Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I will recognize Mrs. Musgrave from Colorado for as much time as she may consume.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation today which will transfer property from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Maniilaq Association in Kotzebue, Alaska. This transfer would occur through the Indian Health Service, the current owners of the properties. Since 1995, Maniilaq Association, a Native non-profit entity in Kotzebue, Alaska has carried out a comprehensive health care delivery program to residents in Kotzebue, Alaska and the Northwest Arctic Borough. They have carried out these responsibilities under the Alaska Tribal Health Compact and Funding Agreement negotiated annually with the Indian Health Service. These agreements give Maniilaq Association the right to acquire title to all federal property that they have utilized to provide these health care services. Currently, the Indian Health Service owns the properties that Maniilaq Association uses to carry out its health care delivery services. While there is an administrative process in place for them to acquire these properties, the process is cumbersome and sometimes may take years to accomplish the goal of acquiring these properties. Thus, Maniilaq Association is asking for legislation to acquire the properties listed in my legislation. Madam Speaker, we are not setting a precedent with this legislation. Congress, in the past, has enacted legislation which transfers excess government properties to non-profits such as Maniilaq Association. My legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Health and Human Services, through the Indian Health Service, to transfer to the Maniilaq Association by a warranty deed to a number of parcels of land legally described in my legislation. I am pleased to introduce this legislation on behalf of Maniilaq Association to allow them to continue with their health care delivery programs and to provide better services to their patients and residents of the Northwest Arctic Borough.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Carlos Boozer, Corey Cogdell, and Matt Emmons, three Alaskans who recently returned from competing in the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing. These three Alaskans, joined by their fellow athletes from across the country, traveled to Beijing, and represented the United States in an extraordinary manner. The U.S. Olympic team distinguished the United States from other nations by winning 110 medals, the most of any country. Carlos Boozer, Corey Cogdell, and Matt Emmons each won medals, and boldly represented the United States in their specific competitions. I truly believe that the importance of the contributions of these three talented Alaskan athletes to our country cannot be overstated, which is why it is important that we honor their great accomplishments. For this reason I am introducing the following resolution to honor these three athletes for their accomplishments and representation of our country.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman from West Virginia was giving a history lesson a moment ago. We passed ANWR on this House 10 times, never got out of the Democrat Senate side because of filibuster, and Bill Clinton vetoed it. And my candidate has sort of changed his mind with his new Vice Presidential candidate, who is going to be the next Vice President of the United States, who strongly supports drilling in ANWR. I am convinced with her great personality and her knowledge, she will be able to convince him the right way, more than we do Mr. Obama. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Again, I have great respect for my friend from Texas, and I understand the pressure he's under. But just think for a minute. There's no real offshore exploration in their bill. There's no renewables in their bill. There's no oil shale in their bill. Of course there's no ANWR in their bill. There's no nuclear in their bill. There's no clean coal to coal to liquids in their bill. There's no new refinery capacity in their bill. There is no electricity price hike control in their bill. And most of all, there is no lawsuit reform in their bill. This bill is, in fact, a ``no'' bill: no energy, no energy, no energy. Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas and the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee be allowed to control 21 minutes of the general debate time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this ill-conceived, if it was conceived at all, legislation. I don't know how many of you ever saw the Peter Pan story, the movie, or even read it. This is a Peter Pan story. You know, they have the imaginary bowls, the bowls that were not imaginary but they were empty, and they convinced Peter Pan, Robin Williams, to use his imagination and the bowls will be full of food. And this is what you're doing today, Mr. Chairman, and the people that wrote this bill, who we do not know who did write it. Use your imagination. We're going to have the oil for everything because this bill produces oil. It produces nothing. This is a Peter Pan story. It's a figment of the imagination. It is a political gimmick. It is a sham on the American people. Shame on this House, that the courage wasn't there for the leadership to go on both sides of the aisle, listen to those that have some expertise in this problem we are facing today, the high cost of energy, and work together and pass an energy solution to a problem that produces not only fossil fuels but other forms of fuel, that solves the problems for the commuter who has to go to work. And Mr. and Mrs. Commuter, if you think this bill today that came out of this leadership on that side produces one bit of relief to you as you drive to work, don't believe it. Go see Peter Pan. That's all this bill is. It has nothing in there to produce energy. In fact, it probably will drive down the ability to produce energy. It will help foreign countries. I just heard my chairman talk about Big Oil, how bad Big Oil is, and put the blame on Big Oil. Where do you think you're getting your oil today as you put it in your tank? From Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Chavez, foreign countries that have control of us right now. We ought to be talking about that. Forget talking about Big Oil, because this body, and I've said it before on this floor of the House, both sides of the aisle have not seized the ability to solve the energy problem by developing fossil fuels. Coal. There's nothing in this bill about coal to liquification or gasification. There's nothing in this bill about nuclear power. There's nothing in this bill that produces any energy. In fact, this bill takes land that's open now and closes it, and take lands that