentioned, Congressmen and sometimes even former Presidential candidates have been inconvenienced by the terrorist watch list. However, the bottom line is that the watch list stops would-be terrorists from entering the United States. According to Customs and Border Protection, on March 27, 2005, a CBP officer identified an individual who was a possible match to terrorist-related records. The ID resulted in a local joint terrorism task force arresting the passenger, who was later charged with conspiring to provide material support to terrorism and conspiracy to kill, kidnap, or maim persons. Similarly, CBP denied entry of a Palestine Liberation Organization weapons smuggler. The suspect was later charged with conspiracy to traffic in explosive devices and firearms. The legislation before us today, introduced by the gentlelady from New York, is a good bill. It's the result of solid bipartisan negotiations, and I wish to thank her and her staff, as well as the chairman of the committee and the chairwoman of the subcommittee and their staffs, for working with us to develop a reasonable process to ensure that individuals who are frequently misidentified have an effective recourse to minimize future travel disruption. Perhaps one of the most important provisions of the bill is the requirement that the Department of Homeland Security better advertise its redress process, known as TRIP, at airports. When I hear from constituents that they're being misidentified as a watch-listed individual, I'm concerned they have not heard of the Department's process to seek redress. This bill requires the Department to advertise its redress process at each airport, and to have staff on hand at the largest airports to explain the process and answer questions from the traveling public. Again, I thank the gentlelady for working with us and moving this legislation forward in a bipartisan manner, and look forward to its quick adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4179, the FAST Redress Act, is an important bill, and we should act on it today, and we should try and get concurrence with the Senate and have this on the President's desk so he can sign it so that we can take care of the problem of misidentifications on the terrorist screening list that we use for a legitimate purpose. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we might have a fast redress act for the American people who are currently standing in line waiting to pay for their gasoline at larger and larger and larger prices. One of the things we need to do, in terms of this bill, is redress the misinformation that's contained on terrorist screener watch lists. We similarly need to get rid of the misidentification that deals with the issue of Americans' need for energy and what ANWR represents. Rather than what we've heard on the floor on a number of different occasions, including today, that somehow ANWR is insignificant with respect to the great question of energy that currently approaches the American people, the facts say something very different. In other words, if we check them against the facts as this bill wants us to check misidentifications against the factual determinations, we would find this: According to the United States Geological Survey, the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil, that's the kind of oil that we can bring up under already existing technology in the coastal plain of ANWR, is 10.4 billion barrels, all of which is now economically recoverable. Now, what is 10.4 billion barrels? More than twice the proven oil reserves in all of the State of Texas. And you know how Texans like to brag about what they got and how big it is. This would be twice the proven oil reserves that are now found in all of Texas. That's almost half of the total U.S. proven reserve at 21 billion barrels. That represents a possible 50 percent increase in total U.S. proven reserves. That has been categorized on this floor as being insignificant and of having no impact on the current energy scene. I think checking it against the facts, we see that's wrong. Based on the USGS mean estimate, ANWR would provide one million barrels per day for 30 years. That's one million barrels per day for 30 years. Now what would that represent? Some insignificant figure? No. That's a 20 percent increase in domestic, or as we would like to call it, American production. That's equivalent to what the entire State of Texas produces daily. And listen to this. That is the equivalent to 30 years' worth of imports from Hugo Chavez. The coastal plain of ANWR, known as the 1002 area, is neither wilderness nor refuge. In fact, when I was here in this House privileged to serve in 1980, it was set aside by this Congress and then-President Carter specifically for future oil development. Now, do we ever hear about that? That's as much as a misidentification of what the reality is of what we're talking about in this bill. Development would be limited to the 2,000 acres of the coastal plain. That would be 0.01 percent of the entire 19.6 million acre refuge. So Mr. Speaker, as I said, I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 4179, which would correct misinformation contained in official documents that thereby inconveniences the American people. Similarly, if we took action on a Redress Act for energy on the American people, they would be less inconvenienced and we