my check three two one now my check one t testing testing we have only a single item on our agenda for today a committee print entitled recommendation for budget reconciliation pursuant to committee rule three and house rule eleven two eight for the  postpone further proceedings today on any question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote or the ordered the last time the committee on resources considered reconciliation legislation the markup took over ten hours this is a record i prefer to let stand therefore if any members have a statement i ask unanimous consent that these statements be included in their entirety in the record if submitted to the committee clerk by noon on thursday october twenty seventh two thousand and five without objection so ordered in addition rather than considering the committee print by individual section which would be the normal process we will expedite matters by consider considering the committee print by subtitle please have your amendment ready to offer at the appropriate time once we pass a subtitle no amendments to it are in order absent unanimous consent i ask unanimous consent that the committee print be considered read is their objection hearing none so ordered i will now explain the committee print committee is meeting today to make our contribution to reducing the deficit within our jurisdiction the last meaningful reconciliation effort by the committee was in one thousand nine hundred five ten years ago this is an aggressive deficit cutting measure that raises revenue for uncle sam so they don't go sam doesn't take it from the pockets of the taxpayers we will generate these new revenues by increasing domestic energy supplies at a time when american consumers need them most america needs more american energy and congress must cut the deficit that makes this a win win package for the american public ten years ago this committee and the congress voted to reconcile the budget by opening  war's estimated ten point four billion barrels of oil to environmentally sound it was vetoed hindsight shows us that americans would be much better off today if president clinton had signed that bill now we know that anwar and wars or oil could be filling the gap in our daily production that was lost when hurricanes katrina and rita devastated the gulf coast we also know that americans could be at work producing energy and paying taxes right here at home instead of paying too much for foreign oil and padding the pockets of foreign dictators and kleptocrats who fund the people who have declared war on america now we know that the veto was a mistake that americans pay for every time they fill up their gas tanks the failure to develop america's own domestic energy resources in the wake of everything we have learned in the last ten years and mounts to nothing less than what former senator and former anwar opponent jim buckley referred to as economic and strategic masochism it's time for congress to join the american public who according to recent polls support opening anwar and it raises two and a half  billion dollars in the next five years for the budget anwar is subtitle of this bill subtitle b of the recommendations would raise about one hundred fifty million dollars over five years by an modernizing the mining laws by increasing the mining patent these two hundred to four hundred times their present rate allowing the sale of lands associated with mining for local sustainable economic and community development and bring are my in laws into line with the rest of the world title c raises three million in the states of idaho and nevada by selling lands important to local communities to provide economic development this is an important part of the committee's obligation to help resolve the boom and bust nature of some resource projects help rule communities provide long term economic stability subtitled would raise money by taking a page from our friends in alberta who developed a leasing program for oil sands that has fostered fifty billion dollars of capital investment and now produces more than a million barrels of oil per year rather than wait years for our own bureaucracy to come up with a decent plan to access american oil shale resources we have lifted their program which is shown to work or oil shale resources under federal land total one and a half trillion barrels we are the saudi arabia of oil shale this provision would raise money and speed the development of that process if america could develop their own oil shale resources we could become energy independent subtitle is a carefully crafted proposal to change the twenty five year standoff that has made most of our deep ocean areas unavailable for inner g production the less states dependent on an annual appropriations rider would make the existing moratoria the law of the land until two thousand and twelve but allo states that want to opt out of the moratoria a chance to do so at their own pace it also allows states wanting to continue the moratorium off their coast to continue to do so that gives those states that contribute energy to meet america's needs share of the revenue just like states with federal lands receive monies from the energy minerals onshore i personally want to thank governor jeb bush of florida and the florida delegation wor  tirelessly with me to craft a balanced approach that will give states more power over their coastlines while providing additional supplies of energy for the nation subtitle f raises money and gives the district of columbia more taxable land to benefit the residents of the nation's capital the district is a microcosm of many western states where the federal government is a huge land lord with sharp elbows who eats more than his share from the dinner table because he owns it by making more land available for the district economic base it can have more control over its future taken together the committee's recommendations exceed our instructions for the amount of money we must raise under the best budget resolution they also produce more self determination for states the district of columbia local communities in the west and the eskimo people of the north slope of alaska they provide jobs energy community stability and show america that this committee is willing to work with our states and local governments to be both fiscally responsible and attentive to the nation's need for future economic growth i hope the members will see fit to see in them favorable to the just in the favorable to the budget committee this time i now like to recognize the gentleman from west virginia for his opening statement thank you mr chairman i ask you when you came in the room this morning i did not know h unlike our get a shock at rich kids the american public is going to get a crick not a creed when it opens a sack the sack this is not a bill whose primary purpose is to balance  ut this bill takes the whole notion of reconciliation and turns it on its head quite literally at side of opening up and we are drilling a specter that has been hanging over the congress for years i don't believe this bill raises any revenues and goodness knows there were plenty of reasonable opportunities open to this committee to raise the money as required by the budget instructions but those opportunities were largely ignored for example committee could have chosen to rein in some of the app popping giveaways that line a designer pockets of the oil and gas executives but instead this bill hands out even more this monster comes along and permanently for administration from creating any new fees or raising existing fees on huge oil conglomerates last year the ten largest oil companies are in revenues of over one trillion that's with a records and are steaming toward even higher numbers in the months ahead some reports suggest as much as fifty percent increase in profits this year over last year's record breaking levels someone has to stop us before we legislate again somebody has to stop us and i noted very ironic in this morning's new york times the headline is republicans ask  industry for help with fuel prices here's a quote it's time to invest in america now i asked my colleague you think ed markey speaking or president american petroleum institute said that while the leadership was pushing for new refineries expansion of existing facilities could accomplish the same result at a quicker pace and here's his final quote what we are trying to say is tell us what you want speaking to the congress tell us what you want not how to make it happen mr cavalli said and at end of the day we will have additional capacity this bill does just the opposite it tells the oil industry how to make it happen it doesn't say how well we want to happen so this bill goes even counter to the oil industry's wishes when it comes to rewarding the oil and gas industry this committee's legislative agenda for the whole year reads like a story a series of bad horror movies and a stunning to me that we are even entertaining handing out more goodies to an industry this scoring record breaking record profits on the backs of hard working american families who are struggling to fill their tanks and heat their homes and these rewards these insanities these giveaways are even beyond and above what the oil industry is asking for according to their public pronouncements and further we find that in the text of this bill tasty tidbits for guests to the hard rock mining industry here's an example the existing hundred twenty five dollars a year hard rock claim maintenance fee it is being reduc thirty five dollars for the next five years this is not a partisan issue the hard rock and history has been paying this claim fever a decade not kind of i cannot imagine that paying eight hundred twenty five dollars claim is going to kill the gold industry but they are being relieved of this trickling tiny little fee in this legislation and anybody that's been on this committee for any amount of time knows my record and my history and many others on this committee in trying to reform the mind of all of eight hundred seventy two and they know of our bipartisan efforts and votes on the floor of the house of representatives when efforts to make such reform have passed by a large bipartisan vote valley mr chairman i cannot comprehend the brilliance behind opening up our federal coastal resources to the whims of cash strapped states now i'm no scientist or meteorologist but i was under the impression that destructive forces threatening our cultural resources in communities originated in the land of goshen not in washington d c and this proposal confuses acts of god with acts of greed chairman legislation as we all know is not it ever a pretty process it has often been likened to sausage making and after scription this legislation however kind george up images of a recipe that was tossed into a cauldron and slimmer and stammered until midnight you know back committee print be considered for a minute by subtitle here no objection so ordered before we begin the formal amendment process i have three technical amendments i would like to have considered at this point in the proceedings they are number one thirty five to subtitle pombo number one thirty two to subtitle and pombo subtitle problem emmet to subtitle after copies of the amendments are in your folder so i ask unanimous consent that they be considered at this point in the reading of the committee print considered together in block and read hearing no objection so ordered i recognize myself for five minutes to explain the m block amendment the best the bas that allows holders of mining claims to use standards for proven and probable reserves as alternative patent qualification criteria for mining claims the proven probable test is a standard that is equivalent of discovery under the mining law this is a purely technical modification the language in the committee print correcting a staff error and which recognises the business realities of modern day mining activities the holder  mining claim is rarely the entity that makes the disclosure under the securities act in the x and or the securities exchange act a mining claim may be under the operational control of a parent company or a joint v enture this amendment allows continued use of the proven probable test if the disclosure is not by the holder but is done by a third party to the claim the amendment just is a technical clarifying amendment only the amendment makes expressly clear the intent of the underlying language to distribute incoming receipts from new program areas amendments section ninety of the outer continental shelf lands act to clarify the treasury receives sixty percent of projected receipts from new program areas all o c s producing states which will receive sixty percent of the receipts for new program areas in excess of projected receipts further clarifying that the remaining forty percent of receipts from the new program areas in excess of projected receipts shall be allocated to states under three and c three the amendment to subtitle the amendment makes the following changes to subtitle of the bill it adds the official map name to all the appropriate places in section sixty six one clarifies that the conveyance of land to the district of columbia includes all right title an interesting united  of the properties authorizes the secretary of interior to retain from sale proceeds and spend without further appropriation to a million dollars a year to implement the land sales including the hiring of contractors in appraiser clarifies that the sale of federal land shall be conducted through a competitive sale process to ensure the highest possible sale price for the land and it clarifies that the retention of funds relocating park service operations at poplar point shall come directly from the sale of poplar point during a discussion on the amendments are there any amendments the question is on the amendment m block offered by me all those in favor signify by saying i mr chairman the reconciliation instructions to this committee part of the budget process was to find two point four billion dollars in savings over the next five years the committee's response is a one hundred eighty four page document full of sweeping legislative changes and giveaways of our public resources to big oil gas and coal companies mr ray hall has just gone down that litany what my amendment would do is to strike subtitle a and replace it with a new section that would instruct the secretary of the interior to establish or increase royalties rents or fees a plausible to federal on shore and offshore oil and gas leases and related activities to provide two point four billion to the federal treasury before october first two thousand and ten now more than ever the money is gushing into the pockets of the oil and gas industry the five largest oil companies have recorded profits of over forty six billion dollars during the first six months of this year yesterday b p announced third quarter profits of six point five billion dollars up thirty four percent from the third quarter of two thousand and four right now these companies pay a fraction of the value of the oil and gas produced on federal land as a royalty to the federal government the department of interior has mineral management service estimated in february of this year that in two thousand and six royalties rental fees and bonus bids but oil and gas leasing on shore and offshore on federal land will total over nine point seven billion dollars in two thousand and six through two thousand  the mineral management service projects that the same leases will generate over forty eight billion dollars in and you know the federal government there is no shortage of money being raised there this revenue generated from federal ensure and offshore oil and gas leases is one of the federal government's largest sources of non tax income in order to raise to two point four billion over five years the secretary could simply increase the royalty payments that these oil companies pay by a tiny fraction or even repeal the royalty exemptions that we extended to these oil companies in the energy bill over the summer given how high the price of oil has stayed reducing the need to give them those additional royalty benefits as an incentive to drill instead of taking that sensible approach this legislation has the same unbelievable provision that we saw are in the committee's energy legislation that would prevent the department of interior from raising any fees on any mineral production ever if it were not in place on january first two thousand and five if my memon is not adopted and this legislation is passed in its current form not only will we forever destroy the arctic national wildlife refuge but we will also prevent the federal government from ever charging lease companies any new fees to drill on federal land even if the price of oil goes to eighty one hundred or one hundred fifty dollars a barrel which many experts believe is inevitable so the choice comes down to this do we raise two point four billion by prying open and forever destroying a national wildlife refuge overturn turning forty years of established environmental policy threatening the way of the gwich'in peoples and allowing the oil and gas industry to select any of our other five hundred forty four national wildlife refuges as their next target or do we give the secretary the discretion to raise by a tiny fraction of the royalty rate peterson with the gentleman answer a couple questions the currently what these prices were if my information is accurate we're drilling twice as many oil and gas wells on public land as we used to but production is flat now why is that why it was our dependence every month getting higher and higher for energy from foreign unfriendly countr making other countries rich impoverishing america it's because in those countries it cost much less to lift oil or gas and it does here of course gas is not transportable that's why natural gas isn't really a separate issue but how does how does raising the cost which you're meant to do producing oil men and gas in america encourage our help us increase production which is what this country needs i mean we don't if if if the current prices are not enough incentive to increase production how can increasing the cost of producing give us more gas and oil which we so desperately need with jim and you sure thank you two years ago the price of a barrel of oil was twenty eight dollars a barrel the the price of a barrel of oil has doubled over the last two years and all we're doing here is that for that for the additional pricing that the secretary of interior be given the discretion to be able to have a small additional fee because obviously when he when free is able to drill