was closed and opens it, but it happens to be 50 miles offshore. Any oil in between there can't be developed. And by the way, my good friends, if any State contiguous to decides not to have it drill 50 miles and out they can say no, and they will say no because there's no revenue sharing in this bill. None. It is probably the best way to call this bill the Venezuela, Russian, Middle East Oil Production Act, because you're protecting the foreign countries under this legislation. I don't know why I'm getting worked up about it because we all know this is a political gimmick. It's never going to go anywhere. It's not going to become law. But it will give some people cover to say, I voted for more drilling and more production. This bill does not do that. It will increase energy costs. And I'm a little concerned on both sides of the aisle again because oil has dropped down to $93 a barrel today. You know, if that would have happened last year we would have said, my God, the world's coming to an end. Oil went to $93. But it was $145, and we are being lulled into this type of legislation saying we're going to solve the problem and nothing is occurring to solve the problems of the American consumer. We're right where we were last year and the year before that, and that's wrong. It does leave out ANWR. I wasn't going to bring up that, but the closest, quickest way to produce a million barrels a day to the United States was to open ANWR. No, we left that out. Can't happen. A million barrels a day for the next maybe hundred years, for the American consumer. Every barrel would have gone to the United States of America. A little provision says you can't export any of this oil to overseas. We're not exporting oil, we're consuming it. But we're consuming most of our oil from overseas, paying the foreign countries the oil prices today because you have not come to this floor, not one hearing in our committee on this issue. This bill was written in the midnight. I shouldn't say the midnight, the midnight sun. I would say it was written in the darkness of night. And introduced last night, had the rule last night, 500 pages. I have read it, and it produces nothing. You can get more energy out of this bill, ladies and gentlemen, if you take all the copies of the bill and put it in a bonfire. And that is not good for this House of this Nation. You had the opportunity. Now, I don't understand, really, why anybody would support this legislation at all because we're committing something wrong to the American people. We had a chance. I see people from oil-producing States over on that side. Why did you buy into the concept we wanted to bring a bill to the floor that does nothing but say I helped develop more oil when it doesn't do it? If you believe that, you would have let us have this bill, 2 weeks, 3, 4 weeks ago, but you didn't because you know when it finally gets out to the public and they start understanding what's occurring, that the public will understand, yes, it was a sham. And I'm tired of politics on oil in this body. We have a Speaker that believes that we have to save the planet because we can't burn any more fossil fuel. If that's the case, then let's admit it. I believe this is what she believes, and I think that's sad. I believe we ought to say, okay, we do have to have fossil fuels and we can develop the other forms of energy but it takes time. We need that bridge. This bill doesn't do that. So we're going to come back here next year, the public will be hoodwinked. The public will have high prices again, nothing will be done. If we're really wise, we'd take this bill today, totally defeat it, send it back and work across the aisle for the American people, work across the aisle for solutions that would no longer have the yoke not of Big Oil around our necks, the yoke of the foreign countries that took those billions of dollars. The largest transfer of American wealth in history occurred because this body didn't act correctly and did not develop the resources so we wouldn't have to transfer that wealth overseas, and we did it. So we have a responsibility to defeat this legislation. It was conceived in the dark. Who the father is, I do not know. But we do know it's not legitimate. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, first, let me say I'm very supportive of this legislation. And I understand the fiscal responsibility. I understand that those that say we're taking $8 billion and we're not having an offset. Remember we, this body, borrowed the money. And I want to compliment Mr. Oberstar on the history of what occurred in 1998 and where we are today. So we're really paying back what we borrowed. And that's part of the principle about, I call it an obligation, a man's word, or a woman's word, to someone else. We borrowed that money from the taxpayers that paid at the pump, and very frankly, we spent it for other purposes, be it put the debt down, et cetera, that's not why we paid that 18.2 cents per gallon. We paid it for an infrastructure system. Having said that, we have another problem. Our infrastructure is falling apart. When I was chairman of the Transportation Committee, I asked for a five-cent increased tax on gasoline. And very frankly, my side of the aisle and my President said, no, and we're further behind today than we were when I first suggested that. We ended up with $286 billion instead of $216 billion, but not nearly enough. There's no one in this Nation today that can tell me that our transportation is keeping up. It is falling further behind each day, each day; and when we do that, we add to the debt of this Nation because our economy is based upon the ability to move product and people. If we can't do that, we have no economy. The thing that hurts me the most, my good friends, in this energy crisis we have today and the high cost of energy, we're spending more money and more gallons of fuel sitting still than moving because we have congestion. That is not the economy this country needs. I will say this to my new chairman, Mr. Oberstar. He has a huge responsibility, and I hope this Congress will listen. And whoever the next President is, we must address this issue of raising the dollars to improve the transportation system within this Nation. Mr. Blumenauer said to the effect that no one's talking about transportation in this Presidential election. And I'm not being partisan here. Neither party's talking about transportation. If we do not do that, with the increase of the population we cannot have an economic base. Lastly, let me suggest one thing. One of the reasons the money is not there and why we should pass this bill today is because we are spending less on gasoline because of the high price. And for those who do not want to drill, those who do not want to reduce domestic prices, think of what