would be on our way to energy independence. With that, I would reserve my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, 64 years ago this week, my father and approximately 2 million of his fellow soldiers from the United States, Great Britain, and Canada were moving into the area of France, which began the liberation of Europe. Sixty-four years ago they sacrificed in ways almost unimaginable for us. Had they not done that, had they not succeeded, we would not enjoy the freedoms we have today. Yet it was little remarked nor remembered on the pages of our newspapers across our country and on our television sets. And the fact of the matter is these brave, gentle warriors are dying at over 1,000 a day. We soon will not have the opportunity to thank them for the sacrifices they made. So today as we deal with these problems that face us, let us remember that America has always been a can-do country. We have never shirked from challenges. We have figured out how to do it. And remember in the words of those people in that movie not too long ago, to ask ourselves what our fathers asked themselves; are we worthy? Did we lead a good life? Did we do what we had to do?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, about 6 months ago I got an unexpected call in my office from a fellow named Carlo DiVirgilio from Upstate New York. I had never met the man, and when I got on the phone, he said, I just learned that you were in Congress. I just wanted to ask you a question. Was your father Dr. Lungren? And I said, Yes, he was. And he said, I served with him in Normandy 60 years ago. And he recounted to me some of the battles they went through: the Battle of Senlo, the Battle of Mortain. And he talked about the fear that young men had at that time as they got up to the front lines how they feared death. One of the great things he said to me was, When we were around your father, we felt safe. We felt that we were not going to die. These were young men who were sent into battle not knowing whether they were going to win but knowing that they had to fight. Had the outcome been different, history would have changed. We would not have liberated Europe. D-day is such an important date that we need to commemorate it as this resolution does. It is a date that gives us pause because we understand that when Dwight D. Eisenhower made the decision to go, it was not certain that it would succeed. As a matter of fact, those who come here to our Nation's Capitol and go into the Rotunda, they see a statue of Dwight Eisenhower, President of the United States. But he is not there depicted as President of the United States. Rather, he is depicted as the Supreme Allied Commander, the first leader of combined forces in the history of warfare. And he's standing there with a gesture that commemorates a photograph that was taken at the time that he went to go see the paratroopers he was sending off to war. You have to understand. He realized that maybe as many as six or eight out of every ten that he looked at were going to die, and they were going to die because he was sending them into battle. But he had the courage as a leader to look them in the face, to talk to them before they went off to war and to give them the best that he could. And then, remarkably, after he had addressed them, he got back into his military automobile and turned to his aide and gave him a piece of paper. And on that piece of paper, General Eisenhower had written out a statement; and he said, If this fails, I want this statement to be read. And what was the statement? It gave all support and all honor to the men who served under him, and he took all blame and responsibility for its failure. What a remarkable example of leadership at that time. Today, when we hear the first response from many people, I don't care whether they're in professional sports or whether they're in politics or whether they're in business, when something goes wrong, almost the first instinct is to point the finger at somebody else to say, It wasn't my job. It wasn't my responsibility. But Dwight Eisenhower was not that kind of person. He is the definition of a leader. He is one who made the tough decision to go on June 6, 64 years ago, not being guaranteed a success but knowing that the risk was worth it. There was nothing else he could do. And then saying, If this fails, it is all on me. Ladies and gentlemen, as we remember today that great day, the great sacrifice of all, including my father, let us remember the example of a great leader, Dwight Eisenhower, who told us what it is to lead: Not for vain glory, but rather for great purpose. Thank you very much.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for an additional minute. I would need about 4 minutes to go through all the other suspensions we got through this week, this week, that is legislative time that we have spent on this floor, those without rules. Now we're going to have a rule on this bill, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act, probably a worthy act. But, believe me, I know it may surprise the gentleman from New York, but not a single person in my district asked me about that. But they asked about gas prices. And perhaps the reason why the gentleman from New York is loath to talk about this is that on every single vote we have had over the last number of years on increased oil production, 91 percent of the Republicans have voted for increased American energy production, American energy production, and over 85 percent of the Democrats have voted against it. What has resulted from that? A stalemate in which the American people are held hostage because we will not allow, yes, drilling. I know that's a dirty word over there. Drilling. That's usually how you bring oil up out of the ground.