and drill successfully at twenty eight dollars a barrel that there is no additional cost yes although they have been receiving sixty sixty five sixty eight dollars a barrel for that oil and and if it goes higher eighty ninety dollars a barrel we already know that they can drill under twenty eight successfully and under twenty eight dollars a barrel now one of the other problems that of course that we have is that we do have a diminishing reserve in our country we only have two and a half percent of all the reserves in the world so that is an issue in it because it's going to be something that we have to keep our eye on but increasing allowing for the oil companies to report as exxon did in the first six months fifteen point billion dollars what the profits would appear to mean we don't have to give them any more incentive if they if they you know if you needed the revenues to be able to drill they've got the revenues coming in for them my only point here is that we can also solve this but when you add two and a half billion dollars to the cost of producing oil in america you certainly don't incentivize producing it here because number one many of you with that philosophy have also locked up all the lands where reserves are strong where we know there's known quantities they can produce it so in a where we are drilling in areas that have been drilled and drilled and drilled and are far beyond their prime of  production what your amendment does is going to say the oil companies produce more in saudi arabia produce more and venezuela well because it's so much cheaper to produce there and you're just raising the cost of producing it here now if if there was lots of productive fields here open your men wouldn't be so harmful but when you have limited places to produce because congress is locked up all the richfield and presidential decree is have locked up the richfield you're saying to the oil companies and you're you're blaming their profits on american production has nothing to do with american production their profits are because they get it in foreign countries those countries get the sixty five dollars they get they get rich in america consumers that you and i represent pay these bills your amendment will buy two and a half billion dollars increase the cost of producing oil in this country and tell me that's going to give us more because how we stop the oil companies from  profiteering is you have ample supply the oil markets determine the price the traders in the marketplace for the way that's a different system they use they determine the price who are on wall street buying and selling oil every day when when we have ample supply our price might go back down to thirty five or forty dollars a barrel which we can very comfortably having this country but anything you do to support the production of oil in this country adds to the problem  surely what we're saying here is that there should be an increase by about five hundred million dollars a year each year for five years five hundred million dollars  the oil companies are going to report well over one hundred twenty billion dollars worth of profits this year and so the the the marginal impact that is we're not talking about any more than one half of one percent of all their profits so but we think that since they're receiving basically this windfall as the profit is the price goes over sixty dollars to take one half of one percent of that in order to offset the revenue which we need you know will reduce the total need for us to cut medicaid and to cut other programs and if we're looking at where we're going to be finding new revenues to meet this reconciliation number i think it's just better to do it for the oil companies huge profits for a half of one percent cost of production in this country we're in a competitive marketplace just a few years ago we produced forty some percent of the oil that we use we're now down in the thirty's and you know pushes down into the twenty's that philosophy because if you're going to increase the cost of production here and you're going to lock up because you also support policies to lock up the major oil reserves in this country thus allowing the market to be short thus allowing the big companies who own oil in the ground and when you when you allow the marketplace to get tight and they're selling their oil at thirty dollars a barrel and then suddenly they're now getting sixty dollars a barrel for the same oil they were selling for thirty that's why the profiteering comes in it's the it's allowing the market to be short on supply that allows the big boys to profiteer because they own it if you loaned it and we allow the price to double your riches are going to double that's what we're doing it's basic economics and the lack of understanding of basic economics and this congress is why this country's in trouble it's pretty simple all you have to do is understand math in the marketplace restrict supply allow prices the skyrocket those who own it and they own it they own these reserves they own this oil in the ground and so now they get sixty five dollars instead of thirty five dollars that's pretty simple that's what congress has caused to happen you open up supply you get the market down and the oil companies won't be as rich because they'll be will be getting they'll be buying forty dollar oil and a lot of that's their own oil and that's where their profits are coming from jim and signs expect further discussion on the minute mr gross thank you mr chairman i wish to waste my support for the marquis amendment which i believe all sorts of solution to an unacceptable element of this conciliation this amendment will inject some sense of fiscal responsibility into the budget process it will eliminate the destructive and non story plans to drill in the arctic refuge and replace it with a more sensible way to raise revenue that we conciliation as provisions are based on the promise of drilling in the refuge is necessary for rising needed revenue and this is simply not true as representative markey amendment points out this revenue could be easily obtained by empowering the secretary interior to adjust fees from other sources such as existing offshore and onshore leases increasing fees would be both justifiable and appropriate presently lease and royalty fees on public lands and waters are often extremely deflated or nonexistent for example all sure or offshore oil and gas drilling is presently benefiting from generously low government freeze and royalty relief in the hard rock mining contest the government context the government collects virtually nothing there is often left to deal with harmful environmental side effects of mining this generous treatment of a hugely profitable energy companies should not be maintained in the face of the enormous budgetary problems our country is facing yet instead of raising fees in a way that would immediately benefit the federal treasury this the bill before us today relies on unreliable and unrealistic figures to justify tearing into and destroying a wildlife refuge there was another serious problem with this proposal the reconciliation goes out of its way to include language to placate labor and to promise minimal environmental impact labor issues are a major concern to me and the underlying bill and will therefore in all likelihood of boat in the negative on final passage i've been a member of this subcommittee and one of his predecessors the merchant marine and fisheries committee now for twenty one years and i am very realistic about what's going to happen here today there will unlikely be there will likely be a very lively debate followed by some votes and i'll pick my way pick and choose my way through those votes but when it comes to final passage i been here you have all heard my arguments and i'm sure you are not anxious to hear them again and so in the interest of time i will just leave my comments on subs subtitle a at that just  in terms of the record there are several other provide subtitles in the bill in which i for which i have problems one of course is the ocean energy resources on page one when the when the subject is addressed it says that it establishes a self determination for coastal states which begins to sound good because everybody like states rights most people do anyway but when we move to the actual explanation of subtitle on page three of the memo which was circulated yesterday the subject is explained by saying that the subtitle encourages domestic investment and development of oil natural gas and alternative energy in the end on the on a continental shelf which is another subject which i have been historically opposed to let me just complete my my statement here by saying this that under subtitle c we see that the bill provides for the sale of certain lands in certain western states and i would just say this that coming from the state that i do new jersey of course which has the most densely populated area in the country in fact i'm told that we have something in the neighborhood of eleven hundred thirty five people per square mile which makes it the most densely populated piece of real estate i'm told in the world and we have great effort in new jersey trying to keep our population density is as low as possible and one of the key elements of that is protecting the land by retiring development rights or having it acquired by in some cases local governments in some cases county governments in some cases state government and in some cases where we're able to affect  policy by the federal government by enlarging and adding land to our refuge system and other federal lands and so when i when i saw this section i thought well maybe this offers an opportunity for us to do something in terms of solving some problems in my state while solving what is perceived to be apparently problems in certain western states until i got to the bottom line when when i was thinking maybe we could use some of these resources for for the purposes of retiring development right or for purchasing land in states like new jersey until i saw that this election generates three million dollars over five years in my home state that would buy one hundred acres or two so it's not really a realistic objective so mr chairman i guarantee we get some order in the room it's difficult to hear mr saxton he's got a microphone so so mr chairman i will pick my way through the various amendments today and as i said earlier i suspect that when it comes to final passage the bill will remain so standley the same as it is today and i just want to announce my intention that i will be voting in the negative events the case further discussion if you're going in addition to the reasons mr peterson and mentioned you know we have this concept under the law of contracts of agreements and even where there's not a formal agreement promissory estoppel you promise somebody certain condition they act on that to their detriment you can't go back and renege later but even if this amendment we're going to pass that gentlemen  stand there are a number of conversations that are going on at the diocese and i would ask the members and the staff to take it out into the ante room because mr gohmert is trying to give his statement i can't but if this amendment were to pass it need to be a whole lot more than two point four billion dollars in order for us to see in the increased income in the treasury because of all the litigation costs that would be spawned by breaking agreements their agreements that are allowing those agreements agreements that were allowing those agreements you start changing the formula in one it's going to change and it's just going to spawn all kinds of litigation now i've had attorneys that are that are upset with me because of what congress has done to reduce litigation and i know they would welcome us doing something like this that would help with additional legal work but it's it's just like my space and saying if you need more of a price you don't help yourself you don't increase revenue by increasing the cost especially when there are agreements already in being that rely on another cost i mean it's like you know in some our kids have eliminated stands and a good spot and they sell forty cups eliminate it fifty cents and then they say gee i made twenty dollars if i just increase it to fifty a couple i'll make a hundred dollars no you don't because they go down the straight and that's what would happen people will not want to pay the increased costs this will not end result in increased revenue to the treasury it will help well it might as attorneys pay an interesting discussion based not on reality if we look at the most recent leasing in alaska in an area of proven reserves which the industry wants to go into which is more proximate to the existing pipeline it was a fifty four million dollar bid for one point four million acre leith now we're saying over an area that the oil industry isn't in it isn't proximate to the existing pipeline with unproven reserves although there's some confidential drilling that took place on on an island there so the industry might know something the government doesn't and but they don't seem to be very anxious to bid that we're assuming that that's going to bring in fifty times that amount now that's interesting the fact is we give away resources in this country we give away precious federal lands for less than the cost of a daily parking permit on a federal forest two dollars and fifty cents an acre we're the only entity on earth that doesn't charge royalties for hard rock mining everybody else does we're giving away at bargain sale prices the offshore oil resources and what mr market would say here is let's start charging some let's run government like a business maybe a low budget business but let's just charge a little bit more for these depleted will resources i think it's a very recent position that the gentleman from pennsylvania so eloquent about how this would be a disincentive you know where the profits are going the one part of the industry that's up five hundred percent in two years is the refiners now it's hard to say that has something to do with the cost of the wellhead isn't it that they're up five hundred percent maybe it has something to do with the fact of all the mergers that are taking place in the industry in the three hundred refineries that have been shut down in the last ten years and the fact that they don't want to build more refineries because it's working very well for them just like it did for enron in california when they shut down a few generating play and that's what this is all about not just to make up this fanciful number we have a real problem with the federal deficit and there are real cuts we could make or real places we could raise revenue like asking rich people to pay taxes again but we don't want to go there so we're going to pretend we can raise fifty times as much from an unproven resource in an area where the industry doesn't want to go and we have done our job come on mr markey saying something that's tough i know it's tough to go to your major contributors and say excuse me we're going to start charging a little bit more for this because you know you did just happen to come in with record quarterly profits up eighty nine percent for a while thirty four percent for conoco phillips eighty nine percent exxon mobil we don't know yet we'll have that number today mostly due to refinery profits and prices price gouging and and in a vertically integrated industry to somehow say gee if we charge them a little bit more in royalties that's going to discourage production is absurd so mr marquis's amendment is eminently reasonable protect the federal taxpayers it might actually get real revenues and i would recommend it strongly to the comm you very much mr chairman and i think just about everything has been said about this that needs to be said but let me reiterate that the american public has asked asked congress to reduce this nation's dependency on foreign sources of oil what does this bill do to reduce the u s was dependency on foreign sources of oil nothing it actually increases our dependency on foreign sources of oil because it reduces the desire of companies to look at u s sources u s oil and gas reserves and make those part of their requirement what does this deal do to reduce the cost to the american public  pump for oil and gas yep not it doesn't do anything it actually increases the cost now i could understand mr marquis's bill if oil and gas weren't a commodity a commodity that is regulated not b us in congress and not by the united states but by world demand that supply is the real key issue here if we increase supply we can then start seeing a reduction in the price of oil and gas that we actually pay at the pump so this bill does nothing to get to the real root cause of why americans are so concerned about their economy because of the high and escalating demand for oil the high and escalating price of oil and gas in this country and this bill this amendment excuse me offered by the gentleman from massachusetts does nothing to address it it just simply says that we're going to increase two point four billion dollars before october two thousand and ten and it has nothing to do with increasing the supply of oil and gas to the country to the economy of this great country i didn't appreciate mr gohmert remarks about the contractual prohibition with interfering with an existing contract in law you cannot create a law that enters that disrupts or interferes with an existing contractual right and that's what this bill is attempting to do and i think what this will ultimately end up being is a court case challenge for its requirements and therefore thrown out and i mr chairman and one who stands here in strong opposition to the amendment by mr markey thank for their discussion on the chairman thank you for recognizing recognizing me and i also want to compliment you on your efforts to bring this bill to the floor i realize in the reconciliation process that each committee has been asked to to raise revenue or cut spending in some capacity so you've made that good faith effort and attempt what i'd like to do is to give an i don't think everything has been said on anwar i'd like to give it my perspective on and more and also say that  all likelihood at the end of the day i'll probably oppose the bill although we'll see how the amendments go boy it is a finite resource as we use it we don't get any more of it in the ground in the hundred fifty s a doctor harbored predicted that by one thousand nine hundred seventy the united states would peak in a soil reserves and then those oil reserves would begin to diminish which they have done so and right now about three percent of the world's