Bill Sali

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SALI. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I too rise today to commend the heroic efforts of firefighters throughout our Nation. At times they are called to pay the ultimate sacrifice to save the life and property of others. I have had the honor of meeting the men and women who fight these wildfires in my State of Idaho, and there is no greater example of courage than these folks. I understand how important it is to provide firefighters who battle wildfires with the right tools they need to do their job. Threats to human life are compounded by the fact that more and more people are living in homes near the fire-prone forests, placing themselves and the firefighters who try to protect them at greater risk. In April of this year, I offered an amendment to the United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2008 that allowed the Administrator of the United States Fire Administration to develop and distribute information on the importance of clearing biomass from Federal lands. This commonsense amendment will require USFA to work in consultation with other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, to ensure that the USFA provides the best possible recommendation. As we come upon another deadly and costly fire season, this information is as vital as ever. We must provide our Federal employees, who are the best in the world, all of the tools they need to keep our communities and themselves safe from catastrophic wildfires. I urge the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee to hold more hearings on the crisis situation in our Nation's forests. We have had just one hearing this year on the wildfire problem compared to six last Congress. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to continue to work on providing firefighters and our public land management officials with the necessary tools they need to do their job. As firefighters risk life and limb to protect us, the least we can do is to provide them with everything they need. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. SALI. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Fire season is here and wildlands are in flames across the Nation as we speak. California is currently reporting 24 large fires, and along with California, there are large wildland fires burning in Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Virginia, and North Carolina. Since January of this year, some 46,113 wildland fires have burned more than 2.71 million acres, destroying more than 461 residences, 15 commercial buildings, and 979 outbuildings. But it's not just property, homes, community, watersheds or livelihoods that are at stake when a wildland fire burns. Lives are also in danger, and since January of this year alone, eight firefighters have died while on duty to fight wildland fires. For many areas of the country, the wildland fire season is just beginning. This is an issue that I have familiarity with, as each year in Idaho the skies fill with smoke from fires. Last year alone, more than 2 million acres burned in Idaho, threatening lives, homes, and communities. I commend the gentleman from West Virginia, my chairman, on his initiative to move a bill and bring this critical issue before the House of Representatives today. Real solutions to these deadly and growing wildfires must be found, and I appreciate his efforts to this end. Regrettably, the bill before us today will not do enough to address the raging wildfires across this country. Communities, homes, and lives will remain at risk from wildland fires. There is no question that there are budget issues that must be addressed. We require the Forest Service to fight these fires, while we have handcuffed that agency at the same time, whether through its budget or with forest management practices. Over and over again on this floor, we have had discussions of how to pay for the measures that are passed by this body. And yet, the Forest Service used to provide a source of revenue. It used to manage Federal lands, selling the harvested timber and thereby bringing in revenue. Today, in most areas, active harvesting and forest management is nonexistent on Federal lands. This has had a twofold effect. There's less and less money generated by the Forest Service, while there are also ever-growing fuel loads on federally managed lands. I agree that we cannot expect an agency to budget for the very large wildland fires that we have seen develop over the last 6 or 7 years. To do that is something like asking an American family not only to budget for ordinary and foreseeable expenses, like dental care, health care and car repairs, but also to budget for a serious car accident or tragic health crisis that would eat up 50 percent of their entire budget for the year. Yet that is the point we have reached with the Forest Service. Today, roughly 48 percent of the Forest Service's budget is dedicated to wildland fires, but we still expect the Service to be able to budget for these fires. We agree there is a problem with the funding. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't fix that problem. While well-intended, this bill fails to correct the 10-year funding average problem we currently face. Even if it did, merely erasing and rewriting lines in a ledger book does nothing to fix the crisis on the ground in federally managed lands. Moving money to different accounts will not solve the problem. While well-intentioned, unfortunately the bill before us today fails to address the more critical issue, forest management. The greatest obstacle our public land managers face in preventing catastrophic wildfires isn't dollars, it is having the ability to overcome mountains of red tape and lawsuits filed by extremists. The laws that Congress has created in an attempt to save our forests have now become the biggest obstacles to saving them from wildfires. Congress should not be addressing funding for suppressing these large fires without addressing the cause of these large fires as well, the increasing and unchecked fuel loads in our national forests that surround or are adjacent to homes and communities. The critical link between pre-fire forest management and fire fighting was illustrated at the hearing we had on this bill in the Natural Resources Committee in April. During that hearing, Arizona Governor Jane Napolitano, a Democrat, testified that the 2006 woody fire near Flagstaff, Arizona, was halted before it reached 100 acres because of the hazardous fuels treatment that had been done in that area. And according to Governor Napolitano, those treatments dramatically minimized the fire's devastation. Similarly, during that hearing our colleague Norm Dicks testified about the large fuel loads that continue to accumulate in Federal forests. He pointed out that the larger fires have resulted from increasing tree density and fuel loads. We will continue to have larger and larger fires until we reduce fuel-loading. Until we provide the tools for pre-fire forest management to reduce fuel-loading, the western United States will continue to see homes burn, watersheds destroyed, and even lives lost. We must provide the tools to preempt these devastating fires, the kind of preemption pointed to by Governor Napolitano that protected so many people and homes in the 2006 Woody Fire near Flagstaff. Last year, during the Poe Cabin fire in Idaho, in one area the fire moved some three miles in a mere 20 minutes. In that area, several homes that had defensible space around them due to fuel reductions on private land survived the fire, while other structures in that area without defensible space did not survive. One of these homeowners was able to get his wife out while he stayed just a bit longer to finish loading his truck. However, because of the fast-moving and intense fire combined with the heavy fuel-loading on Federal ground, he became trapped by the fire and was unable to leave. While this could have quickly become a tragic story, this man lived and his home survived thanks to the fuel reduction that had been done around his home. While this was a result of the fuel reduction done wholly on private ground, many communities and individuals abutting these forests do not have the luxury of enough land to adequately protect the communities, watersheds, homes and lives. Providing the tools to these communities to protect their homes, livelihoods and very lives from these devastating fires is something we can and must do when addressing long- term funding to suppress the fires. We should be discussing solutions like the one I proposed, H.R. 4245, to provide the agencies with one more tool to reduce hazardous fuel loads around communities and homes. In the great State of Idaho, many communities have put the time and energy into developing Community Wildfire Protection Plans, but implementation of many of these plans has been significantly delayed in large part because of the NEPA process. These CWPPs, as my colleagues know, are cooperative plans, requiring community collaboration and input in the formation of the plan. By delaying treatment for the safety of communities through unbelievable red tape, we subject these communities to be threatened by large wildfires. Mr. Speaker, this is not only a bipartisan issue, this is a nonpartisan issue. It's about public safety and sound forest management that will benefit millions of Americans. My bill, which I would urge this body to take up as it addresses these wildland fires, would provide for a categorical exclusion from the NEPA process to provide another tool for timely treatments to protect these communities from large and devastating fires and preserve our pristine national forests. Too many homes have burned and too many lives have already been lost. We must provide real tools for firefighting. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, this young lady, who's a CNA, last week took her husband's bicycle and a few other items to a pawn shop to get $37 so she could put gas in her car to go to work at this nursing home to take care of my mother and my sister. This is having a horrendous impact on real life people. Mr. Speaker, it's time for partisanship to be put aside. It's time for Congress to get to the real answer, which is increasing American production.