you're doing to the transportation system in this country. My chairman is going to have to come up with a way of funding. Maybe it's other than the gas tax. I don't know. But we do have the automobiles. I don't care whether they're hybrids. I don't care what they are in saving fuels. We do have a transportation necessity in this country, and this body has not had the courage to go forth and have the vision of improving the transportation of the Nation for the future generations. We must do that. This bill is a short step. It's needed. It's important, and it is returning what we borrowed; we, being the body of Congress, from the taxpayers at the pump. I have come from the old school that if you borrow it you pay it back, and that's what we're doing today to keep the largest driving force in this country going, the construction of our infrastructure, the improvement upon and then the repair. If we don't do that today, I'm sure we will, we'll make a great mistake. But let's go to the future, the next highway bill. And those that are talking about we shouldn't spend it here, we shouldn't spend it there, there's no better way to spend the dollars of the American taxpayer than in an infrastructure for the future generations. It creates employment today, it creates employment in the future, and it takes and makes our economy strong forever.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, today I introduce a really simple bill which will help one of the towns in my home State of Alaska. This bill will fix a problem which cannot be solved without this legislation. The bill, entitled the Connell Lake Watershed Protection bill, will allow the Forest Service to apply the Recreation and Public Purposes Act to a vital watershed in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. By doing this, the local government, the Borough, can manage and protect the watershed which is now owned by the Forest Service. While the Forest Service can manage this area, it is better that the local government has control of its own watershed since that watershed is located within the Borough's boundaries. This is a small area--just 880 acres consisting of a natural lake which was enlarged by a dam constructed in the 1950s when the area was used by the now defunct Ketchikan Pulp Company. The company needed a water source and constructed a small dam to enlarge the already existing, natural Connell Lake. That lake has since served as a water source for the Ketchikan area and the Borough wishes to own and maintain the lake and the surrounding area. If Ketchikan were not completely contained within the Tongass National Forest, there would be an easy solution, the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, which is specifically designed to solve problems like these. If these lands were in the public domain in the lower 48 States, the Bureau of Land Management would simply process a deed under that Act to allow the Borough obtain ownership of the land subject to a reverter if the land is not used for either recreation of public purposes. However, the Recreation and Public Purposes Act does not apply to the National Forest System. So, Congress must approve the use of the act for this purpose. This is not an unprecedented situation, and Congress has passed similar legislation in the past. For example, in The Southern Nevada Public Land Management act of 1998, P. L. 105-263, Congress approved a bill to allow this Act to be used in both Southern Nevada and in the Tahoe Basin, which lands became part of the National Forest System. So, Madam Speaker, I ask only that this bill be passed to allow local government to use the Act just as it would in Nevada or any other western state. The Borough is well able to handle this management and will maintain the current management which is as a recreational site and for water source and watershed protection. The full terms and conditions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act would apply--no exceptions are being asked. I look forward to rapid consideration and passage of this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing, along with Alaska's Senators, legislation to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to set the bowhead whale quota for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission in the event the International Whaling Commission does not set an Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling quota for the bowhead whale. Madam Speaker, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is at a crossroads. Many observers of the IWC have raised concerns that the Commission will either fall apart in the next few years or it will turn into a whale protection organization that will allow no take of whales--even for subsistence purposes. In either case, without an alternative mechanism for authorizing the Alaska subsistence harvest of bowhead whales, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission could find itself with no quota authorized by the IWC. In the event that this were to occur and the Alaskan hunters tried to fulfill the communities needs for whale meat, they could find themselves in violation of the Whaling Convention Act of 1949 for attempting to feed their people. And even if the IWC remains a viable management entity, the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling quotas have been rejected by the IWC several times in recent memory due to political fights between the whaling nations and those nations that are opposed to any whaling. These fights have used the Alaskan Natives as political footballs and left the Native people of Alaska without a quota of whales. This happened most recently in 2002 when the IWC rejected the Alaskan quota for no other reason than politics. And at this year's IWC meeting, the Greenland Natives submitted a request to substitute humpback whales for the current quota of fin whales--something the IWC's Scientific Committee had already considered and determined that the harvest of 10 humpback whales would not endanger the stock. Despite the Scientific Committee's determination, the IWC did not have enough votes to allow this quota. In both of these cases, the IWC did not act on Native quotas despite recommendations or determinations by the Scientific Committee that the quota was sustainable and would not endanger the stocks. In both cases, the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling quotas were rejected because of politics and not science. Madam Speaker, it is clear that in the fight to outlaw scientific whaling and commercial whaling, many IWC member countries are being pressured by animal rights groups to stop all whaling. These animal rights groups do not understand the subsistence needs of Native people--or they don't care. Alaskan Native whalers have already been held hostage during these fights over scientific and commercial whaling and that is not right. Today, the Alaska delegation is introducing legislation to regulate domestic Native subsistence whaling under domestic law in the event that the IWC cannot authorize a quota for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission's bowhead whale harvest. The legislation will allow the Secretary of Commerce to set the annual quota for the bowhead harvest in the event that the IWC is unable to set the quota. Under the legislation, the Secretary must set the quota based on science and the needs of the Alaska Natives. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission's harvest has always been sustainable, based on science, based on harvest levels approved by the IWC's Scientific Committee, and set at a level that has allowed the bowhead whale population to increase to the point where some scientists are now calling for the downlisting of the stock. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission has continually had to justify their harvest--both their cultural need and their nutritional need. They have done this and have also responded to every hurdle that anti- whaling nations have put in their way. In addition, they probably have provided more scientific information to the IWC on the bowhead whale than the IWC has on any other whale species. All of this was done to justify a harvest that has gone on for centuries. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission has continued to respect the IWC, continued to respect the scientific recommendations of the Secretary of Commerce and the IWC's Scientific Committee, and continued to respect the bowhead whale. But they cannot be used as political footballs by the IWC and they cannot have their need for the bowhead whale delayed if the IWC fails to renew their quota in a timely manner. This legislation will ensure that the AEWC will have their cultural and nutritional needs met in the event that the IWC fails to act to renew their quota or if the IWC decided to hold their quota hostage for political reasons, but does so in a manner that is based on science and the needs of the Alaskan Native people as determined by the Secretary of Commerce.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today is yet another sad day for the American people--real people who are suffering from $4-plus pain at the pump and the Democrat Majority's refusal to do anything about it. This bill is nothing more than a feeble attempt to fool the American people into believing that the Democratic leadership in Congress actually supports more drilling. They don't. The Democrats in Congress have a well documented, 30 year history of opposing more drilling. In fact, just last year, the very same Democrat leaders in this body who now say they support more drilling were arguing that oil companies were drilling too much and too quickly. And let me remind Members that in the first 100 hours of the Democrat's Majority's ``new direction'' for American energy, they attempted to limit and slow down energy production in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A) by undoing the provisions Republicans enacted into law in 2005 that would have expedited more drilling in NPR-A. This bill is a sham. It will not produce one drop of American-made oil or natural gas. In fact, there is more drilling in my dentist's office than in this bill. For the record, here are the facts about drilling in NPR-A: All lands in NPRA that are available to be leased under current Bureau of Land Management planning documents have been offered for lease in the past, are currently leased, or are available to be leased now. If the Democrats want to open all of NRP-A for production, they'll have to exempt the 24 million-acre area from the National Environmental Policy Act and dozen other environmental laws. And if they wanted to produce more oil, they'd do something to address the multiple environmental lawsuits that have slowed/stopped production in NPRA. Both industry and the Department of the Interior say the Bureau of Land Management has enough authority to do lease sales and the agency can do them every year if they want--the Democrats' bill won't do anything new. Both industry and Interior say the only impediment to more production is environmental lawsuits, and this bill doesn't touch that. In fact, the ``use it or lose it'' parts of the bill create new litigation that will hold up leasing in NPRA. This legislation is yet another unfortunate example of the Democrat leadership's negligence on producing energy. For the last 30 years they have thrown every obstacle they could in the way of producing more oil and gas for consumers. It's interesting, however, that the Democrat Leadership is arguing that oil companies must ravage the 24 million-acre NPR-A--an area 20 percent larger than ANWR--for its 10.6 billion barrels of oil. Are we to ``extrapolate'' that the Speaker and the Majority Leader now support allowing Americans to tap the same amount of oil from just 2000 acres of the 19 million-acre Coastal Plain of ANWR? The Coastal Plain of ANWR, a flat, frozen desert just 74 miles east of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, is just 1.5 million acres--1/16th the size of NPRA. It contains the same amount of oil. And with today's technology we can produce all of that oil while disturbing no more than 2000 acres, or 0.01 of ANWR's 19 million acres. If the Majority leadership sincerely wants more oil, surely they would support drilling in ANWR, the environmpntally friendly alternative to NPR-A. But no, they don't. And this fact should serve as a reminder of the Majority's real energy policy: No more drilling. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this do-nothing legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill to assist a remarkable nonprofit humanitarian organization known as Helping Hands. This organization, which was first established in 1979, has placed 131 specially trained capuchin monkeys in the homes of severely disabled Americans throughout the country at absolutely no cost to the recipient. While Helping Hands initially received some financial assistance from the National Science Foundation, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the U.S. Veterans Administration, it has been operating solely on its own since its final government grant in 1994. The purpose of this legislation is not to authorize any government funding for this organization. In fact, it is simply designed to correct what I am sure is an unintended consequence of a bill, H.R. 2964, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act that passed the House of Representatives on June 17, 2008. The measure I am introducing today is a solution to the problem created by H.R. 2964 which