oil reserves and it goes from some people say two percent some people say five percent the numbers about three percent of all the oil reserves in the world are in the united states and we are also drilling that consuming that faster than anybody else in the world the demand is going up because of india and china and the third world developing their transportation needs the supply for oil is going down so in the next few decades the idea that the world's economy will change dramatically because oil will not be available is real so i'm going to support the marquis amendment oppose existing language in the bill because we only have so much of this stuff in the ground and do we want to drill it all out and in the next few decades regardless of what we do the the energy information administration says even if we opened up the arctic refuge and it was wide open and we were pumping every bit of oil out of there that we could we would continue to increase our dependence on fossil fuel because we are running out of fossil fuel  not only do we use fossil or oil for our transportation needs and two thirds of our transportation needs are from foreign sources the matter what we do with anwar or other places that will not change it will only increase a matter of fact by the year two thousand and twenty five will be billions of barrels in the whole regardless of what we do now we use oil for other things the whole economy is based on oil from our plastics to our pharmaceuticals to our fertilizers to our pesticides to the asphalt the replenishes the tens of thousands of roads across the united states so oil is fin only have so many and my concern and reservation with the bill is that we're going to use it up so fast that our grandchildren will not have the ability to have that resource for the myriad of things that they use it for the transition time was twenty years ago but there is still time if we accelerate the process we're alternative fuels for solar for a wind for hybrid for hydrogen for nucular for  century or the latter part of this century will not see the same type of economics that we see now because there is nothing that will replace oil nothing will replace oil with its ability to to be so fluid in the myriad of things that we use it for nothing will replace oil so if we're to be prudent we should reserve whether it's the outer continental shelf we might want to see what's out there we should reserve and where we might want to see what's there but we should not deplete our oil faster than any other country and then be totally dependent on the rest of the world for oil needs so that's my perspective on and more knowledge in this area that that i don't but i will tell you that if we don't have more domestic production of oil and especially natural gas we're going to hurt the poor in the lower income in the working people of this country most of all we're not going to hurt the wealthy environmentalists and i know that some of them want gas to go to four or five dollars a gallon so people will drive less but if we go in that direction we're going to put the final nail in the coffin of some of the small towns in the rural areas of this nation and i may be one of the very few members of congress has been approved obey twice the anwar is not team point eight million acres i represent about half of the great smoky mountains national park the great smoky mountains national park is six hundred thousand acres we get over nine million visitors a year in the people that come there think it's huge i read a couple of years ago in time magazine that anwar has a little over a thousand visitors a year because there's not trails and roads up there you have to be a survivalist to go in nineteen point eight million acres is thirty five times the size of the great smokies i'm told that they want to drill on about two or three thousand acres of that not timor in a million that is such a minuscule part of it that i don't even know if i could figure it out but some people still have this idea that they have to put all whales up every twenty five or thirty feet or something and have hundreds of all whales you don't do that they don't do that anymore they put one all well up and goes down and goes  every direction they can do this now in an environmentally safe way the rich and the opponents to the original alaska pipeline said it would kill off the caribou population the population i'm told went from the six thousand that it was at that point to twenty or twenty amendment the question is on the marquee of massachusetts amendment those in favor signify by saying i those opposed signify by saying no  thank you the gentleman can continue the human again sixty one alliance call for a fifth fifty split and any revenue generated from the arctic national wildlife refuge with the state of alaska my man is very simple is just asking for an upfront agreement with the state of alaska that they're going to agree to the fifty fifty split under the chairman's mark and it's a little ironic that tomorrow the majority is going to be bringing up the so called frivolous lawsuit and this mark if passed without the prior agreement with the state of alaska is begging for a lawsuit to be filed and why do i say that because earlier this year the alaska state legislature passed a resolution which demands a ninety percent share of anwar revenues which is current law on of the alaska statehood act the resolution read and i quote resolve the alaska state legislature opposes any unilateral reduction in royalty revenue from exploration and development of the coastal plain of the arctic national wildlife refuge alaska  any attempt to coerce the state of alaska into accepting less than ninety percent of the oil gas and mineral royalties from the federal land alaska that was promised to the state at statehood basically my memon is a truth in labeling amendment if the state of alaska sues which is inevitable and wins in court which is possible if not probable the treasury would receive only ten percent of the wildlife refuge revenues are only five hundred million rather than the two point five billion that scored currently written demanding a fifty fifty split in revenue passes and i think it's a commonsense approach to say the taxpayer the cost of any litigation that's going to occur but also the make sure that everyone is on the same page as the state of alaska in the american people of what's going to be asked in regards to wildlife refuge drilling up there in the impact it's going to have the budget process and the reconciliation offset that you're you're seeking here today so i would ask for adoption of my amendment chairman i thank the gentleman i opposed his amendment this is an issue that has been challenged by the state of alaska previously they went all the way to the supreme court on this and lost it is an issue that has been settled in the courts before i've talked to the representative from the state of alaska chairman about this issue in the past and he assures me that the state of alaska will stay with the fifty fifty did is in the the underlying bill so i don't believe that the gentleman's amendment it's necessary and i urge opposition to a single gentleman yield here the distinguished gentleman from alaska so confident the state won't be suing the what's the problem with at least entering into a written agreement with the state just stipulating to what's all been apparently agreed to  already what i'm told is that because it would require him to go back on the statehood act which brought alaska into the union and that's why they did not want to include this language in the underlying bill to begin the face of this for the state of alaska there is a c r s report dated may fourth which says that this is not a concluded issue whether or not they would get ninety or fifty percent whether or not they might  they don's quoted as saying my decisions been all along all right we'll take the fifty fifty and then we'll go after the rest of it at a later time if necessary we'll do it through the court system and senator stevens said quote  did this in the globe i just said said that oil drilling should move ahead on the promise of the fifty fifty split but that quote once the state actually receives less than ninety percent then we can sue and c r s says it's not resolved so first we're promising the two and a half billion dollars on the idea that we will get fifty times as much per acre in leasing anwar as we did in the proven reserves in the national petroleum reserve where the oil industry wants to go and now we're saying not only are we assuming we'll get fifty times more but we're assuming that alaska will fail in its promised litigation which is a far reach and i think asking to have a negotiated  fifty percent agreement so that we can be at least minimally assured should there be fifty times as much revenue be added for these for these activities that the u s taxpayers will share fifty fifty with the state so i would think would be a very reasonable decision for the state to take i understand that the former chair and john wood from alaska is a difficult position here but the rest of us aren't from there and i think if they're really concerned about the fiscal impact of this then you would want to be sure it would get to fifty percent would support the memmott thank you mr chairman there further discussion on the amendment hearing under their amendments to the minute all those in favor of the kind amendment signify by saying i but if congress is going to allow this to happen then we should do so in a manner that is fair and equitable for alaska natives in hearings that george mitchell miller chaired not in one thousand nine hundred eighty eight the committee received testimony from various alaskan native witnesses concerning the inequity of the nine hundred eighty three channelers lake land exchange that generally exchange approved by then interior secretary jim watt allowed the arctic slope regional corporation to acquire ninety three acres of subsurface rights in the heart of the coastal plain in the refuge in one thousand nine hundred nine g a o report on the chandler lake exchange to to george miller entitled chandler to make this change not in the government's best interests describes how both the land exchange was very bad deal for the federal government and also how it was unfair to other alaska natives the alaska native claims settlement act requires that seventy percent of read the news from lance held by native corporations be shared with with the other eleven native corporations this formula was set up for a good reason it helped to address the disparity of the lands which native corporations received those native groups who received lands that would reap profits would share to those share those whose lands did not produce the same material wealth however the chain of the lake exchange set up an unusual arrangement which allowed one native corporation to reap all the benefit from drilling on its land within the refuge boundaries without sharing with other alaska natives my amendment would require the arctic slope regional corporation agreed to comply with the alaska native claims settlement act and share seventy percent of its subsurface revenues with other alaska native corporation i believe this is a matter of substantial equity and fairness to alaska natives and i urge adoption of the amendment it would be consistent with the alaska native claims settlement act and control the loophole that was established during the land exchange and with that mr chairman thank you and i yield back further discussion on the amendment they i rise in opposition to the men minute i'm told that this also is an issue that has been tested in court  settlement has been reached on that and that it's not necessary to address this issue and in the end or line bill this is i'm told that a master of the supreme court resolved this issue and the native alaskans passed on this issue in and did not address this issue is part of the agreement i'm under the an you very much mr chairman and while i appreciate my friends amendment here i have to rise in opposition to it because first of all underlying base agreement the base bill that we're talking about this is an issue that is near and to the american people's hearts and that's the high cost of energy and the effect it's having on the economy this amendment really does not appear to increase the development of our energy resources in this country and that is the basis of what we're here for today we're here to increase the supply of resources so that we can lower the price to the american consumer to heat their home or to drive to and from their jobs in what we don't want to do is get into a long protracted the display trying to change already preexisting agreements preexisting court decisions and masters changes to the laws that have already been decided seventy five percent of alaskans support production of oil and gas from anwar and we've already worked out agreements with those native alaskans who have regional interests within this area and to start expanding the division of royalties from that group of individuals to others who are not regionally affected by this would set the stage and set a precedent that we don't want to get into because then we would start looking at every industry every part you know the resource picture and start dividing it up among those that have no regional interest in it and i think we as a body here have refused to to to enter in to that distribution decision about who equitably should or should not receive proceeds from anwar  so mr chairman on the basis that this does not help move the bill long does not help move america's interest in developing additional resources to increasing the supplies and read reducing the cost it also changes the fact that we're going to effect of really send more jobs overseas because we can't get into producing this material or this oil and gas for the american public with the judge i'm adamantly opposed to the gentleman's agreement simply because it sets a new precedent that we really don't want to go down to a gentleman would you be happy to you thank you sir as i as i understand it the what we're talking about in terms of the legal precedent was an arbitration that occurred under the current law and i see our our our work here today viewed and indeed we're talking about opening up the refuge for drily that we're creating the law by under which rules that would be done and the distribution issue for alaska natives for the ten other corporations i think would make it consistent with the settlement act and eliminate the loophole that was created in the land exchange that's the whole point of my management or reclaiming my time let me say  that the interpretation by the federal master in this arbitration does not allow for what you've just said so what we don't want to do is get into a congressional dictate about how the interpretation is of that arbitra n this would be a new president and unfortunately i have to rise in opposition to your amendment mr hall that although i appreciate the intent i think it will have unintended sufficient numbers supporting the request a record of voters ordered under the chairs prior announcement for the proceedings on this bill be postponed till later in markup there are further amendments to  as supported and my longstanding position on this committee has been against any waivers to new legislation that explains three zero eighty seven it was and many you know becoming one of the longer time members of the committee i remember hearings we held on that back then and there were substantial questions raised about the analysis at that time and the mitigation measures that were recommended or not recommended during that environmental impact study and if members were to go back and review the transcripts as committee i think you'll find there were concerns expressed some both sides of the aisle about the problems with that particular analysis and to say that no further analysis is necessary because it was done eighteen years ago in a questionable manner i  think in dealing with such a sensitive area and i have heard colleagues on the other side of the aisle who wish to develop this resource or potential resource now but have also said that it can be done in a way that will mitigate the  consistently in our efforts with the need to task forces that there's you know we we hear concerns about delays that are caused by considerations that are beyond what's reasonable and also the potential of lawsuits and what the underlying bill will do is limit the alternatives to one alternative and i think it's important when you look at anwar and the potential of opening up and where we are we all recognize that our goal the purpose a need for production of oil it and gas and we would have alternatives related to that purpose and need and not beyond limit alternatives that might involve like the wind production or other alternative alternatives that are beyond what the goal of the legislation is and not so i would speak in opposition to this amendment further discussion mr givens you very much mr chairman and just very briefly while i also rise in opposition to this amendment by the action of this amendment striking the language on page five line one hundred three page six line nineteen there is an unintended consequence of the results from this action and that unintended result is that it's going to require a need assessment of providing alternative sources of energy which would mean importing oil so now we've got to look at before we develop any other internal u s sources of oil look at the need analysis with regard to external sources of oil and i think that unintended consequence doesn't do anything to help with the u s is effort to reduce dependency on foreign sources and we're trying to reverse that whole process and so mr chairman i rise in opposition to the amendment for that very reason there further discussion mysteriously thank you mr chair speaking in favor of the amendment this really is a crown jewel in our refuge system and if we don't pass this amendment we will be adding insult to injury because as in the bill we not only strip the crown jewel of the refuse protection we strip it of the protection of a basic environmental law and that's a national environmental protection act what is it that is so evil about the arctic refuge in the eyes of the sponsors of this bill that it doesn't at least deserve the protection of the same level of environmental review that every other acre in america has so by this bill you not only take away its protection as a refuge you strip it of a basic environmental protection that every other acre in america enjoys and that is that we will have an