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Usually you have to drill to bring the oil out of the ground because that's where it is. It may be a dirty word in the gentleman's district, but frankly, you have to drill before you refine, before you have it available so that you can increase supply so that people can have their prices go down so they can drive to work and drive to recreational facilities, not in thermoenergy, geothermal cars, but actually in cars with gasoline, which is what happens in my district. Perhaps the gentleman from New York's district is different. Maybe we should take some attention from the concerns of the American people and do something about gas prices here.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friend from New York, I don't have any geothermal cars in my district. Perhaps the gentleman does in New York. For me to answer the folks back home that are saying what are we going to do about gas prices with well, we're studying geothermal, frankly, it just doesn't cut it. You know, I remember the week before we got out for Memorial break, that we had 55, 55, count them, 55 suspensions in 2 days. I can't recall all of them, but when I had a tele-town hall this last Sunday in my district, I had 4,200 people on the line, and not one of them asked a question about one of those 55 suspension bills. What did they ask about? They asked about what are you in Congress going to do, not just about gas prices, but about increasing energy production in this country? So I come back here this week anticipating legislation that perhaps will deal with those kinds of issues. And what do we have? The first 2 days, we had 22 suspensions; supporting National Men's Health Week, a worthy cause, but not a single person asked me about that. But almost everybody asked me about gas prices. We recognized the State of Minnesota's 150th anniversary, a worthy goal. But not a single person asked me about that. Not one of the 4,200 people asked me about that. But many of them asked me about gas. We supported the goals and ideals of Arbor Day Foundation and the National Arbor Day, a nice thing to do, but not a single person asked me about National Arbor Day. Many asked me about gasoline prices. We designated a post office to be named after someone in Portland, Oregon. We designated another post office to be named after someone in San Gabriel, California, again a nice thing to do, but not a single person of the 4,200 that were on my tele-town hall asked me about that. But they did ask me about gas prices. We had the Federal Food Donation Act of 2008, not a bad idea, but not a single person asked me about that. But they asked me about gas prices. We had the Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act on the floor that we talked about and passed, but no one asked me about that back home. They all asked me about gas prices. We had the Telework Improvements Act of 2008. No one asked me about that, but they asked me about gas prices. We voted on the Federal Agency Data Protection Act this week. Not a single person asked about that. But almost everybody asked about gas prices. We had the Government Accountability Office Act of 2008. No one asked me about that, but they asked me about the accountability of this Congress in not doing a single thing for more energy production. We had a bill authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby. That's like mother and apple pie. But no one asked me about the Soap Box Derby in Greater Washington. They all asked me about their cars which don't run downhill by gravity, but they do run on gasoline. And they said, what is Congress going to do about that? We authorized the use of the Capitol Grounds for a celebration of the 100th anniversary of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority. Now, I'm sure that's a wonderful sorority, but not a single person of the 4,200 that were on my tele-town hall asked me about that sorority. But most of them asked about gasoline prices. We had the James Ashley and Thomas Ashley United States Courthouse Designation Act. And I remember Tom Ashley, a good man. But nobody asked me about him on my tele-town hall. But they almost all asked about gas prices.