would prohibit the transportation of nonhuman primates across State lines. Since this legislation is pending action in the other body, I have incorporated the text of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, as passed by the House, in this measure with the modification of allowing the Helping Hands organization to continue to place their service monkeys in the homes of disabled Americans throughout this country. It is a narrowly tailored change that only exempts a nonprofit organization that provides service monkeys to recipients with severe mobility impairment. Madam Speaker, until my office was recently contacted by a representative of Helping Hands, I was not aware of its existence. I was also not aware that capuchin monkeys were being specifically trained at the Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation Center in Boston to help disabled individuals with simple everyday tasks. This training lasts between 18 to 24 months and costs about $10,000 per monkey. It is a remarkable program. Upon graduation, these trained service monkeys are transported by car and plane from Boston to disabled recipients throughout the United States. The recipients must hold a valid state permit for the nonhuman primate and Helping Hands retains ownership of the service monkey at all times. For nearly 30 years, this humanitarian organization has provided invaluable assistance to Americans with polio, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, military veterans who sustained severe injuries in Vietnam and Iraq and people who are paralyzed or live with other severe mobility impairments. The service monkeys perform a variety of tasks including retrieving dropped items, turning on the television or loading a compact disc, putting straws in drinking bottles and pushing buttons on personal computers. Just as importantly, these service monkeys provide the disabled recipients with a sense of independence, companionship and a renewed enthusiasm for life. Madam Speaker, my bill will make a small simple modification to the Lacey Act to ensure that Helping Hands will be able to continue to transport its service monkeys to worthy recipients in all 50 States and U.S. territories in the future. I am confident that the authors of H.R. 2964 never intended to adversely affect this humanitarian group nor did they realize it would effectively kill this nationwide effort to assist Americans like the marine who was severely injured by a roadside explosion in Iraq. As a result of this attack, the marine sustained a severe brain injury, lost both legs and one of his eyes. Today, he is living in southern California and he has become a recent recipient of a Helping Hand service monkey. Madam Speaker, I urge the adoption of the Captive Primate Safety and Disabled Human Assistance Act. It is a humanitarian solution to what would be, if uncorrected, a serious problem. It is also right that we allow our disabled military veterans who have sacrificed so much for this country the opportunity to participate in the Helping Hands Program. I want to also acknowledge that the Army Veterinary Corps has already endorsed its enactment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is an issue. And the frustration on this side--and it should be on that side--is on the lack of an energy policy that only Congress can solve. I know there's a lot of talk. The Speaker just sent a letter to the President to use the SPR, as if that's going to solve the problem. That's not going to solve the problem. In fact, it will make the problem worse. We have to address the supply side of this issue, and we're not doing it. The last time we produced any new energy on this floor was 1973 when we had an embargo and we had no fuel, so we passed the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline. In 1976, we produced the first barrel of oil to America from Alaska. In 3 years, we built an 800-mile-long pipeline 48 inches around. We built the terminus point in Valdez, and I wear that today on my tie. We drilled the wells and we built the collection lines to deliver that oil. And we got as high as 2.2 million barrels a day to the United States of America because we were under the threat at that time, the same threat we are today, of control by overseas forces, not forces of military fact, but in fact those that control our supply. At that time, we were importing 39 percent of our oil from overseas. Today, it's 70 percent. And we have done nothing in this Congress to relieve that problem. Your constituents are paying for it today. There is no shortage of fuel. There is a high cost of fuel because we don't have the domestic capability of providing it. We need to have this debate on the floor. Let us stand up and be counted on both sides of the aisle who is for domestic production. There is no shortage of fossil fuel in the United States of America. We have an abundance of it. We've had the lack of will to produce it. It was easier to buy it abroad. We just had a sale in Alaska, other than ANWR, in Chukchi Sea about $2.6 billion from an oil company to try to develop it because there is a lot of argument on that side, well, they're not drilling the acreage they have now. You know why they're not drilling? Because your friends and your allies are filing suits not allowing them to drill, suits that say, oh, there's going to be polar bears affected or there's going to be some little other type of animal affected. In the meantime, your constituents are paying that $4.62 a gallon. Yes, the oil did drop yesterday, but it will go up tomorrow and the next day because we are not supplying the oil to our people through the domestic source. We have the shale that was mentioned in Utah and Wyoming and all the other areas, Colorado; huge amounts of oil. We have more coal in the United States than there is all around the world and we're not developing it. We have not had the will to develop it because this Congress sits by and talks about saving records of the past administration. Your bill may not do that, but this is what this is all about. And I'm saying that doesn't produce any gas. That doesn't help the truck driver. It costs $2,000 to fill up one Peterbilt truck that delivers your food to your grocery store. Wait until that price starts hitting the prices in the grocery store, and it already has. The harvester who harvests the grain today now is paying sometimes as high as $4 and $5 for diesel fuel to run it. That's going to affect you, too. We have not acted on this floor. And the responsible way of addressing the issue--now, some people will say we'll have the other forms of energy, wind and hippy-hoppies and that type of thing to solve the problem. But the reality is fossil fuels drive objects. It's the trucks, the planes, the trains, and the automobiles that