Mr. SALI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is ``no.'' There is no professional group or government agency that agrees with those assumptions. In his opening remarks, the good chairman said we must ``increase our supply'' of crude oil and that the answer to our energy needs in the short term is to increase American production. Then why aren't we voting on that today? The fact is that the assumptions that this bill is premised on are false and that there will be no increased production from this bill. Congress is to blame for the shortage of American production today, and this is having a real impact on people. There's a gal who is a certified nursing assistant in Boise, Idaho, who's taking care of my mother and my younger sister in a nursing home.

Mr. SALI. I understand that the Department of the Interior has issued a letter saying that they don't agree with the assumptions of your report. Can you name a single professional organization or government agency that has told you that they agree with the assumptions or calculations used to reach the conclusion that I have just read from the report?

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record the letter from Assistant Secretary Allred relating to this bill that my colleague from Oklahoma referenced in her remarks. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC, June 25, 2008. Hon. Don Young, Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Young: Thank you for your letter of June 19, 2008, to Secretary Kempthorne regarding a recent report on oil and gas by the House Committee on Natural Resources. Secretary Kempthorne has asked me to reply. In your letter you asked that the Department of the Interior (Department) address the report's claim that oil companies hold non-producing leases on 68 million acres which could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 of natural gas each day. The report does not reference specific locations for much of the data and therefore we cannot ascertain where each of the numbers was derived. It appears the report took raw data, some of which can be found on the Department websites, and then used various formulas to reach certain conclusions. The report does not disclose the assumptions or formulas used. The views contained in the report are based on a misunderstanding of the very lengthy regulatory process. The existence of a lease does not guarantee the discovery of, or any particular quantity of oil and gas. To truly determine this, lessees must develop data and eventually explore their leases which requires numerous permits involving compliance with various environmental laws and regulations. This process often takes months or years. In addition, lessees undertake a vast array of business steps prior to making a decision to move a lease into production, and must obtain another set of Federal and State permits to do so. I would like to provide some background on both points. Obtaining a lease is just the first step. The lessee must first obtain the myriad of permits and approvals for exploration activities and development plans that are required before production can occur. Exploration, which occurs after the issuance of the lease, is critical. For example, after an operator acquires an onshore lease they must obtain Geophysical Permits, Permits to Drill, Sundry Notices, and permits that may be required by State government. In addition to all necessary permits being obtained, an operator must also file a plan of development. Development offshore is equally complex. An operator must obtain Geological and Geophysical Exploration Permits, Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits, an Army Corps of Engineers Permit, Permits to Drill, and Marine Mammals/Endangered Species Permits. If a lessee makes the decision to move to development, in addition to the myriad of required permits, an operator must file numerous plans, including Deepwater Operations Plans, Oil Spill Response Plans, Hydrogen Sulfide Plans, Development Plans or Development Operations Coordination Documents. While these lists are not exhaustive, they illustrate the efforts that must be undertaken before a lease can be explored and developed and production comes online. A more comprehensive list of the various permits, approvals, and other legal and regulatory prerequisites that may be required based on site specifics for both onshore and offshore production is attached for your information. In addition to the processes mentioned above, other factors affect potential development and subsequent production. These factors include capital investments and equipment such as drilling rigs and platforms. In shallow water, approximately one in three wells results in a discovery of a quantity of oil and/or natural gas sufficient to produce economically In deeper water, one well in five is economical. Shallow wells cost approximately $200,000 for just the drilling. In deepwater, the drilling of one well may cost $100 million to $200 million. A full development project, including a platform or floater, involves multiple blocks and has cost as much as $3.5 billion. Onshore development is less expensive. A well cost 10,000 feet or deeper well will $2 million to $3 million. A shallow well runs about $200,000. To illustrate further that a lease does not mean the discovery of oil and gas, it is important to look at the well success rates. For onshore leases, the well success rate is about 10 percent for new areas. For areas already developed, it is much higher--about 95%. For offshore, in shallow water, the success rate is about 33 percent. In deepwater it is about 20 percent. In the Gulf of Mexico, 1132 new deep water exploration wells have been drilled since 1995, with over 170 new discoveries. While the government does conduct activities to determine resource availability, it is the private sector that funds exploration activities for more refined data and analysis on a site specific basis that can lead to production. The lengthy processes we have in place can lead to more production but it takes time to find the exact location of those resources. In today's market, it does not make business sense for lease holders to defer or forgo pursuing production and continue to pay rental fees. In addition to the bonus bid paid at the time of a lease being issued, lessees are required to pay rentals for leases. In Fiscal Year 2007, $267.2 million in rental fees was collected as rent for oil and gas, coal, and other mineral leases. If a lessee determines that leased acreage does not contain sufficient resources to produce economically, it will typically relinquish the lease, and the Federal Government is free to offer the tract at a subsequent lease sale. However, only after numerous steps are taken, and leased acreage is determined to contain economically and technologically producible oil and gas, can a lessee justify the significant investment required to bring leased acreage into producing status. While increasing the productivity of already leased land is important, to ensure our country's future security and economic well being we need to open new areas for development. The lengthy processes we have in place, which can lead to more production, means that we need to look to new areas. We cannot ignore that the world's demand for oil has grown dramatically. Meanwhile, the supply of oil has grown much more slowly. As a result, oil prices have risen sharply, and that increase has been reflected at American gasoline pumps. Sincerely, C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. Attachments. Plans and Permits Required on OCS The number of required