environmental protection process go through so that americans can have input about this decision and for the life of me i can't figure out that one of the most beautiful areas in the country and i've been there and i've seen the abundant wildlife and i've seen the redpolls the ptarmigan xin the caribou and everything else and i can tell you it's one of the most beautiful places i've ever seen in america or anywhere else what is it that's so peculiar about it this is the one place that you say should not be protected by the national environmental protection act what is so unique about it that we're stripping it of that basic protection and that's what this bill does and what this without this amendment what it does is it prevents citizens from being able to have him put by the bureaucracies of the american government we have this protection to protect citizens as much as property and citizens are to have a right to have an input on what the bureaucracies do with one of the most beautiful places in america and you're taking away citizens that right you're taking away the right to insist that bureaucracies look at various alternatives and that's important to citizens down here in washington in washington state and those who live in alaska and if you don't think there's environmental consequences out there to dr the intuits and others who have seen the air pollution that bother that of increase their asthma rates talk to them about it so we simply are asking that the arctic if you're going to take away its protection as a refuge at least give it the respect it's due as an american acre that deserves protection and citizens deserve a right to have input on this and i may add too when you want to talk about turn it of people who have studied know this isn't going to reduce our gas prices one dime in the reason they know that is that we are in a world market for oil in this represents less than point eight percent one point eight of one percent of the oil in the world and some of it's go offshore by the way we may have an amendment on that later if we really want to get to this we should increase cafe standards and solve this problem thank you mr chairman mr pe and also visit anwar and i fail to see one piece of wildlife on the flight across did not see one tree in the last hundred miles as we approached the a rea designated for production but i would really like to respond to the fact that it's a crown jewel of which we're stripping protection that every other acre in america has and if i remember correctly the senator from south dakota put a rider on a bill that excluded every acre and his home state every acre and south dakota from any process either court or an and that process still stands today and so the allegation is that it's scurrying to the only acreage in america that will not have that protection and what we're trying to do is recognize that that and many times the neighbor process is used as a tool to struck and the senator from south dakota realized that so it gave us almost a protection and no other state got that protection and we're simply saying that it's important enough to develop these resources that that the american consumer is paying more at the pump and more to heat their home right now and it's time to take responsibility as a further discussion on the rise in opposition to the ensley amendment and contrary to the explanation of the amendment the underlying bill does not exempt from the need for a process it limits the number of alternatives that have to be studied as part of the need for a process it is not exempted from the need for process it also puts in probably the most strict rules and regulations in environmental protection of any oil lease that has ever been done anywhere in the world as part of the base bill in the underlying bill so it's a little bit disingenuous to say that will designate subtitle be subtitled be miscellaneous minimums relating to mining recognize myself for five minutes explain my amendment it's been brought to my attention that some of the underlying language of this section might be construed to allow the sale of lands contained within the national parks for  example this was never my intent in fact i believe there are enough protections already contained in this bill that would prevent the sale of those lands however in order to clear the air about the intent of the underlying mining provisions i'm  amendment that expressly states that this subsection shall not apply with respect to any unit of the national park system the national wildlife refuge system the national wild scenic river system the national trails system any national conservation area any national recreation area any national monument or any unit of the national wilderness preservation system since really my makes it expressly clear that the intent of the underlying language is to help rule western communities with sustainable economic development opportunities but not at the expense of certain lanse located within the national park system or other sensitive areas urge adoption of the amendment further  to allow for the sale of such land within those areas that you've described in your amendment and i think it's totally responsible for congress to set aside and to limit those sales in the regard the same regard the two have with that said mr chairman i fully support what you're doing and i think it's appropriate for us to take this action and i would urge my colleagues to support your yes well i thank the gentleman any further discussion here and then all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying distributed the gentleman is recognized for five minutes explain his amendment thank you mr chairman the purpose of my men is threefold first to clarify the language on page twenty eight to eliminate the ambiguity and inconsistency in section six two zero one the revised language ensures that mining projects are taken as a whole to accommodate site specific on the ground practicalities and environmental factors as well as optimal environmental and operational efficiencies second to tighten language on page forty two to ensure that land patent privileges are not abuse the revised language with the will ensure that only those with actual for profit mining operations can take advantage of the opportunity to patent under the alternative valuable mineral deposits criteria this technical amendment will remove any ambiguity by adding language that specifies that the secretary confirmed that minerals mind must be subject to this act and that actual sales must happen the third most important component of this amendment addresses the price for patenting and purchases of mining lands under section sixty two zero two and sixty two zero four the current language requires that the applicant must pay one thousand dollars per acre this amendment will revise that language to require the applicant to pay one thousand dollars per acre or fair market value which is whichever is greater this change is important in order to provide a fair return to the american people for the sale of public lands under the subtitle under the eight hundred seventy two my mining law which we constantly talk about in this committee that a law specifies that land for two dollars and fifty cents or five dollars per acre now these those prices reflect approximately twice the value of lands to be patented at that time adjusting that price using the consumer price index over the years and using it up to two thousand and three dollars the price would be twenty nine dollars and ninety four cents and seventy four dollars and eighty five cents respectively just using the inflated c p i rate on that original eight hundred seventy two price many of the lands that qualify for pending are not worth a thousand dollars an acre let me give you an example we just received the fair market value appraisal for a core rochester mining operation that is addressed in subtitle c of this bill it came back as a fair market value appraisal at sixty eight dollars an acre additionally and according to the u s d a report the average past year in range land real estate values for mountain regions were five hundred ninety nine dollars for acre so mr chairman the floor price of one thousand dollars for a car set by the committee print is higher than the average comparable land values and is also comparable to the original mining law language however i think it's important that we address those lands that may have a higher value than the floor price and it would be unfair to the american public if land value higher than one thousand dollars for a car were sold below market price the requirement of fair market value as determined by an appraiser licensed in the state of jurisdiction will ensure that lands with higher values are not sold at unfair prices not only will this provide the american people with a fair return for public lands it will eliminate the problems associated with lands being sold below its actual value which would be an abuse of the provisions of this act equally important is the opportunities that this subtitle provides for environmentally responsible production in rural communities patenting and purchase of lands is absolutely vital to the health of nevada's and other western states rural communities because it expands the tax base of local government which in turn fund schools emergency services and other infrastructures which are critically important to those communities in a state where nearly eighty five percent of our land is controlled by the federal government the infrastructure and jobs provided in by mining operation is the only thing that keeps many of nevada's rural communities economically viable and i know that it is true throughout the west and in other mining communities as well the provisions outlined in this subtitle provide a reasonable and environmentally responsible framework by which mining companies and communities can continue to coexist it will allow communities to thrive mining companies to continue to provide the raw materials that all americans rely upon every day and our economy is so heavily dependent upon mining is important not only to the economic security of this nation but also to our national security and mr chairman i would urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and i you back down to my cost of a daily parking permit on forest lands mats that's a big step here in one way but if we're talking about fair market value i guess my question to the gentleman would be the fair market value include the subsurface value subsurface value of the minerals or just the surface value of the land well as the gentleman will yes if that's a question the gentleman certainly understands the ny nine hundred sixteen stock raising homestead act which prevented clear what we're talking about is land that potentially federal land taxpayers owned jointly and held in trust for the people of united states which could have value of millions or tens of millions dollars in terms of subsurface value for which they will be no return to the federal taxpayer other than perhaps the foreign mining companies that you know patent the they employ some americans to do work and those people pay taxes you know that we're not getting at here is the need for the united states government to join with private landowners the railroads other corporate landowners native american tribes states everybody else they all charge royalties that is they get some return for the value of the subsurface rights which are being extracted the minerals that are being extracted this will do nothing about that so even if we got the thousand dollars breaker and i would say in my state this is actually going to hurt small miners because their land will definitely get the thousand dollar per acre charge because we're talking generally forest lands in many cases or higher there are some in eastern in my district eastern oregon there would still be some that would be very inexpensive as mr givens talked about in terms of of the value the grazing value or whatever for some of the land but many small miners would be disadvantaged here and they would be exempt under a reasonable or pay very little under a reasonable royalty but the huge multinational mostly foreign corporate since operating here  with very large holdings will still not be paying any return on the value of the minerals extracted under this amendment so i mean you know we probably shouldn't be bothering to debate any of this because it's all going to be stripped out by the byrd rule but i just think it's useful since we haven't visited mining royalties and or patent costs in mining reform for so many years on this committee to at least make clear that although this is some minimal progress  in it's not providing a fair return for the taxpayers in any sense of the value not like any other landowner would get for these sorts of precious resources if it's already been backed it does not deal with it because those lands have already been purchased by a private owner the surface right is already owned what we're talking about here are surface right sales not subsurface right sales hundred sixteen gave and sold the surface right to private owners but left the mineral estate in the subsurface so the surface right in one thousand nine hundred sixteen situation would have to be purchased from that owner in order to do in line so the fair market value concept that you're presenting just to people just applies to the surface just as we did in one hundred sixteen and but not to the minerals no the minerals are another estate that's the subsurface in the states and they already have access to those and that applies whether it's a stock raising homestead or well it wouldn't apply to stock raising because that's already private land which is if you get title to a land into the one nine hundred sixteen act you get the surface estate but you don't get the mineral estate you understand so a gold miner could buy this piece of property for a price price service a choice that doesn't include the the gold well yes absolutely he could go in and buy a private property owners surface lands that is that correct i mean he's talking about apparently limiting this to these lands which is very been conveyed in one hundred sixteen act because if we're talking about general patenting which goes to all federal lands that have you know viable resources underneath them my understanding would be that this would apply to all federal lands and that that would mean that we would get still get no return on the value of the minerals as a general point gentleman's pointing out but we would get some perhaps slightly sixteen act if it's already been conveyed under the one thousand nine hundred sixteen act then the surface owner which is not the federal government is separate and apart from the subsurface rights now under the current hundred seventy two you or i or any other mining company can go in and stake a claim to the subsurface mineral estate on a one thousand nine hundred sixteen stock raising homestead act property however in order to get access to this minerals we have to deal with the surface state what we're trying to do here is patent the surface rights we're trying to sell the surface rights the issue of royalties on the subsurface of status is a debate which m fazio has indicated will take place in the future but right now we're dealing strictly with the surface state so to repeat i think my question is the money coming in pay just for the surface or does it 'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from new mexico i think i still call dr i think if i understand correctly you're concerned that people can buy four thousand dollars an acre service rights but still go on mine and and  subsurface rights for either all and gas production mining or whatever those are completely separate sales they don't go together there's a separate bit process by which people get access to the subsurface rights and so extraction and i'm just trying to get at the point of mr gibbons amendments or so we're completely clear about what it is and what it would do under the patent laws of this nation only mining claims can be patented not avoiding gas claims  time i think that the chairman i think i just i would ask the chairman that we continue to try and drill deeper into this question so that we fully understand what the gentleman's amendment would do that would be happy to do that but i think there'd be subtitle a allowing for oil and gas exploration and war meets our reconciliation target of two point four billion there are four subtile be committed seen for what it is an unnecessary fire sale of our national to mining companies subtitle b eliminates the congressional ban on the outright sale of the fi title of public lands american public lands will be up for sale for the first time since one nine hundred ninety four a sensually subtitle b takes us back to a product of the california gold rush the antiquated eight hundred seventy two mining law and that one of our secretaries of interior said was quote the worst law ever passed in the united states for us to be reverting back to those laws is unconscionable the american west is a vast and beautiful place people come from all over the world to marvel not only at our national parks but also in th of open and public land we cannot allow that public treasure to be lost forever both foreign and domestic mining companies would be able to buy our public lands our backyards for a thousand dollars an acre simply by proclaiming not even proving they have an interest in the area some say that this is this is up to four thousand times less than what our public lands are worth mr speaker mr chairman i say that we should not and fact cannot put such a minimal price on our public lands and i would yield back what this does is allow for those mines which are reaching the terminal and use of the of their land is to give a taxable base to those communities that here too for have received no tax base no in income whatever and have to provide resources of police education highways infrastructure needs for all the land that's being developed and they don't have a tax base this simply sets forth a tremendous advantage to the american public to achieve or to receive benefit from the utilization of those lands today there is no payment for the use of the surface on those lands none whatsoever  they can do whatever they want to the surface and state royalties take a take a charge or a share of the of the income from the production off those lands but what we're trying to do here is give the american public a value for the use of the surface rights and now you coming from new mexico have a number of mines and i would only ask you what is the value of the surface