deliver to your homes and your hospitals and your schools, and we must have that. Yes, we can go into nuclear. Yes, we can go into wind. Yes, we can go into solar. And we can go to geothermal and hydro. We can do all those things and we should. My bill, H.R. 6107, to open ANWR--this, by the way, 12 times it passed this House floor. We won't have a vote on it this year, but we should have a vote. The one time we got it out of the Senate and Bill Clinton vetoed it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Bill Clinton vetoed it because he said it will take 10 years to produce it; ANWR, 10 years. That was 13 years ago. If we had built it then, we would have it pumping today over 1 million barrels a day, but no, he didn't do that. Let me stress again, ANWR is, in fact, 74 miles away from the existing pipeline, 800 miles long, a terminus point and all the infrastructure in place, and we built that in 3 years. And if you don't think we can build a pipeline 74 miles away and drill the oil and get it to that pipeline in 3 years, you're not studying this fact. It can be done for the American people. I'm asking you on both sides, let's drill, let's develop our domestic sources for the good of America, the good of the Nation, and make sure we can go forth.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a great American and outstanding Alaskan on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Born on June 26, 1928, in Spokane Washington, the Honorable Bill Sheffield has been a leader in business, government, and public policy for many of the 55 years he has resided in Alaska. He served as governor from 1982 to 1986 following an impressive and prosperous business career in which he built a company that became one of the largest private employers in Alaska and the Yukon Territory. Following a landslide victory in his 1982 election, Governor Sheffield focused his attention to curbing the runaway growth in state government, bettering the lives of rural Alaskans, and saving more of Alaska's energy revenues for future generations of Alaskans. As Governor he supported opening ANWR, a position I proudly share with him and one which we will continue to support until development begins. Since leaving public office in 1986, Governor Sheffield hasn't slowed down at all! He is a trustee of Alaska Pacific University; a member of the Advisory Board of ENSTAR Natural Gas; a charter member of Commonwealth North, Alaska's leading public affairs forum; Past Chairman of the Federal Salary Council; former Alaska Chairman of the United Nations 50th year celebration; received the 2006 Lifetime Achievement Award in Business from Alaska Business Monthly; former President & CEO of the Alaska Railroad Corporation and now serves on its Board of Directors. In addition to these many commitments, Governor Sheffield also serves as the Director of the Port of Anchorage. As Director, Sheffield has implemented a massive expansion that started in 2002 and will be completed in 2014. Governor Sheffield's vision for the much needed expansion of the State of Alaska's largest port will serve nearly the entire geographic area and population of our State as goods and materials are brought into Alaska. In addition, the Port will serve National Defense Objectives by providing vital, modernized transportation support and access to four major military installations and personnel in Alaska, including the Stryker Brigade at Ft. Wainwright. Furthermore, the expanded port will play a major role in the ongoing efforts to bring even more of Alaska's vast and much needed energy resources to the rest of the Nation. I am proud to support Governor Sheffield, the expansion of the Port and the fantastic job he is doing for Alaska and the Nation. His tireless energy and enthusiasm continues to amaze me! As a candidate for Governor in 1982, Bill's theme was ``Bringing the State Together.'' I learned from him that when we all work together we can achieve great things and I hope that others continue to follow in his path of bipartisanship. Most importantly, Madam Speaker, against the backdrop of today's partisan fighting, I have always tried to reach out to the other side, to reach out to Democrats who are dedicated to getting things done. Governor Sheffield, a lifelong Democrat, is one of the best examples I know of someone who is willing to work with anyone, regardless of political affiliation, who is also devoted to achieving important goals for the greater good. I like to remember great leaders by what they were able to accomplish while they served others. The legacy that Bill will leave behind someday is the vision he has had for the future of Alaska. I share his vision in investing now to prepare for the future. Sometimes this goes against the grain of popular opinion but a great leader is unafraid of rocking the boat of populism. I celebrate Bill's willingness to do this and wish more public servants were willing to stand up for what is right and not just popular. I would be remiss were I not to mention that while Bill works hard, he also knows how to enjoy all that life has to offer. He is an excellent duck hunter, fisherman, golfer and an avid outdoorsman and his friends and family mean the world to him. He and I have shared countless hours together over the years and I truly value his unwavering friendship. Madam Speaker, I am honored to call Bill Sheffield my friend and I hope the entire Congress will join me and my wife Lu in wishing him well on this wonderful occasion. Happy birthday Bill! God bless you.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, on June 25, 2008, the Committee on Natural Resources adopted a resolution directing the Secretary of the Interior to make an emergency withdrawal of more than one million acres of land in Arizona from the operation of the mining laws, jeopardizing significant reserves of critical high-grade sources of uranium for clean-burning nuclear power plants. The Committee passed this resolution without a quorum present in violation of House and Committee rules, as documented by the 20-2 roll call vote on the motion to adopt. In addition, the Republicans had vacated the markup in protest of what is an unconstitutional measure, and so this vote reflects only those of Democratic members. The resolution therefore clearly does not reflect the views of the Committee on Natural Resources. The majority marked up the resolution even though the use of this authority under section 204(e) of the Federal Land Policy Management Act is clearly unconstitutional. This view is supported by an informal opinion of the Justice Department issued in 1983 as well as a recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service. I reproduce the Justice Memorandum below and have appended the conclusion of the CRS American Law Division. There