plan and permit approvals is on the order of 25 to 30. The reason for a range is that the specific lease holder may not file for certain permits on their own. For example, they may not file for a G&G (geological/geophysical) permit but it is certain that no lease holder will move forward without geophysical data to guide them. They may obtain sufficient data from a third party that acquired under their own speculative permit with the intention to sell the information to successful lease bidders. Additionally, there may be supplemental plans filed to cover changes in assumptions based on newer information and other steps that not all lessees will need to file. The overview of MMS regulations is at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/ homepg/regulate/regs/reg_sum.html with a discussion of the plans and permits at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/ regs/laws/env safe.html_#perapp. Following is a fairly complete list of the plans and permits that a lessee may have to file to bring a lease to production: List of Typical Plans and Permits Required to Bring a Lease to Production Oil and Gas Lease. Geological and Geophysical Exploration permit. Exploration Plan. Coast Guard Compliance review for mobile drilling units. Oil Spill Response Plan. Oil Spill Financial Responsibility. Hydrogen Sulfide Plan (some locations). Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination (Exploration). Army Corps of Engineers Permit (Navigation and National Security). EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. EPA Air Emissions Permit (some locations). Marine Mammals/Endangered Species permits from NOAA or FWS (some locations). Application for Permit to Drill (exploratory wells). Application for Permit to Modify (any changes in drilling program). Application for Permit to Modify (to plug and abandon exploration wells). Deepwater Operations Plan (for some locations). Conservation Information Document (for some locations). Coast Guard Structural Review (for floating production systems). Certified Verification Agent Review (for some locations). Development Plan or Development Operations Coordination Document (depending on location). Pipeline Right-of-Way. Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination (Development). Application for Permit to Drill (development wells). Application for Permit to Modify (any changes in development drilling program). Application for Permit to Modify (to plug and abandon development wells). Platform Removal Application. Pipeline Decommissioning Application. Permits, Plans, and Surveys for Development of an Oil and Gas Lease On- Shore BLM Permits, Plans, and Surveys Geophysical Exploration Permit--Notice of Intent; Notice of Completion--(Required if the operator chooses to conduct this optional activity) Purpose: Allows exploration for oil and gas resources on Federal lands. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review--Environmental review may consist of review and documentation through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), Categorical Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the Decision). Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan. Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.) Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by the BLM or the operator to BLM standards. Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when endangered species may be affected by the project. Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have historically used an area or have expressed an interest in proposed projects. Oil and Gas Lease--(Required) Conveys a basic right to develop oil and gas from Federal Mineral estate pending approval of additional site-specific permits. Land Use Plan Conformance--The proposed lease is evaluated to ensure it is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan. Tribal Consultation--May occur at the leasing stage if not current in the land use plan. Endangered Species Act Consultation--May occur at the leasing stage if not current in the land use plan and there are endangered species present. Communitization/Unitization Approval--(Some Locations) Creates management units to improve development efficiency. Plan of Developent--(If operations are located within a unit agreement) Creates a development management plan for the Unit. Application for Permit to Drill (APD)--(Required) Contains the operator's proposed drilling and surface use plans and any additional permit requirements added by the BLM. The BLM may also require Cultural and Wildlife surveys. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review-- Environmental review may consist of review and documentation through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), Categorical Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the Decision.) Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan. Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.) Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by the BLM or the operator to BLM standards. Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when endangered species may be affected by the project. Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have historically used an area or have expressed an interest in proposed projects. Sundry Notice--(Required) Notifies the BLM of the operator's proposed changes to the APD. Approval and/or Review--In limited cases may involve NEPA, Cultural, Wildlife, ESA reviews and consultation. Hydrogen Sulfide Plan--(Required if the poison gas may be encountered) Plans for protection of public health land safety in the event of a hydrogen sulfide leak. Right-of-Way Grant--(Required for any development that occurs off the lease area.) Provides legal access for roads, pipelines, and powerlines. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review-- Environmental review may consist of review and documentation through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), Categorical Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the Decision.) Usually completed in conjunction with the APD NEPA analysis. Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan. Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.) Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by the BLM or the operator to BLM standards. Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when endangered species may be affected by the project. Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have historically used an area or have expressed an interest in proposed projects. other federal. state. or local permits and plans Air Emission Permit--(May be required by State). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit-- (May be required by the State or EPA). Section 404 Permit--(May be required by the Army Corp of Engineers if the project would potentially dredge or fill waters of the U.S.). Storm Water Prevention Plan--(Required in some States). UIC Permit--(Required for Class II wells--water disposal or reinjection). Spill Prevention Countermeasure Control Plan--This is a permit required by EPA when oil and gas activities have the potential to impact waters of the United States. Mr. Speaker, the justification for this legislation is a report from Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee, and in that report the conclusion is reached: ``We can estimate that the 68 million acres of leased but currently inactive Federal land and waters could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day.'' Mr. Speaker, may I ask that the gentleman controlling the time on the other side be yielded time to respond to a question?