rights of an open pit mine i'm sure you can understand that there is very little value in that but the american public doesn't get anywhere near the right to receive an income from that and this would allow for a conveyance of that title for that right to use that service and i would certainly urge my colleagues on the dyess to oppose the gentleman's amendment you know we're dealing here with substantive changes to the mining law and i i just don't want to see emotional misinformation cloud up the issue about what we're doing here we set a poor price which is now many many many times greater than what the value according to the fair market price of this property is and that minimum floor value is just that a minimum floor value and if the fair market value is higher for that service right then the mining company has to pay the fair market value as i indicated before as an example the core rochester district a mine up in elko i mean in persian county nevada had a fair market valuation process to look at what the what the price would be for the sale of their surface rights or the surface property value came back at sixty eight dollars per acre under this they have to pay a minimum of a thousand dollars per acre without this provision there back to the two dollar and fifty cents or five dollars per acre value that's under the current in existing laws your men would strip back that ability of the american public to receive a fair market value for the sale of this land high like i said i i certainly believe in our economy and our rural economies deserve to have  least some fair market value or some tax base for this mine up there and i would have to state that that by privatizing the land the infrastructure  is allowed to stay in place and by privatizing the land we're allowing for additional business and sustainable business for these communities where we have a roller coaster economy where a mine comes in ten or fifteen or twenty years hires the town people and they get jobs but at the end of that life cycle it's cut off they're cut off the infrastructure doesn't exist there's no available sustainable use for that mine what we're doing with this is also trying to allow for long term sustainable use benefiting a community after the mine is closed down and without the underlying base bill and as i've amended it we will be denying them that opportunity will be denying the american public a fair return on the surface rights so i would oppose the gentleman's amendment would the gentleman yield i guess i have about thirty seconds and i'd be happy to y thank you and i know the gentleman from nevada is very sincere in this i i would just make the point that that all of this debate about mining law should be taking place on or the regular order in the committee in our committee here not in the reconciliation process yet and we would the reason we had riband in place right but really being my time what we're doing in the reconciliation process is trying to raise revenues for the united states government to meet its debts and obligations in this case what we're doing here is giving the united states a revenue base by selling a surface right that it didn't have to sell before but giving at that opportunity to receive that income we've had several hearings on this issue this is not something that has been presented this committee the energy and mineral resource committee has had numerous hearings on the issue of sustainable use of surface right valuations of patenting that cetera and so it's not something that we haven't talked about in the past and i appreciate the gentleman's comments mr chairman a moment's time's expired mr ray hall chairman the gentleman from divide us comments have been interesting but but he hit it right on the owners of those rights american taxpayer get zero f and john would start talking about roll t v s and increases in we're starting we're starting to talk about real reform instead of this sham reform that we're going through here and have gone through many times in the past and certainly i'm no stranger to this issues a gentleman knows back in one thousand nine hundred five i guess is when we first held hearings around the country on mine all we form especially in the west and and a gentleman from alaska state as well but i rise in support of the utah amendment because the provisions that he seeks to strike have no business being in a pending legislation as he has said they raise no revenue and they are adverse to longstanding moratorium has been in place every cent of my colleagues know and guess what it has in no way hand heard the production of hard rock metal from the mining claims on western federal lands at the same time it is prohibited to give away of these mineral rich lands for as low as a two hundred two dollars fifty cents an acre price hamburger prices i would also take issue with the way this legislation addresses the hundred twenty five dollars a year mining claim maintenance fee as i said my opening remarks the pending be all reduces it to thirty five dollars a year initially and for what reason the poor are multinational gold mining companies the poor multinational gold mining companies and i would note that gold is now trading at an eighteen year i have a four hundred eighty dollars an ounce these poor multinational gold mining companies almost all foreign based can no longer afford a mere hundred twenty five dollars a year maintenance fee for a mining claim on federal us federal lands these poor multinational gold mining companies i find no compelling reason to provide this unwarranted relieve to these companies especially the time of our own budget deficits and constantly increasing costs due to the war in iraq and the costs associated with the various hurting hurricanes battering our coast there are address or seek to reform as some might call it such a major piece of legislation but these other troubling provisions include the elimination never the requirement that a mining claim is valid only after showing that it contains valuable minerals under what is known as a prudent man test and i could go on and on but the bottom line is that these provisions are counterproductive to our budget they do a disservice to the good stewardship of our public lands that  think every member of this committee has a responsibility to undertake rather he or she be from the west from the east and the south and north from them between or from the oceans or wherever as stewards as public servants and stewards of our public roll call vote request you've got to say that before i say the amendment is not agreed to the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his and then thank you mr chairman amendment is simple it would build on the possible amendment in order to make clear that subtitle b of the committee print will not harm the national parks or other special areas to do that it would add a section stating that nothing in the subtitle will require or permit any activity in those areas that is not required or permitted today today's markup is supposed to be about the budget not about attacking the parks wildlife refuges wilderness or other protected lands pombo amendment makes it clear that we are not talking about trying to raise money by selling lands in those areas this amendment would finish the job by making equally clear that we are not talking about allowing them to be mined either the amendment is clear and gives us a clear opportunity to go on the record in favor of protecting these areas i urge its adopted adoption and i you know the gentleman before yield back would you explain to me why this is different than the amend that we already adopted is that this my understanding so what you're what you're saying is that there would be new no new permits or that would be issued within the four areas that quo as of today lands that are not in the parks themselves but that are owned by the park system that are roy the question here and is your amendment are you opposing the sale of land on by the park but not currently in the park system because that's what we're trying to get done is this amendment deals only with things within park boundaries yes exactly what it says in any activity affecting any lands within the boundary of any unit of the national park system national wildlife refuge system national wilderness preservation system or national landscape conservation system that would not have required or permitted that would not have been required or permitted on october twenty sixth two thousand and five will the gentleman yield for a question is mr pearce did you have addi given that's not in the in the intent of the bill in front of us today but i'm wondering if your amendment deals with that if they could do something today then they can continue to do it if they could not do it today and then i thank the gentleman for yielding mister givens yeah you know to the gentleman perhaps i'm just not reading your amendment that clearly but it would you consider well let me just ask this question to you define national landscape conservation system because i don't know if that's defined in the law today i believe that's defined in an appropriation act and it's managed by the b l m and it includes national monuments would you expect b l m wilderness study areas would you accept an amendment to your amendment that would allow for prior existing rights to be exempted from this and then will you support him with that change as long as that law is it doesn't affect prior if if you would accept that amendment on prior existing right prior valid existing rights well we don't want any invalid rights the gentleman would accept that it that amendment all of that mr chairman i'll accept his amendment mr chairman i think in clarification of this under valid existing rights as long as it doesn't expect that a holder of a valid existing right to do a validation test for any expansion of that right on his rights within this group where those those are your words not mine what do you mean by them well it would require for example that somebody held a valid existing right in a piece of property that's covered under this section under your amendment that it would require any additional extension of those rights on that property to have a validation examination required by the bureau of land management what we're trying to do what you would end up doing inadvertently that is requiring an an extraordinary effort on behalf of somebody to expand a right they already had existing under today's law which i don't think you're intending to do but if you if you'll agree that that's not the intent and put that language in this so that we don't expand the validation requirements then i would agree with the chairman that we're not we're not changing what he's done and it would seem that your amendment would be ok my my intent is to maintain the status quo mr chairman perhaps i could work with mr you dial on this amendment if he would be agreeable so that we could come up with some suitable language that would not be detrimental to an existing right under his amendment  say at the end valid a valid existing rights remain unaffected and except that is a a placeholder on this language and we continue to work on this is this moves forward with the with the gentleman except that except that the gentleman you if we could slow this down just a bit get together with the subcommittee staff on the parks i think we're all trying to get the point none of us want to solve our parks but there are there are lands on by the park system that they don't anticipate creating parks on and those are water slated for distribution with land within the boundaries under sammy grabbed and holders within the boundaries of the parks and so i think there's some question on the part of our our staff if we're in fact leaving them whole and i'd like to just to have some time to take a look  think we're going to support why you're doing the think we're all trying to get to the same place reclaiming my time what i'd like to do at this point is ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside in til later in the markup and give and give everybody a chance nobody's seen this before and give everybody a chance to actually look at it and so without objection i reserve the right of m have this him and heard later in section so we later in the markup so that we have an opportunity to to figure out exactly what the implications of this amendment are that objection so ordered we've been called to is i think in fairness we should probably recess the committee and allow allow you the opportunity to explain your amendment after we returned from the vote if we could have the clerk to shoot the amendment and the committee will stand in recess until after the vote to encourage members to return we have a number of very important amendments that are yet to be offered and i want the opportunity to have everybody back in the room we stand in recess this time i'd like to recognize mr n's insley for five minutes to explain his amendment thank you mr chair there are it just to put this in historical perspective i think there's two great losing streaks in american history one is the white sox inability to win the series since one thousand nine hundred seventeen which i hope will come to an end here very shortly and the second is the losing streak of taxpayers in america not getting any payment or royalty of the mining that goes on on the land that they own and that is also a losing streak that really ought to end in my memory would do that by creating a percent royalty on valuable minerals taken from the taxpayers property and the reason i'm offering it here is you know this is been an effort that's going on now for over a decade with mr a whole leading the effort the reason i think it's particularly appropriate here is that our committee's been put truly between a rock and a hard place where we've been charged with the responsibility of generating two point five billion dollars and to date the only way that's been suggested to do that and our ways it in one way or another would degrade the environment that americans value so i i think we need to do this amendment because to do otherwise we would be finishing this bill with the enviable position of being willing to despoil the arctic being willing to create difficulties offshore contrary to local control and their interests in various states we would be minimizing the ability to protect the environment in a whole variety of of ways but we would be willing to charge a nickel from the the industry that is generated billions of dollars off of our assets and has paid virtually nothing for over a century so i'm hopeful that we will take this modest step forward to fiscal sanity to fairness for taxpayers and to not the smirch our committee's reputation that we would be willing to significantly degrade the environment in the pursuit of revenues but we wouldn't be able to cross the mining industry for a nickel relief in these very tough fiscal times and i'll stand for any questions that any member has a vector you  gentleman the willing to amend his amendment so that you strike out the eight percent royalty and put in an a nickel a nickel yeah you know it's heading in the right direction but certainly it might be a little short of  course as the chairman of the committee let me say that we have not held a hearing to date on the fact or the actual language of having royalties within the mineral industry but let me also begin by saying that i'm opposed to the gentleman from washington's amendment because i believe it is a little bit over simplistic in the way it looks at this and let me state first of all for the beginning and all of the people here that mining industries do pay taxes they pay income taxes just like any other business they pay sales and use taxes just like any other business and where placable they pay top property taxes they are not getting away scot free from operating in this country  in an on the mineral world that we're talking about here and why i say this is overly simplistic because unlike other extractive industries such as the oil and gas industry which are oil in pennsylvania is the same as prudent oil in texas which is the same is as crude oil offshore minerals are not the same they're not the same in the extractive cost to to locate them they're not the same in terms of whatever profitability there may be and in the commodity price for example gold is vastly different in its commodity price than silver and yet the extractive cost may be the same so copper titanium mentality versus nonmetallic minerals this does not cover any of those this is a very overly simplistic approach it doesn't state also or have any indication of the point of origin for the royalty collection and how much that is are we going to allow for deductions in extraction and processing in in refining in all of the other costs that are incumbent upon getting that out of ground many of these companies don't operate on the large ten percent profitability that is income but are we talking about a gross royalty here or should we be talking about a net royalty should we be talking about a net smelter return common standard practices in the industry and that's what's too simplistic about this amendment it does not tell you how it's implemented and where it's going to go and it fails miserably in that regard  prices fluctuate this is going to be collected up front and mineral prices determine whether or not there's going to be a viable industry and it can be passed along because most of these materials and minerals are commodities that you know it's easy to attack mining companies without taking into account the reality of what this industry means to not only the economy of this country but what it also means to the national security of this country we start putting mines out of business that produce precious metals that are used in our medical technology medical testing equipment we're going to see a change in the quality of life of every american we start taking away the mineral that we can develop for our national security to build our tanks to build  to build the bulletproof vests that our soldiers need today to defend this country we're going to see a complete change in the national security of this country when we have to depend on foreign sources of minerals as we do today foreign sources of oil so let me say that by the proposal that my friend from washington has proposed will do far more to damage the economy far more to damage the national security of this country and less to provide a royalty because it simply is too simplistic it doesn't address the circumstances and the peculiarities of the mineral industry the metals versus nonmetals does not look at  a lot of very