Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. But were they under lease?

Mr. RAHALL. Would the gentleman from Georgia not agree, however, that while all of that is I'm sure accurate, that is still on these 68 million acres of land, and that's still I'm not going to say light years but many, many years ahead of where we are on the lands made available today by lifting the moratorium?

Mr. RAHALL. And our legislation would not take that lease away from them, and you're right about the 10 years.

Mr. RAHALL. Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. RAHALL. I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia yielding. You've mentioned ANWR and how much is available from that pristine environmental area. And again, I'm going to quote from that infamous Energy Information Administration of which I've quoted earlier. First, this is a quote from President Bush June 9 of this year, ``I've proposed to Congress that they open up ANWR, open up the Continental Shelf and give this country a chance to help us through this difficult period by finding more supplies of crude oil which will take the pressure off the price of gasoline. That was the President's statement on June 9. And his own Energy Information Administration predicts that the savings from drilling in ANWR would equal 1.8 cents per gallon in the year 2025. And that, coupled with what I said earlier--I think you were here--about the fact that these areas that the President has lifted the moratorium on today would not produce any major savings or even produce any oil until 22 years from now, it is not going to give us the relief we need. And let's not kid ourselves. I think we all know in this body, both sides of this debate--or all sides of this debate I should say--that what we do in this body is not going to bring down the price tomorrow, next month, perhaps not next year. It takes not just increasing the supply side like you want to do, like we want to do in our ``use it or lose it'' legislation--that's a pro-drilling piece of legislation--but it has to be followed with follow-up efforts in developing all, renewable and alternative, fuels, which includes coal to liquid----

Mr. RAHALL. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAHALL. In any case, years ahead of the lands made available today by lifting the moratorium.

Mr. RAHALL. Okay. I'm not clear on that whether they were.

Mr. RAHALL. If they are moving toward production, that's due diligence; they maintain their lease.

Mr. RAHALL. Well, I would respond to the gentleman that, again, as I've said, if they are moving toward production, that's due diligence.

Mr. RAHALL. That was the next step I was getting to. They have to collect, analyze the data. Then the government has to put together an auction for the competitive bidding process and then award the leases.

Mr. RAHALL. Just very quickly I would say to the gentleman from Georgia about causing the speculation to end and go the other way, all these efforts would help, I don't deny that, but I think the most immediate efforts, what the gentleman from New York is going to get into now, Mr. Hall, and that is releasing from the SPR. We have it, let's use it. This is an emergency. And I think that is going to show the speculators we're serious and that's going to stop the speculation.

Mr. RAHALL. Well, this gentleman is certainly no stranger to efforts to reform Federal onshore oil and gas leasing program. I've been involved in that for 20 years, I guess, through first my subcommittee chairman on what was then called the Interior Committee, I guess, and now certainly as chairman of the full Committee on Natural Resources. I'm not even adverse to reforming that process to make it more expeditious. But I still haven't heard, and I'm still unclear, as to the fact that leasing is the more difficult portion of going out and drilling on these lands. Is that not accurate? Obtaining a lease, it seems to me, is a much more difficult--and you know, even before the land is available for leasing, for example, the land manager has to develop a plan to determine whether or not an area is appropriate for oil and gas drilling. Then once the Interior Department has made the land available to leasing, then the oil and gas companies need to secure the permits and do some preliminary exploration.