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. When the Father of the Constitution issues such a warning, we should listen closely. Even more importantly, the Constitution of the United States says in the 10th amendment: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.'' In 1941, the New Deal Supreme Court, in Darby v. United States, commented that this amendment is mere ``truism.'' Many of us here in this body would challenge that assertion. The authority of the States and their right to govern their own affairs is not a trite and archaic remark but an essential aspect of our Federal system. We diminish it to the peril of our system of Federalism which has been vital to our freedom as a Nation. H.R. 5876 is not a solution looking for a problem, but it is a solution that I will submit solves fewer problems than it will create.

Mr. SALI. Madam Chairman, child abuse is a horrendous evil. Such abuse is reported on an average of every 10 seconds in the United States. And three children die every day in our country as a result of abuse. Any abuse in residential treatment programs is an incredible travesty. While fighting child abuse poses a tremendous challenge for us to overcome, this bill is not the answer. The manager's amendment makes great progress in improving the bill, yet there remain provisions that are simply unconscionable for those who respect the system of Federalism long established in our Nation. H.R. 5876 represents a dramatic expansion of the Federal oversight role in really an unprecedented area. Most States already have systems in place to check the abuse that this legislation would supposedly address. Yet this legislation would trump those systems. This bill provides a one-size- fits-all mandate for residential treatment facilities, inflexible to the needs of actual children and unresponsive to the local challenges faced by such youth treatment programs. Residential treatment programs have had a great impact on youth in my district in Idaho. For instance, Cherry Gulch is a small, owner- operated treatment facility located on 220 acres of pristine land near Boise, Idaho. The ranch-style therapeutic boarding school is designed specifically for 10- to 14-year-old boys, and has made an incredible difference in the lives of the youth who have participated in those programs. Yet directors of these facilities have expressed grave concerns to me that their needs will not be met by H.R. 5876. For instance, as one treatment program director pointed out, in a State like Idaho where usage of drugs like methamphetamine has exploded, giving every child the undefined right to so-called ``reasonable'' access to a telephone creates direct and unreasonable risks. Why allow youth the opportunity to contact drug dealers when the entire point of being put in such a facility is to overcome their addictions? There is kind of political hubris to this approach. The attitude of this bill is that we here on Capitol Hill know better than people in our home States how to address the needs of abused children. I find that stunning. I would invite any of my colleagues to go back to their districts and talk with the people who day in and day out work to bring hope and healing to children victimized by abuse. I believe they will find it, as I have, quite humbling. We don't have all of the answers in Washington, D.C., and we certainly would be wrong to impose a top-down system of Federal management on States and localities. Overall, I am certain that we can agree that it is important that children in residential treatment programs be protected. However, I do not believe that another Federal intrusion into the affairs of all 50 States is the answer. In Federalist No. 8, James Madison warned of the dangers of creeping Federal powers over the States. In his words: ``Ambitious encroachments of the Federal Government on the authority of the State governments would be signals of great alarm.''