is no emergency. If there was, the Secretary of the Interior would use his own power to make an emergency withdrawal. The reality is that the majority could not pass actual legislation locking up these millions of acres of public lands from resource development--in an area where there are already many mining claims. This resolution is a toothless act of political theater. I hope that Interior Secretary Kempthorne gives it all the deference it deserves-- none. Subject: Legislative Veto Provision Contained in Sec. 204(e) of FLPMA. Date: September 12, 1983. From: Name: Ralph W. Tarr, Office Symbol: OLC. Statement: This memorandum memorializes the oral advice I recently conveyed to the Solicitor's Office of the Interior Department concerning conclusions we reached as to the legislative veto provision contained in Sec. 204(e) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1714(e). That section provides in pertinent part that the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of either House of Congress (subsequently designated as the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in the Senate) may notify the Secretary of the Interior (``Secretary'') that an emergency situation exists and direct the Secretary to withdraw certain public lands from disposition under laws pertaining to mineral leasing. Previous litigation under this provision followed a Resolution of May 21, 1981, by the House Committee, directed to the Secretary, for the withdrawal of certain lands in the Bob Marshall, Great Bear, and Scapegoat Wilderness Areas. This Office determined, and the Department subsequently took the position in that litigation, that Sec. 204(e) was unconstitutional insofar as it authorized a Committee of either House to direct the Secretary to take an action which would change the status of public lands. It was our view that the provision, as legislative action, violated the Bicameralism and Presentment Clauses, Art. I, Sec. 1, and Art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 2 and 3, and, as executive action, violated principles of separation of powers and the Incompatibility Clause, Art. I, Sec. 6. See generally Memorandum in Support of Federal Defendants' Cross-Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment and in Response to Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Watt, Civil No. 81- 141BLG, and Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Watt, Civil No. 81-168-BLG (D. Mont.) The Department's Memorandum submitted to the court at that time also concluded that the portion of Sec. 204( e), which provided for the committee veto was severable from the Secretary's leasing authority, which is contained in entirely different and earlier statutes, and from the Secretary's authority under Sec. 204(e) to withdraw lands on his own initiative. Section 707 of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 note, provides that if any provision or its application of the Act is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and its application shall not be affected. See, e.g., Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, 286 U.S. 210 (1932), quoted with approval in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108-109 (1976). In the court decision which resulted, the district court upheld Sec. 204(e) against the separation of powers challenge, on the ground that the scope and duration of a withdrawal order under Sec. 204(e) were within the Secretary's discretion, subject to judicial review. The court did not view Sec. 204(e) as a veto provision and thus did not address the bicameralism and presentment issues. The court added, however, that if the section were interpreted to permit a congressional committee, by majority vote, to direct the Secretary to withdraw wilderness areas until the date specified in the Resolution, the committee action would be, in effect, an attempt to amend the Wilderness Act of 1964, and would be unconstitutional under the Ninth Circuit's decision in Chadha v. INS, 634 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1980). See Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) v. Watt, 529 F. Supp. 982 (D. Mont. 1982), on reconsideration, 539 F. Supp. 1194 (D. Mont. 1982) (final order of Aug. 31, 1982, unpublished). The constitutionality of the legislative veto device has since been firmly and finally decided. INS v. Chadha, 51 U.S.L.W. 4907 (June 23, 1983); Consumer Energy Council v. FERC, 673 F.2d 425 (D.C. Cir. 1982), aff'd, 51 U.S.L.W. 3935 (June 29, 1983), Consumers Union v. FTC, 691 F.2d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1982), aff'd, 51 U.S.L.W. 3935 (June 29, 1983). There remains no doubt that the power to direct withdrawal of lands granted to a single Congressional Committee by Sec. 204(e) is, by its terms, a legislative veto and is unconstitutional under Chadha. At the request of Interior, this Office examined Sec. 204(e) and the relevant case law in conjunction with a Resolution of August 3, 1983, by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, which purported to direct the Secretary to withdraw lands in the Fort Union Coal Region of Montana and North Dakota. We determined and advised Interior that the Resolution passed pursuant to Sec. 204(e) purporting to direct withdrawal was unconstitutional as a legislative veto and was not salvageable under the construction of the court in PLF v. Watt. We further determined and advised that constitutional failure of the veto provision has no effect on the substantive authority granted to the Secretary of Interior by the statutes.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I just witnessed one of the greatest displays of inaccuracies I have ever heard in my life. It's too bad that the public doesn't understand that this whole bill is a charade, and I am disappointed in my chairman because there were no hearings on this. In fact, the testimony that I have heard from the majority is the reality is not real. The report is not real. And where he gets the figures about 68 million acres set aside and not utilized, I don't know. And where do they get the idea of getting 4 billion barrels? I've just listened to the gentleman from Massachusetts' tirade. I have heard that same tirade for as long as he's been in Congress. He has never supported any energy at all, any development of energy, including nuclear. Now his people in Massachusetts are paying that price. When I first came to Congress, we were in the minority, and the price of oil for a barrel was $8 a barrel, 39 cents at the pump. Yes, it's high today because the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was the last big development we ever had because this Congress would not allow us to develop any other oil fields. Now, we have a big oil field in Alaska called ANWR, which is 74 miles away from the existing pipeline that delivers 17 billion barrels to the American people, and we're not allowed to drill it because this Congress won't act. And we have a tirade on this floor about blaming Big Oil. There's only one group that's to blame, and it's this Congress, both sides of the aisle, because it's easier to buy it from OPEC countries. And we stopped trying to figure out how we can get off the dependency. We have not done that. Now, if we don't drill, we are going to be in trouble. I predict the price of oil, if we don't drill and start supply to this demand in the United States, the price of oil will probably go to $150 a barrel. And that's going to be under your watch. Are you proud of what you've done? I say no. This bill is a charade. It should be voted down, and we should vote ``no, no, no, drill, drill, drill.''