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Barton. I appreciate your yielding, and I certainly want to commend you and Jason Altmire, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for putting together this rather unique 2-hour debate, civilized debate, I might add, on our energy situation. It comes at a very appropriate time. As we all know, President Bush just today by executive order lifted the moratorium that was put into place by his father some 18 years ago, I guess. That moratorium being on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and in ANWR. And by a stroke of the pen, the President has lifted that moratorium, and I assume now that those lands are open for leasing; and I think that's a very important point to stress that they are not under lease at this time but are open for leasing. And as the gentleman from Texas, I'm sure, is aware, having a lease in hand is not quite the same as starting the process to obtain a lease. The latter being a rather lengthy process that can take quite a few number of years. I would think at this time an appropriate quote would be that quote from the Energy Information Administration. When commenting on the efforts to lift the moratorium on OCS and ANWR, it stated that lifting the current moratorium, ``would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.'' That's the year 2030, 22 years from now. This is the Energy Information Administration, a part of Secretary Bodman's Department of Energy. And I think it's also worthy of note that 79 percent of the oil and 82 percent of the natural gas in Federal waters off America's coasts are already available for leasing. That is today, now; not 22 years from now. So I think that old saying that a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush, well, an oil lease in hand is certainly--a lease, the actual lease in hand is certainly more preferable in terms of gaining production today in the near future; that is today, gaining production today, and bringing meaningful relief at the pump today, not 22 years from now, but today, would leave one to believe that opening these some 68 million acres of Federal onshore and OCS lands that are already under lease that can go--the companies can go out and drill on today-- today, not 22 years from now, but today--would, I think, be preferable. And I'm not saying not including what the President has done today, that's fine. He has done what he did. But also I don't see--and I'm asking the gentleman from Texas this question since it is his time--what is wrong with requiring the oil companies to use this acreage, 68 million, that are already under lease to go out and make some, at least a due diligent effort towards developing those leases? Now, I recognize that's like a housing development. You're not going to find something on every acre that's under lease. You already know there's nothing under a few of those acres because when you build a housing development, you don't build a house on every inch of that entire development. So there are some acres where there's obviously not going to be anything there and not worth exploring. But of that 68 million, there's only about 10 million now that is actively under production. And if you extrapolate out the same Energy Administration Department figures I just quoted, if you extrapolate out what is being produced from that 10 million acres, then you come up with roughly about a 14-year supply of natural gas by extrapolating out those figures. So why can we not give some push to the industry to go out and make an effort to find out if there's anything in these 68 million acres or not? They will say, I'm sure there's not. But how do they know that there's not? How do we know what exists in the OCS that is now open by today's action of the President in lifting the moratorium? How do we know--I mean, the word ``potential'' is always used. The potential for this large find or this potential. But I just don't--I'm asking that question

Mr. RAHALL. Sure. Sure. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that it could take years and years to obtain a lease, which these lands opened up today are just starting on that process. The 68 million under our use-it-or-lose-it legislation has already gone through that process.

Mr. RAHALL. And in our use-it-or-lose-it legislation, we're simply saying current leases are generally 10 years. They vary somewhat depending on depth of water or where they're located. But generally, 10 years is the current leasing term. And if a company is holding that lease for 10 years and not producing on it or not even making an effort, showing some type of good faith, due diligent effort, as I'm sure the gentleman knows our Federal coal is required to do, other minerals on Federal lands that's owned by the taxpayers are required to do, we say in our use-it-or-lose-it, if that due diligent effort is not made, then you lose the lease and it's open again to competitive bidding. Another company can come in and make their bid for it.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, the form of the amendment, which calls on the House to promptly recommit the bill, as I know all Members realize, is a parliamentary tactic that kills the bill. That wording makes it perfectly clear that the motion is not about its subject. It is purely and simply another one of those ``gotcha'' votes. A vote to recommit is a vote to kill this bill, which has the support of a long and bipartisan list of Members, a large and vocal constituency across eight districts and the District of Columbia, and the support of the Bush administration. Again, the current legislation as written has the support of the Bush administration. It has the support of the National Rifle Association. To briefly address the substance of this issue, the bill before the House already reaffirms the right of gun owners and hunters by ensuring that current State management of fish and resident wildlife will remain unaffected by the bill. It should not be necessary to include this language because nothing in the bill would affect those State laws or regulations. Nevertheless, we have included this language already in the bill, which renders the motion before us wholly unnecessary. The Trails Act has been around since 1968, and we have thousands of miles of trails all over the country, and all over the country hunting, fishing, trapping have flourished nonetheless. The bill already contains sufficient protections for gun owners. I repeat. The bill already contains sufficient protections for gun owners. A vote to recommit is a vote to kill the bill. It's that simple, and I would urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, in evaluating this amendment, I would ask that Members first read section 3 of the underlying bill which states, ``Nothing in this Act shall prohibit or hinder the development, production, conveyance, or transmission of energy.'' So by its own terms, H.R. 1286 will have no impact whatsoever on energy production. The Pearce amendment would require the Secretary to assess the impact this trail designation will have on energy production. In other words, the Pearce amendment would require the Secretary to study impacts that would never exist. That's similar to a requirement that the secretary study the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. The bill says there will be no impacts, so studying them is impossible. Such a report would read in its entirety, ``We find no impacts on energy production because the bill prohibits them.'' Period. The end. It is my hope that this amendment is simply a platform, and I think the sponsor of it has already used it for that to restate some of their talking points on energy production. It's my hope that no one could ever seriously suggest assessing the energy resources that might lie under George Washington's front lawn. The first part of this amendment is completely unnecessary because the underlying language in the bill makes impacts on energy production a non-issue. The second part of this amendment contemplates oil rigs and wind farms in places that we would never allow them to be built. So once again, as with the previous amendment, this amendment is not necessary. Therefore, I will not object to it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the amendment.