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Boise Rescue Mission, BRM, in my great home state of Idaho. This year, under the guidance of Executive Director Rev. Bill Roscoe, the BRM celebrates 50 years of service to the Treasure Valley community by providing food, shelter, clothing, counseling, education and spiritual guidance for the homeless and others in need. BRM began as a small facility, but has grown over the past five decades to include three facilities in Boise and Nampa. Today they serve between 600 and 800 meals a day to the hungry at three dining rooms, and provide almost 300 beds to the Treasure Valley's homeless. In addition, BRM is committed to drug and alcohol counseling through the New Life Drug and Alcohol Addiction Recovery Program. The dedicated volunteers at BRM help participants stay sober and discover a new spiritual life. It is noteworthy that while BRM is a faith-based ministry, its spiritual outreach is non-coercive. It provides its services and programs to whoever needs them, whether or not the client has spiritual interest. I commend the impact BRM is having on those in need in the Treasure Valley community. The sincere efforts and dedication of its volunteers is inspirational. Thank you, Rev. Roscoe, for your leadership and spiritual guidance. All Idahoans are in your debt.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ryan Stewart of Boise, ID. Ryan is representing Idaho as youth governor during the annual YMCA National Youth Governors' Conference here in Washington, DC. I am proud of Ryan's commitment and involvement in this program. Ryan was elected youth governor after campaigning in Idaho's youth and government program. This is a hands-on program dedicated to educating high school students on how state government operates. Ryan participated in a Regional Convention giving speeches and ultimately being elected to his current position. I am honored to take the opportunity to recognize Ryan. His involvement in the YMCA program is a great way for him to learn how our government functions. Ryan is an example to his peers and I wish him all the best for a successful year as youth governor in Idaho.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on H.R. 5540, permanent authorization for the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. As my colleague pointed out, today's bill would permanently reauthorize these Federal funds and remove the $3 million annual cap. When we held a hearing on this bill in committee, the administration testified that there have been some successes with this program, and consequently Federal funds are no longer necessary to subsidize this partnership. So I rise with serious concerns over the permanent authorization of this program. In committee, I offered an amendment that would strike a compromise limiting this authorization to 5 years. Today's legislation, however, proposes to put the taxpayer, including taxpayers in Idaho, on the hook permanently funding this program, and that in spite of the administration's claim that no Federal funds are even needed. This comes on the heels of the vote of this body we just took approving the largest tax increase in American history, a tax increase of some $683 billion, as well as action raising the national debt to an all-time record high of $10.5 trillion. This, together with skyrocketing fuel prices and increases in fuel cost, has the American taxpayer, the American family, and everyone across this country, including my great home State of Idaho, under a tremendous burden. Idahoans are considering the reality that they may not have enough money to pay their bills, let alone enjoy the majestic beauty of Idaho's outdoors this summer. Notably, however, this is not a problem limited to weekend excursions or vacations. The price pinch is hitting folks who have a job, but wonder if they can afford the fuel to get to work, those people that have called my office to complain. In addition, schools across this country are cutting programs and moving to four-day school weeks to address rising fuel costs. People being hit the hardest by these high gas prices don't even drive, they're our parents and our grandparents, those seniors who rely on services like Meals on Wheels to deliver the food they eat each day. In Idaho, it was reported on Tuesday that five volunteers had quit because they couldn't afford the gas they needed to complete their routes and deliver meals to seniors. This is a moral issue, an issue which for many senior citizens and low-income, hardworking families affects their access to food as well as to education and even doctors. It's time for Congress to act on that moral obligation, to make provision so the needs of the poor and the elderly will be met. It's time for Congress to lift the restrictions on America's energy-rich public lands, to responsibly increase exploration for production of American crude, and to increase American supply and bring down prices of gas and diesel. Increasing the supply of crude oil and ultimately lowering its price is the single most effective thing Congress can do to lower gas prices. Today, 73 percent of every dollar we pay for gasoline is the price of producing crude oil. Almost two-thirds of it comes from foreign countries, including OPEC nations and dictatorships like Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. Congress could vote today to unlock huge American onshore oil and natural gas reserves on public lands in the United States. In a study just released by the Bureau of Land Management, while onshore public lands in the United States are estimated to contain 31 billion barrels of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, some 60 percent of these lands are completely closed to leasing because of the actions of Congress. Once such example is the oil reserves in Alaska, where in 1980 President Jimmy Carter set aside 2,000 acres specifically for energy production. According to the U.S. Energy and Information Administration, the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil on those section 1002 lands is 10.4 billion barrels. That's more than twice the proven oil reserves in all of Texas and almost half of the total U.S. proven reserves of 21 billion barrels. The recoverable oil within these lands represents a possible 50 percent increase in total U.S. proven reserves. Congress must act to lift the restrictions on America's energy-rich public lands and increase exploration and production of American crude oil and natural gas. We can do this in an environmentally friendly manner. But we have to act and we have to act now. Of that there can be no dispute. With those pressing needs before us, why would Congress act on this bill to give a permanent authorization and increase the amount of money to go to the subject of this legislation when the administration has told us that no Federal funds are even needed? Mr. Speaker, we can and we must do better.