abilities that are so incumbent upon assessing a royalty to a company like a mineral company and this is why i think it's important that we have a hearing that we listen to the companies come in and describe to us in a hearing and we can have these hearings there's nothing wrong with it and we'll certainly look at that in the ordinary course of business as we go down the road but this is this is not the kind of amendment that we should be passing because it will do more harm and then it then it will good i mean week we've got so much at stake here to pass an eight percent royalty will do more to harm this industry more to harm this economy and i speak in support of the gentleman's amendment i've heard the gentleman from nevada mentioned several times a lack of hearings and i'm not sure exactly the year he came to congress but we've had hearings on this issue under both democratic control and under republican control so and as i mentioned earlier the first hearings i know i'll go back to eighty five when i took the committee out west to federal land including your home state and had hearings on the issues we've had demanding coming here in washington testify both again as i say under democratic control and under republican leadership i would also say that germany has made the case  the hard rock mining industry should not have to face royalties i would ask them why then does the coal industry on federal lands pay an eight percent royalty on coal and a twelve and a half percent serviceman in the scope of royalties that every mining company in this country is opposed to looking at some form of royalty i think they would tell you up front that what they're looking for is a process whereby they are not put out of business but they don't close down because we've come in with an over generous concept eight percent in many cases mr a hole will not only put companies out of business but it depends upon the commodity price as well and so everybody is equal in terms of coal and minerals are vastly different gold industry versus hearings but we have also been in discussions with those responsible sectors the hard rock mining industry that yes you're right they have no objection to a war at the some type being imposed and they are looking for some  certainty some certain regime under which they operate that they're not subject to the whims of congress year after year or the whims of the administration so yes there are those responsible segments of the industry that want to see reform come about a real reform i might add but our so i refer to legislate that i introduced on october sixth of this year and in my remarks in introducing the legislation i stated that the lack of role of the in the eight hundred seventy two man in all in the absence of deterrence or penalties for irresponsible mining have cost the american taxpayers in giveaways and labby all these under the law the federal government is giving away over two hundred forty five billion dollars in mineral rich public lands in return the mining industry have left the taxpayers with the cleanup bill for their business and money practices that are estimated to range from thirty two to seventy two billion dollars for hundreds of thousands of bandon mines that pollute the western landscape again my effort here over the years has been to impose a same regime upon the hard rock mining industry that  coal industry experiences avid for back in one thousand nine hundred eighty seven my first year in this body and served on the congress committee that imposed a federal serviceman reclamation control act upon our coal mining industry in this country a law that has worked that both environmentalists and the industry stood right behind jimmy carter when it was signed into law in august one thousand nine hundred eighty seven in the rose garden so that's what we seek to do upon the hard rock mining industries impose that same type of regime and provide the true owners of the land american taxpayer with the return of some sort granted local state and other entities receive monies as you've stated throughout the course of today but the true owners of the tax land receive zero the true owners being american taxpayers are would offer a recollection i and now it's been a lot of years when i first became aware of some of the key public policy debates in the west reform of the eight hundred seventy two mining act was the top of everybody's list and without telling you my exact age that was close to forty years ago i think it's the point we're trying to make is let's let's move mr chairman you look you look quizzical you do the math i'll do the math for you after the after we finish but i think the point mr hall is making and i hear mr gibbon saying that there's a lot of interest in the industry but at some at some point it's time it's time to act and with the law that's now what over one hundred thirty years old it seems further discussion of their amendments to the amendment sale or for suitable for sale i should say pursuant to section three ninety g of public law one hundred four one twenty seven it would require that disposal be completed within three years of a competitive bid the lands that are covered by the amendment are b l m lands in the states of arizona colorado idaho montana nebraska nevada new mexico oregon utah and wyoming were identified originally one nine hundred seventy seven by secretary of  bruce babbitt and the total accurate identified adds up to just about three point three million acres now that's a lot of property but it of course is less than one half of one percent of all the land owned by the federal government and only about one percent of all the lands administered by the bureau of land management the amendment also directs the secretary not to dispose of any land under the amendment if the administrative cost of doing so  amount the sale would generate so i alluded to earlier b l m owns more than two hundred sixty million acres of land the federal government as a whole owns around six hundred and sixty million acres that represents nearly a third of the entire united states and an area of more than ten ten times this size of colorado now over ninety percent of the land is located in western states and that severely diminishes the local tax base and depresses economic development opportunities in what are often already poor communities despite this massive federal ownership and the inability of the land agencies to manage what they've already have the government has continued to acquire more land over the last forty years the federal government has spent nearly thirteen billion dollars adding more acreage to fit to the federal a state one thousand nine hundred six as i mentioned congress directed the secretary of interior to report to congress a list of land suitable for disposal in ninety seven the secretary identified those three point three million acres and that were made available for disposal with an estimated value then of about two billion dollars by the way on each one of these profit properties there is already an estimated  value so i mean at least it's a base we understand that there's concern about whether or not you know the value has increased we need more in terms of appraisals but the reality is we we actually have some sense of what the lands are worth  or were worth in one thousand nine hundred seven anyway now it's been a decade almost since that that bill was passed and since the secretary reported but the interior department has not disposed of the bulk of these lands very very have actually been addressed unfortunately i think there is an unwillingness inside of the department of interior to actually move aggressively on this not this is not unusual of course we've seen that kind of of stalling from them in the past and  and it goes on today we've even had a hard time getting the cvo to provide an estimate and score this particular amendment even though we promote presented it to him the very day that the  reconciliation process was announced that's i know that there are problems i know that there are issues with regard to various things that that with mining interests and the like and i understand that a lot of those things can and should be addressed but i also believe mr chairman that it is enormously important for us to begin the process of looking at a true reduction not just the not a rhetorical reduction in the in the size of government but are true reduction in the size of government and this would do it and i would also understand that that there are problems that are concerns that the chairman or the staff has actually had that might prevent focused right now on this particular proposal that they're about ninety three thousand seven hundred acres give or take that's given their all b l m property some have a report fair market value some significance others we don't know as you pointed out is that your understanding yeah this is you know this is the report that was produced this is these are each one of these is represent each page that represents a parcel of land that they identify there over two hundred and yes in colorado that represents according to this ninety three thousand seven hundred forty one acres nothing in denver if the general continue yield i would just like to state that i'm not opposed in principle to working with  gentleman and with the committee but as we all know the devil can often be in the details i would thank the gentleman for yielding to further discussion on the tancredo and then mr g coming from the state mr chairman it has the highest percentage of federally owned land in the union let me state that in principle i support this concept to dramatically i think the idea of getting that out from under the concept that the federal government isn't just your neighbor it's the neighborhood would be helpful for the nevadans in this regard and i would i would say that mr  on the right track i would like to work with him on this issue because there are some some already existing conditions within the state of nevada existing laws where we have sale of land already identified and under provisions of prior past legislation that would be affected by this and i certainly don't want to change those programs the way they're working which seem to be working in certain areas of nevada very well and i would like to make sure that anything we do in this regard doesn't jeopardize any state's interests being a part of this  would be happy to you i understand your interest i believe it is it is an appropriate and it is one with which i am more than willing to work and also with the chairman i hope that we will develop this into a perhaps a more comprehensive piece of legislation that will deal with a couple of other things and i know i've been brought up here so i'm willing i certainly willing to do that with mr chairman if you allow then i will withdraw this amendment the gentleman withdraws his amendment i just make the  comment at this time that i believe mr tancredo is on the right track with doing this the devil is in the details i do believe that this is an issue that this committee should address we've heard mr you'd all discuss working with you on doing this i know mr saxton earlier in the market talked about disposing of western lands in purchasing bill that would get very broad support within not only within this committee but within the congress and i think mr tancredo it's in the right track i do appreciate you withdrawing your memon at this time but we will continue to work on this because i energy source so it's an important part of our energy policy and it's also important the taxpayers who own most of it they have an interest in what return they will get for this resource but it's particularly important for colorado our state has some of the most important deposits of oil shale and coloradans predicted those on our west slope will be directly affected by its development a new report from the rand corporation spells out the great benefits that can come from developing oil shale but also makes clear it's important for the development to happen in the right way the report says oil shale development will have significant effects not just on the land but on air quality and on our water quality and given our limited water supplies that's a real concern it says what colorado's know already large shale development will bring significant population growth is likely to put stress on local communities in short the report reminds us how much colorado and our neighbors had at stake when congress debated the oil shale provisions of the new energy policy act that's now been on the books for two months well there are a lot of things in that law i don't like i think the parts dealing with the oil shale are good and deserve a chance to work before we rush to change them however the committee print would tear up that part of the new law and replace it with provisions that not only would be bad public policy would be a real threat i believe to colorado my men and delete those parts of the committee print and allow the current law to stand and there are four areas in which my men operates to begin with the current law says the interior department has to consult with the governor of colorado and other relevant states before going ahead of the relevant stake in state and stakeholders before going ahead with large scale oil shale leasing the committee print would repeal that requirement for consultation my men would restore it similar to the current law permits an orderly measured program for oil shale development but the committee print would mandate a massive development program on a crash basis it says interior would have to lease a minimum of thirty five percent of the in colorado utah and wyoming within just a one year period it's not clear if this means thirty five percent of the three state total or thirty five percent of the oil shale lands in each state either way it's a requirement for a very fast very large scale commercial leasing program entered apartment says there are about sixteen thousand square miles of oil shale lands in colorado utah and wyoming combined that's more than ten million acres and about seventy two percent of that is federal land so even if we're talking about leasing thirty five percent of the three state total not thirty five percent in each state that's more than two and a half million acres all in one year i believe mandating leases for that much land that basks fast risks putting a big part of north western colorado on a fast track to becoming a national sacrifice zone it's deja vu all over again back to the mistaken crash development policy of the carter administration that was a mistake then and it would be as mistake now my men would delete that part of the committee print allowing current land law to stand also current law requires the energy the interdepartmental prepare an environmental impact statement on oil  deadline for completion that's the right thing to do but i guess reading something first is too old fashioned for the committee print it says that the e i a s is deemed to be good enough and no further environmental now assists will be done for a full ten years no matter what problems the state of colorado or anyone else may have with the us that's like giving an a grade before student turns in the homework it may be good for the students self esteem but it doesn't ensure careful work and careful work on oil shale is essential because the stakes are so high for color as land water and communities so my amendment would also delete that part of the committee print and allow current land law to stand finally current law tells the interior department to set all shell royalty rates that will do two things encourage development of oil shale and also ensure a fair return to the taxpayers but the committee print would repeal this replacing it with specific rates to be charged for the first ten years of commercial or oil sh production and requiring that after that the rates must be adjusted according to a formula tied to certain oil prices this is an example perhaps even a blatant example of micromanagement with nothing to show it is fair to the taxpayers my m delete that attempt at long term political price fixing and replace it with the language of current law mr chairman i don't think any of these provisions help meet the committee's budget reconciliation goals so there's no need for them to be in this committee print but they're worse than unnecessary they are bad for colorado and bad for the country they should be deleted and current law should be allowed to stand that's what my management would do and i urge its adoption i would yield back mr chairman their discussion then mr given some thanks very much mr chairman and like sounding like a broken record here i'm going to say that this amendment will do nothing to help improve this nation's energy resource picture what this amendment will do is it will take out of the picture essentially the oil shale production which is one of our most promising future energy sources in the united states first of all let me say that the reason the underlying base bill is written the way it is has to say that the bureau of land management or the controlling agency does not have to do an s process just to institute the leasing arrangements in other words there would still be the need for a process still be the requirement for any plan of operation any production that would be proposed within that area so there is nothing that strips the environmental issues out from under this that being said you know what we're trying to do is we're trying to put into place in an early fashion america's really duction of its dependence on foreign sources of oil oil shale offers the united states the greatest opportunity that we've got in excess of two billion barrels of oil right in the green river formation two billion barrels of oil locked up in oil shale which we have no today no process no ability through regulatory process to lease these oil shales for production and what we're trying to  do is not reinvent the wheel here we want to do what works we've looked at alberta canada we've looked at the success they've had we've established that as a model on how we go about making sure that the oil shale oil sands in alberta canada which are very similar to the oil deposits we have in this country are developed in an expeditious environmentally sensitive fashion our bill contrary  to many of the statements that's been said today help this country move toward energy and oil independence and that's what this is all about the unfortunate thing about my friend from colorado cement that is that it strips out strips out what we have already shown as a proven royalty system from looking at canada's in its strips out