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, when you try a lawsuit, one of the things they say to you is to pick out just a few salient facts, talk about that during the argument through the questioning of the various witnesses, and, hopefully, those few facts or statements will appear in the instructions to the jury, and then in your final argument you refer to those. So the hope is that, as the jury deliberates, the jury will have a chance to think about the most important facts. So in attempting to distill this argument about the budget down, I have tried to figure out a couple salient facts. And it seems to me the one needs repeating and repeating and repeating is the most obvious one: the largest single tax increase in the history of this Congress, which means in the history of this Nation, which means in the history of the world, $683 billion over the next 5 years. Now, one of the reasons I think it's a salient fact is that we oftentimes just gloss over that. Yesterday we had a bill on the floor in which we were starting an entirely new program where we are now on the Federal level going to be responsible for paying for heating and air conditioning of local schools. Now, heating and air conditioning of local schools is important, but when did that become a Federal responsibility? But the argument we heard on the floor was, well, they can't afford it at the local level; so, therefore, we magically can support it on the Federal level. What does that translate into? The largest single tax increase in the history of the American people, in the history of this Congress, in the history of the world. We passed a farm bill, which we found, as it was going through, got larger and larger and larger and larger and larger, and we set up price supports for certain commodities at historically high levels so that if corn, which is now at the all-time high level, which is causing ripples through the international system and one of the reasons causing some lack of food to be available to people, if somehow we come to our senses and say maybe we want too far on corn ethanol production and the price drops, what happens? The American people magically pay for it because we've set price supports up so high that they're above the historically high levels, billions of dollars. Two weeks ago we voted on this floor for foreign aid for cats and dogs. Now, we bring up suspension bills all the time when we don't have other important things to do, and sometimes at the end of the session, we say now we'll bring out the cats and dogs, and I have been here for 14 years and I've seen that happen. This is the first time in my 14 years that we actually voted on cats and dogs. We voted for foreign aid for cats and dogs. How can we do that? All you have to do is pass the budget with the largest single tax hike in the history of the Nation. It seems to me, with all due respect to my friend the gentleman from South Carolina, the distinguished chairman of this committee, who has done yeomen's work to try to bring this forward, he is being pushed and pulled, and, unfortunately, we brought forth this, not a mouse but the largest single tax increase in the history of the world.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just like to underscore the seriousness of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act fix. We did it, as the gentleman knows, last August, for a 6-month period of time, the Protect America Act. It was enough bipartisan support that it passed, but it had a 6-month life on it. Since February 16 at 12:01 a.m. we have not had that or similar ability for our intelligence community to act. While they made some decisions within that 6-month period which carry over to the present time, as the gentleman from Maryland knows, we are up against it with respect to this summer. I know that the distinguished majority leader announced his hope that we would have some sort of answer on this before Memorial Day. We missed that date. The gentleman knows our position, that a vast majority of Members on this side of the aisle, combined with the Members on your side of the aisle who have publicly said they would support the bipartisan Senate version, would give us that answer today. But I understand that the gentleman is attempting to mollify more Members on his side of the aisle. So my question would be, can the distinguished majority leader give us some idea of when we might see something on the floor that we might vote on that might in his judgment get enough bipartisan support to pass in the event that you continue not to bring us the Senate bill?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman further yield?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The distinguished majority leader has indicated we did not have the urgency of passing this because until August of next year it appeared that we had certain protections. We can't articulate what those are here on the floor. So I guess my question would be, does the gentleman expect that we will have it to vote before we leave for our recess in August?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I'm not sure the chairman of the committee shares that sentiment, but I appreciate that, and I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I found when I was gone for 16 years, I couldn't find billion and trillion so easy to say. But once we're here, it's awfully easy to say, and then it kind of masks the costs to the local taxpayer because the average person can't figure out what $1 trillion is or $1 billion because that's not within their area of experience. But what it means, I would hope that folks back home would understand, if we were ever to talk to them about this, that this is coming out of their pocket. And if they believe they can't afford it back home, how can they afford it here, first? Secondly, we have a commitment to programs like those for children with disabilities. Shouldn't we try and fund that to a higher level first before we start on this path to a new program? Again, I'm not a member of the committee, and I know the gentleman has served on the committee. But that's a simple question.