Mr. SALI. I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. SALI. In its current form I am.

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, this motion is a straightforward one and one that I hope we can all support. Because the underlying bill is a permanent authorization of appropriations for this regional program, it is suitable that the Secretary of the Interior should use some of these funds to help the residents of the Chesapeake Bay better understand exactly how their recreational opportunities, their livelihoods and even their everyday lives are affected by the shocking gas prices affecting the country, prices which have skyrocketed over 71 percent since the current majority was installed in the House of Representatives. I have read several news reports that show exactly how high boat fuel prices have affected the watermen of the bay. They cannot afford to run their boats to catch seafood we all enjoy. In the meantime, the price of those delicious crabs is climbing almost as fast as gas prices just so these fishermen can make their costs. While this program creates popular Chesapeake Bay watertrails, tour operators have shuttered their boats because they cannot afford to fill up their tanks. Families are forced to stay home rather than vacationing on the Chesapeake Bay shore to enjoy its historic sites, education programs and Chesapeake Bay gateway sites supported by the authorization in this bill. This is a shame because the area has much to offer. I wish I could offer a motion to actually decrease these prices, but the majority won't allow a vote on a measure to open up secure, American supplies of oil and natural gas, or oil shale, on our public lands. In the meantime, we are occupying hours of our legislative day with this minor program. Our constituents, including the millions who live near, use, and enjoy the Chesapeake Bay, deserve better. Mr. Speaker, we all know that we're going to hear from the other side of this body that there's a problem with this motion being made ``promptly.'' As we also know, the majority controls the work of this committee and schedules the House. Just as they have scheduled this bill today, they can bring this bill back early next week. This motion is made promptly so that, in addition to the matters that are considered within this motion to recommit, that the committee can take up all of the matters and make sure that we have fully addressed all of these issues as they affect the people who live and work in the Chesapeake Bay area.

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

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

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the University of Idaho for their re-designation as a National Center of Academic Excellence (CAE) in Information Assurance Education (IA). The National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security has bestowed this distinguished recognition on only ninety-three schools across 37 states and the District of Columbia. In order to be considered a CAE high academic standards must be in place. A CAE is required to have a full-time faculty dedicated to teaching IA, academic courses focused on IA and students involved in IA research projects. CAE students are trained to play a critical role in protecting our national information infrastructure. The University of Idaho will now be eligible to apply for scholarships and grants through both federal and Department of Defense Information Assurance Scholarship Programs. Congratulations to the University of Idaho for this fine distinction and commitment to cultivating the minds of our future leaders.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the national champions from Lewis Clark State College in Lewiston, Idaho. Last week, the LCSC Warriors won the 52nd annual National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics championship World Series baseball game. It was LCSC's third straight win, and 16th since 1982, all under the leadership of Coach Ed Cheff. Lewis Clark State College can be proud of these men for an extraordinary win and the national recognition they are once again receiving. In fact, I was proud to recognize the fine athletes at LCSC by wearing their red, white, and blue uniform during the congressional baseball game last year. Mr. Speaker, naturally I believe Idaho produces the best of everything. The best agriculture, the best companies, the best people, and, indeed, the best baseball players, originate in Idaho, and last week's win just proves the point. My congratulations to the Warriors, LCSC, and Lewiston, Idaho.

Mr. SALI

Mr. SALI. I thank the gentlewoman. Today, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 138, supporting National Men's Health Week. Not only should we be recognizing this important health issue this week, but Congress should also be addressing other issues critical to the American people, especially rising fuel prices. As Americans across this country pay an average of $3.98 per gallon, these prices hit families, and particularly school children. Just yesterday, the Calhoun Times reported in Georgia that, and I quote, ``High gas prices hit high school sports. With gas prices soaring to record heights, the cost of taking teams on the road has become a looming storm on the horizon of high school athletics that has led some to worry what the future may have in store. All across the country, people are dealing with the pinch of high gas prices. With high school teams' main mode of transportation still the average school bus, which runs on diesel, costs are even higher.'' This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. We need to act now to lower gas prices.