the twenty five billion dollars of investment in that we've seen in the alberta canada system and this is a very capital intensive development when you start talking about oil shale it takes a lot of capital investment by we want to make sure that we encourage them to look at this resource but we don't want to take away the the ability of these companies to look at this and have some predictability and some certainty  about about looking and investing in the united states for a new energy source so as i said this is vastly different than conventional oil and gas deposits that we see it's it's solid out of each cubic meter of rock they predict that they can recover about one barrel of oil so if you figure the formation is three thousand feet thick that comes up to about two trillion barrels of oil locked up in this formation it is extremely difficult to get it out but they would still require environmental processing from these companies in order to recover this oil we're just trying to encourage them to make this very capital intensive investment in the development of oil shale and unfortunately mr hugh dollars and then will will get that and will remove from this hope that all members of this committee reject the amendment thank you gentlemen you i'll be happy to yield whatever time i have left to my good friend from america i just wanted to general for further clarification canada has already gone through the process would expand twenty five billion dollars already in processing and i just wanted to know from the gentleman where are we as far as our own technology and if it's really is a serious  thank you let me say that what i've talked about here is simply the green river formation which is in colorado utah and wyoming there are other oil deposits now i as a scientist pacifically a geologist believe that oil shale will be found in many areas where we do find free and other deposits of oil in this country because i think it all has the same or similar type of origin  canada's twenty five billion dollar investment it's what we looked at as a model on how to get it developing into production and we are now accepting about one million barrels a day out of the canadian oil sands what we're trying to do is to establish the united states own technology with regard to this we had a hearing right here in this room that said that oil shale can be developed in terms of per barrel cost in this country for somewhere between twelve and twenty dollars a barrel so we're looking at all availability in in a substantial amount two trillion barrels just in a one formation that would last this country for many many many decades if not a century at the rate of twenty two to twenty four million barrels of consumption a day you can figure the cost at two trillion barrels gives you that number of years  so this is a very important resource for our country the companies that came in and looked at it have the technology to make sure that it's done environmentally correct so that we don't pollute the  groundwater i know that's one of the issues that my friend from colorado and every other state is concerned about is mobilizing the oil letting it get into the groundwater formation companies have the ability to barrier the oil off before they extract it so that they minimize or reduce to very little or barry or zero pollution that's required from that and then there's the extractive process if you want to just mine it put it in a retort heated up drive  the oil and then put the minerals but it's a it's a process that can be developed for anywhere from twelve to fifteen dollars to twenty i thank you gentlemen for sisters and i want to ask my good friend from colorado besides environmental concerns is it because our lack of technology that  what the technology is but they're clear that it's at least a five year timeline until they're ready to go and it's purpose of this amendment to maintain the promise of oil shale but make sure that we follow the proper procedures i see no reason to fast track the development of oil shale in ways that could threaten the quality of our groundwater and they believe communities to respond to what will be an increasing pressures and congressman tancredo i both remember the decade in colorado when oil shale was held out as a if you will the part at the end of the rainbow and it suddenly all fell apart in what's known as black sunday when the companies involved announced they were not only not going to continue to pursue the sale the promise  contact a couple of my california friends said to me they're not here so i want to dennis why then they said we want to make sure that our water which is in colorado is well taken care of when oil shale development occurs i'm not sure that anything and i would differ with my friend that there's anything in my management that would provide disincentives for the capital investments that are necessary as i mentioned sitting down with the shell oil company i think they they've been to see you and i don't know if they were part of your hearings  t they they're excited but they have a timeline with which they're comfortable and they want to really make sure that the technology makes it's cost effective and as you point out the environmental concerns are first and foremost in their minds let me  just conclude by saying the gentleman point out we don't want to reinvent the wheel effect this committee print today we're reinventing the wheel that we invented just this august and it's my case to the committee that we would be well served by letting what we did in the last time around in the conference and and you know we're we're rehashing and trying to put in loser provisions we ought to be sticking with the act that we have right now that was passed the bolt bodies adopted and the president record gentlemen talked about the situation and if you look at page seven of the committee printed what i say fifty seven page fifty seven it reads the environmental impact statement starting in line twenty developed in support of the commercial leasing sales will not be subject to further environmental analysis so i would beg to differ with with the my good friend that this doesn't somehow provide a pre approval situation much like my son who's in high school saying well i'm not even not only not going to do my homework i'm not going to hand it in but i expect to get an a or i've done the work i'd be happy to yield through my cousin what and i'm sure you know this animal from nevada thank you what the paragraphs of you're talking about are the comprehensive program matic that we're looking at here what we don't want to do is have to have an environmental impact statement for the whole process of leasing rather there would be an environmental impact statement on any program that is that is looking at production so there would not necessarily be a delay in the leasing process so these companies could get involved in looking at the land and making the leasing the fact is that what it does is help us smooth out that cycle by allowing companies to actually get their capital return a lot better a lot quicker and easier than last than they were able to do in the past it is such a capital intensive industry and capital intensive activity that that's one reason why they were not able to actually succeed and why they essentially dropped everything went out of business so i think what we're doing here is actually helping them and helping us all helping the state of colorado by smoothing out those cycles also terms of what we're doing work for state and local government of course we are providing from leasing through for the first ten years of production ninety percent share for the state and local governments which is certainly significant and i think would be appreciated by the folks in the area i was impressed by what i saw when shell came in and talked about what they were doing and their care for the environment and also what deposit is in colorado it's an enormous opportunity but of course presents us with naturally enormous problems in trying to extract it in a safe and profitable way but i think the technology has gotten to the point now where we need to do something to encourage this on our side i'm sure the gentleman was impressed even when they showed the amount actually came out after the extraction process and it looks close to who to gasoline i mean there's very little hindsight but we we certainly know what happened in colorado and other areas in the past in this we want to we want to do everything we can to prevent that and i think that the committee mark is what does it so i certainly support it further discussion land and it basically takes out any incentives we are trying to build into the base bill in order to move more quickly on developing oil shale so i think he accurately described his amendment no further discussion on the amendment are there amendments to the amendment hearing the question is on the you to all of colorado and all those in favor signify by saying i actually you want to go for mr pillow and yours strikes the entire tide subtitles so i would prefer to do the perfecting amendments first and i wanted to have your questions of of the subtitle of the council if i could but if you want to is it number thirty eight is that  also served by granting territories more options related to whether or not mere mineral leasing should occur in the outer shell of the us possessions certainly what we're trying to accomplish here the nation is to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy help lower energy costs for american consumers including those living in the territories create jobs for hardworking americans and certainly diversify the u s energy resources available to the whole nation the u s territories amendment stated hypocrisy reform simply provides that any state that does not allow for exploration for the production of oil or gas on state local federal land or privately own land within the contiguous coastal zones of the state or any state that prohibits such exploration and production shall not receive or gas obtained from any other state and united states trying to help states keep from being hypocritical there are those who say you know what we're not going to allow any drilling we're not to allow any mining we're not going to allow anything in our coastal regions and all we want is just clean electricity flowing into our state and that's all we want but it takes power plants it all wells it takes gas wells it takes a leg not mines it takes nuclear power plants windmills it takes solar energy it's going to take all of that in order for us to really meet our needs so i thought this amendment might help those states who have been really appearing hypocritical to actually step forward eliminate the hypocrisy if they really feel like it's that important that there not be  well's or gas wells anywhere around their state then that will help discourage oil wells or gas wells in anybody's stake because they just won't be buying the mining by the proceeds any more  so that's the amendment just to help these other states out so they don't look so hypocritical did you want to address this say it's time to cut back on your electrical use because you are sucking up the country's energy without contributing and we want you to contribute or not suck up so much and you that same state uses seventy five percent electricity generated by its natural gas so the state of florida would be impacted by your amendment probably as much as anybody well i didn't realize you were talking about florida but that's the great thing about the amendment wasn't going to call any names just let everybody stand for what they are in if if they can't defend their extreme over usage of everybody else's gas th perhaps they need to cut back or help with the problem rather state that comes to mind as california they're currently talking about not allowing coal power electric power produced by coal into their state i hope they do that because i think i driving energy policy in this country and they have put this nation at risk because access to energy in my view is a far greater threat to this country than terrorists and it's a far greater threat than cheap labor in foreign lands it's a far greater greater threat than any other thing because it's making this country noncompetitive we just can't have the prior highest prices especially for natural gas in the whole world and said here and think we're going to compete and that our seniors are going to heat their homes this winter and that our small businesses are going to pay twice as much for energy as they did last year for transportation and for heating and for making products and then to stay in business i mean we were really on the unrealistic road and i think your amendment gets right to the heart of states that are the huge users and i don't want any part of the process of producing you  those of us who have studied history know that there have been wars that have been won in the last over the issue of fuel a lot of people don't realize the world war two was not one and that the battle of the bulge was not just a foregone conclusion had the germans had sufficient fuel of their own they very well likely would have driven the allied forces right out of europe and they'd be speaking german in france now but fuel is critical nations have risen and fallen just on that issue and it's really too important the chairman you were just asking me to withdraw the amendment the intent is not to do harm to the underlying bill that i'm very proud that has been put together but this is a critical problem in this country everybody's got to pull their own weight everybody's got to bring to the table what they can and it is extremely unfair and extremely hypocritical for any state to sit back suck up everybody else's resources while they have resources and not make them available for the good of this country it's time to step up and participate instead of just sucking out everybody else's thank you mr chairman i will withdraw the amendment if if the chair feels it would do damage to his bill i appreciate the gentleman withdraw his amendment are the further amendments to subtitle what about we have staff available if there are specific technical questions concerning the subtitle i don't recognize mr pulling for five minutes i met my concern and my will get to it as the subtitle e allows states to get out of the moratorium on drilling on the outer continental shelf and my questions relate back to that in reading through subtitle the i'm concerned that we may be spending more than we generating in new revenue to meet the resources committee's obligation under the budget resolution and i wanted to ask counsel whether the committee received a detailed scoring for the subtitle and if so what are the associated costs both in expenditures and in new revenue to the treasury and i want to understand particularly concerned about the out years in other words how much revenue and the revenue sharing because if the state of south of the moratorium there is drilling it's  sixty forty share sixty federal forty state and you know i'm just concerned about how much revenue will will be generated and what will be shared particularly after two thousand and eleven so if you could give me some information in that regard to this point i would recognize staff to answer mr pullens question and ten year that this is a revenue positive provision do you have any information though about the revenue sharing now there was this sixty forty breakdown you mean generate one point six one point six two five billion and new revenues in the first years and three point six seven seven billion in new revenues over the ten eight hundred thirty two million dollars in the first five years and three hundred net positive three hundred nine million dollars over the ten years is that before or after the revenue sharing with the stats after the revenue sharing ok let me ask about the need for waivers section six five one two would prescribe the application of  leases and other actions taken under the o c s lands act in fact it's my understanding that all preliminary o c s activities on outer continental shelf tracks and all will and gas exploration plans would be categorically excluded from having to prepare either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment and my concern over this is the federal consistency authority you know new jersey and other states the federal consistency authority in the c act is pretty significant and i'm concerned that this change would significantly decrease the ability of coastal states such as new jersey to review proposed federal activities or federally permitted or license activities under the federal consistency authority of the caesium a would would counsel explain how these changes would affect notice requirements to coastal states of o c s activities would have that would have a reasonably forseeable impact on their coastal zone and would coastal states have fewer opportunities to review proposed federal o c s activity you're talking about six section sixty five twelve right this does not affect the notice requirements to the states at all with regard to lease sales or five year programs there are notice requirements under section eighteen of the outer continental shelf lands act in addition to notice requirements of the coastal zone management act consistency provisions and this does not  section has nothing to do with so what are the changes underneath well what this what this does and of course what i'm not sure whether you're familiar with the content and extent to which the minerals management service conducts environmental impact statements for a five year leasing programs but they are very extensive and they look at the environmental impacts of exploration projected exploration and development in all of the areas that would lose those instead of need that is an eva that is a five year program environmental impact statement ok then let me just one more thing with the the changes to the definition of affected state section six five zero three would make significant changes to the definition of affected states as defined under the o c s lands act under the current definition the definition includes states where  quote there is a substantial probability of significant impact or damage to the coastal marine or human environment or a state in which there will be a significant changes in the social governmental or economic infrastructure resulting from the exploration development and production of off oil and gas anywhere on the outer continental shelf in in addition under the current definition an effective state would include any state where quote there is or will be a significant risk of serious damage  