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I think it would be instructive for Members to see this letter from the national organizations representing the oil producers, oil and gas supply industries and the off shore oil and gas infrastructure supply industry; the organizations that supply domestic energy for the American consumer. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi: We write today in opposition of HR 6251, the so-called ``use it or lose it'' legislation under consideration in the House today. As Americans cope with $4 a gallon gasoline, it is regrettable that some in Congress choose to propose diversionary legislation, not based on facts, instead of focusing on the real issue--the need for additional energy supplies to meet growing world energy demand. Over the past few weeks, rhetoric surrounding our nation's lack of a coherent energy policy has reached an apex. Unfortunately, policy proposals like the ``use it or lose it'' legislation ignore fundamental facts about the oil and gas industry and jeopardize the long-term energy security of our nation. Every energy forecast has predicted that oil and natural gas will be a critical component of America's growing energy demands. The federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates 88% of our nation's energy needs will be met by oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power in the year 2030. This fact is being lost in the proposals of some members of Congress. While political candidates talk of energy independence, some in Congress are offering proposals that will lead our nation in the opposite direction. These members ignore the challenges of domestic production, and make unfounded accusations such as the latest charge that non- producing leases are the same as inactive leases. This couldn't be further from the truth. The U.S. oil and natural gas industry is in the business of supplying energy, not sitting on it. The industry has reliably supplied our nation with the necessary energy to move our cars and fuel our homes and will continue to do so for decades to come. The industry buys leases with the intent to produce all commercially viable reserves of oil and natural gas. Unfortunately, not every acre of land under lease contains oil or natural gas. In fact, many leases do not contain any commercially recoverable oil or natural gas resources. But these non-commercial leases continue to provide rental payments for the federal government, on top of bonus bids paid for the right to explore this land. In fact, the federal government received more than $9 billion in bonus bids from the last four offshore lease sales alone. For the acreage that does include promising reserve prospects, it can take years and millions, or even billions, of dollars to develop this resource. The exploration process, which precedes production, necessarily takes time. Seismic surveys must be undertaken, delineation wells must be drilled, government permits must be obtained, environmental regulations must be adhered to, and complex production facilities must be engineered and installed. Oil and gas development is an extensive, expensive and time-consuming process, even with advances in technology. As an example, in the U.S. ultra deepwater (greater than 5000 ft) in the Gulf of Mexico--where some of our nation's most promising new discoveries have been made--only 21% of wells drilled have resulted in a discovery of oil or natural gas. However, as a result of this industry's willingness to invest billions of dollars despite these odds--and because of what has historically been a stable domestic oil and natural gas regulatory regime--the U.S. oil and gas industry has continued to explore the Gulf of Mexico. This exploration has resulted in an 820% increase in deepwater oil production and a roughly 1,155% increase in deepwater natural gas production from 1992 to 2006, while adding billions of dollars in revenue to the federal treasury. In fact, royalty payments provide the second-largest revenue stream to the federal government, behind only federal taxes administered by the IRS. The ability to explore in Gulf Coast waters has resulted in not only a steady stream of major discoveries since the mid 1990s, but also a tripling of estimated undiscovered potential from 1995 to 2003. Similarly, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska was initially thought to contain 9 billion barrels of oil, but the industry has already produced about 12 billion barrels and it still is estimated to contain reserves of another 6 billion barrels. Imagine what American industrial ingenuity could find through environmentally responsible exploration and development of 85% of Lower 48 Outer Continental Shelf and 83% of onshore federal lands that are currently off-limits or facing significant restrictions to development. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands already establish a regulatory system that sets time limits on lease terms, establishes annual rental payments for leases that are not yet in production, and requires diligent development of all available resources. The current debate does not acknowledge these facts. The American public deserves a policy discussion grounded in market fundamentals. Sincerely, American Petroleum Institute. American Exploration and Production Council. International Association of Drilling Contractors. Independent Petroleum Association of America. Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States. National Ocean Industries Association. U.S. Oil and Gas Association.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Who has the right to close?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. At this time, I yield 8 minutes to the good lady of the district that's represented, not from California, not from any other area such as Nevada and California, again, that oppose this legislation. She represents this area, and we ought to listen to her as to why she is for this bill.