factors such as prevailing winds and it goes on but the changes that the in the bill before us contained in section six five zero three would narrow the scope of affected state to eliminate any inclusion of states that might reasonably expect to be impacted by o c s development of production activities and i'm concerned that this change you know from significant impact to reasonably expect to be impacted you know would again affect the reach of any coastal this and this repos all the states that would be determining whether we have leasing in the off shore or the adjacent state the state whose own that is now out the others what's been built into this bill has been protections for the neighboring states against leasing for instance if your state of new jersey does not want leasing and its and its adjacent zone your neighboring state of new york would not be able to have under the protections built into this bill could not allow we would not have any oil and gas leases within the news new york zone within fifty miles of the coastline boundary between new jersey and new york and so what's happened is previously you did not have those protections in new jersey for new jersey in the current law and these are a substitution of being able to review since they won't be able to have any leasing in that area anyway in new york if if you can follow my example gentleman speired i'll allow the staff to finish amendment at the desk it has been distributed the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain it a minute mr chairman i'm offering this amendment with mr markey and mr insley to strike all of subtitle e which makes dramatic and damaging changes to our current laws governing federal waters and our coastlines i was first elected to congress after floating trash and medical waste from new york wound up on new jersey speeches nearly twenty years ago failing our coasts and wreaking havoc on the tourist economy i know from that experience have vigilant we've been about what our coastal neighbors do and that's why i promised my constituents that i would fight to clean up new jersey's beaches and push for further protection for our coastline subtitle e however undermines twenty years  consistent efforts to protect the jersey shore environment and our coastal tourism economy there are numerous procedural and substantive problems with this subtype which i did which is why i hope my colleagues will join me in voting to strike it in its entirety first of all i strenuously object to the way this language was developed from what i've read in press reports the chairman worked with governor bush to come up with this language and florida as is only one of twenty one states that could be affected by the oh sure leasing proposal however no other states seem to have had such influence in the process of drafting this language said florida moreover we've not even had a single day of hearings on this proposal which would make dramatic changes to a raft of federal resource policies and reshape the division of federal and state control over federal waters and i don't think this is any way to go about the committee's business i've also asked i have to ask what exactly this is doing in a budget bill it's questionable whether this subtitle would actually increase federal revenues over the next five years in my opinion since projections of any such revenue are based on speculation over whether any states would decide to opt out of existing moratoria and this puts potential federal revenue at the whim of governors and state legislators from a substantive standpoint the opt out in opt in provisions was seriously undermined the ability of small states like new jersey to protect their coastlines from the actions of their neighbors my home state of new jersey may never decide to open its coastline to drilling but one of our nearby states may find themselves in a difficult budget situation and begin leasing  jersey's environment and coastal economy the twenty five and fifty mile buffers will do little because of oil can easily travel that far in one day and after ten after two thousand and twelve anything that happens beyond one hundred twenty five miles from our shore would completely be at the whim of the secretary of the interior and if this is passed i can only hope we don't have a secretary whose urge to drill is a strong as the current ones let me emphasize as i've done in the past that opening the o c s to drilling will do nothing for skyrocketing gasoline and natural gas prices even if we pass this bill today it would be years before any product reached american markets and even if we were able to drill under the o c s and get the product to market right anyway right away i should say there is simply no major prize of oil and gas in the areas already under moratorium according to mineral management services latest updates there are only two point three one billion barrels of technically recoverable oil under the entire atlantic o c s area compared with the full sixty billion barrels available in the portions of the continental shelf that are currently open to drilling for gas the numbers are even less impressive the atlantic o c s region contains only twenty eight trillion cubic feet of gas compared with about three hundred thirty ft three is simply not worth it beyond this ill advised and complex or shore drilling scheme or other parts of subtitle e that should trouble members section five six five two four actually prevents the secretary from increasing or imposing new fees on energy leasing on a row of sure so even if we see record profits from oil and gas companies and record prices for consumers at the pump we're actually blocking any increases in the leasing fees that they pay another provision inserted without any serious legislative consideration to section six five two one which allows oil and gas companies to get away with not properly cleaning up or shore rigs and instead would have been be used for aquaculture or other purposes and i come from a state with a large number of commercial recreational fisherman i can tell you that offshore marine aquaculture especially the old oil rigs is an incredibly controversial issue and there are more points of the subtitle subtitle that truly don't belong in the budget bill and would do a lot of harm to our nation's coastlines i can't get into all of them because my time is almost up but the essential this this subtitle should be struck in its entirety there are serious problems there's no reason to be upsetting the the o c s moratorium that's in place and it's a very complicated way of going about all this which really other coastal states and i know my own state have not any had any input into and so i really don't think we should be considering it today in the context of this budget bill discussion on the loan amendment mr peterson i find it interesting the makers of this amendment earlier were opposed to anwar production they're opposed to the outer continental shelf production they're opposed to tar sands and all shell production and i'm sure if we had a member here today to unlock the midwest that's locked up for production where our reserves are great they'd be against that too so i say how do you how do you have a that mindset is why this country's in trouble that policy's been raining for three or four decades and you can get away with that when you have ten dollars for an oil availability and you have two dollars natural gas availability from from within the country you can get away with it but now that we have sixty dollar oil and fourteen and fifteen dollar natural gas it's literally going to destroy the economic viability of this country because we are dependent on thug run countries we are dependent on unstable countries for energy and it doesn't matter where you reach and i'm for wind and i'm for solar and i'm for bio diesel and i'm for ethanol and i'm pushing as hard as i can in my state's my district but the number is so small if  anybody thinks they're going to take the place of our need for oil and gas they just haven't looked at the numbers they're just not speaking from any kind of fact and the o c s i guess is the one that i think it's been the tragedy that we've locked it up absolute tragedy in this country because canada knows better they are an environmentally sensitive country they produce right off of the coast of maine i never hear me complain they close right off the coast of washington they drill in our great lakes every day and sell us the gas we are by and the gas and probably half of it's american gas because you can slant drill we don't we don't allow that denmark is at an environmentally ruthless country sweden norway united kingdom new zealand australia one of their major sources of energy is the outer continental shelf it's the safest place to produce energy it has the least impact on wildlife and creatures and i have never had anybody willing to debate me how a natural gas production will ever filed a beach anywhere like a somewhat of a stretch to talk about garbage and medical waste and comparing it to or oil and gas production and if you stay twelve to fifty miles offshore nobody ever sees it in fact in erie i live on the american side or fifty miles from it i've never heard anybody complain about canadian production it's been going on for years so i find it interesting that that there is no way that we can produce energy that a lot of members of congress will support but i want to tell you when the when they polymers and plastics leave this country companies when the petrochemical companies leave this country is one hundred twenty coal chemical plants being built today ones in america most of them are displacing companies that are here when the aluminum industry the steel industry and the fertilizer industries leave this country we're going to lose the very best jobs we have left for our working men and women see the blue collar workers the fertilizer industry you know we lost forty two percent of it in the last two years because natural gas is their major ingredient alcoa one of them stated just a week ago for three weeks ago that if energy prices in this country persisted and specifically natural gas they would have to redo turman if they could produce in this country that's in a pittsburgh firm folks i don't know how bad it has to get but if we wait till the horses are all out of the barn we'll fix this we'll produce some energy until renewables can be a bigger part of our portfolio in the meantime i just amazes me that so many members of congress are against any con of energy production and that's why we're th we were the strongest nation in the world because you know oil was discovered in my hometown title pennsylvania where i grew up i was the first oil well it changed the world it made us the industrial leader of the world it became our transportation system and i think we need to be veering from oil as fast as we can i'm not a i don't think oil is our long term future but folks we can't be against every kind of energy and end up having a country that can compete with anybody and i guess i'd like to ask the gentleman mr coleman if what kind of resources are out tremendous resources in the outer continental shelf one of the things that people like to quote is a quote about conventional resources and these conventional resources are based mr peterson that the minerals management service doesn't count the vast resources natural gas hydrates that are in the atlantic the gulf and the pacific hundreds of thousands of trillions of cubic feet and these now have been proven to be able to be producible so no one has a really good handle on how how large their resource is that but it's vast conclude my comments i'm out of time that  if we approve this amendment we're just saying goodbye to the economic economy in this country that gives hope to our families and jobs to our people further discussion mr givens thank you mr chairman and getting back to the substance of the polonium in men i first of all would just like to remind my colleague from new jersey that the state of new jersey today only controls or has decision  authority over three miles off their coast what this bill will do the underlying bill is give states the authority to go out to the one hundred twenty five mile range from their coast so it expands greatly the state's ability to have self determination off of their coast because with your amendment what will end up happening is that the federal government controls everything beyond the three mile limit and what we're trying to do is give states the ability to make that self determination out two hundred twenty five miles on this the amendment also would unfortunately have the unintended consequence of getting a very important part about the funding job training and education funding and it will also unfortunately get the wildlife conservation funding so there's a number of things that are  intended by the elimination of all of this process that your amendment do that i think are unintended consequences where the base bill is attempting to give for example new jersey greater latitude greater authority to prohibit these actions and of course i know you're not the kind of an individual that want to say that new jersey should make a decision what's in the best interest of your neighbors states but gives you greater authority in the in the new jersey area to control a vast or greater area out to sea for off of your coast and what happens out there but that i wouldn't deal today i mean the only point i would make though is that obviously right now the moratorium applies to the entire continental shelf an economic  and so this is getting you know would allow states to opt out of that i mean that's that's my concern if i may also taking back my time reclaiming it it's an annual moratorium that has to be renewed each year so what we're doing today is allowing states to put in place their own determination about no drilling off their coast until the state determines it wants to do that so from that standpoint it gives greater latitude greater authority greater decision and greater determination in the individual coastal states and i think that's critically important we're all here strong believers in states rights  were strong believers that this country's future depends upon an energy source which will help keep jobs in this country and certainly as i said the unfortunate  unintended consequence of your amendment would do some things that i think contravening of that whole concept so i would i would with great respect to my friend from new jersey  oppose his amendment and with the gentleman yield again i'd be happy to yield my point again though and my colleague is that you know it may give states more options to drill but it for states that want to protect and prevent the drilling they're actually going to have less options i mean it depends on your point of view obviously well reclaiming my time the state of new jersey could prevent drilling off of its coastal shores forever under the base bill does but what we're trying to do is give states rights and individual determination about what they do with their coastal shores and i have great faith in the people of new jersey have great faith in the people of other coastal states  to make the best interest for what is in their future so i've gotten you know the small amount of time will yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania what does it protect your state from me i'm on interior there will never be an interior for twenty three is prohibited leasing on the outer continental shelf i didn't know that when i first came here i think it's a tragedy for this country we should never have locked up natural gas i'm a proponent of natural gas only and i would give you twenty miles of shoreline that you won't ever see it but  not produce natural gas out there is a tragedy for this country but i want to tell you you're under the current law you're going to you're going to have a fight every year on the interior bill because i will fight to remove that prohibition every chance i get because i think it's good for america now i have some heartburn with this bill because i don't think i think it it cracks the window open a little bit because we get one eighty one going but other than that i think it's a mistake i mean i have real heartburn that whatever that comes from new york and from other states if we cannot add provisions of the bill to make it very stringent requirements where we penalize those states who do violate questions of  environmental violations if this this can be added because by the same token i think the gentleman from pennsylvania makes a very cogent argument about the fact that we definitely have an energy crisis in our country and the question here how do we go about looking at the resources for our own needs so that we don't have to be so dependent on other countries for our energy resources and i'd like to ask my good friend from new jersey if he could comment on that well the problem have as i said not only today but on other occasions is that you know you cannot control the pollution that comes from other states in other words you know new jersey is very small if the new york or one of the other adjacent states i keep thinking of new york because of what happened in eighty eight when i first came to congress in eighty eight most of the garbage in the ocean dumping in the medical waste and everything that we were was washing up on new jersey beaches was coming from new york and so the concern is the same that if a neighboring states such as new york would allow drilling and there were spills that it would impact our state and such a small state and so close that it's hard to imagine that any kind of environmental problem that occurred in new york or another adjoining state would immediately impact new jersey and there's certainly ample evidence of that in terms of what's happened with so many other spills you know that have come from  garbage you name it and i'd like to ask my friend from new jersey i perfectly appreciate and understand the concerns he has representing quite well his home state of new jersey but i want to ask my good friend from new jersey how do we solve the energy crisis that we're faced with now are there other sources that we can rely on to what we can come to grips with this reality in terms of why we have to constantly rely on other countries for energy resources for example in new jersey and i've been advocating for years that we need to conserve energy and we need to have higher fuel standards you know cafe standards we need to look at renewable resources i've advocated renewable portfolio standard we just don't do any of those things for the most part we're not doing anything to increase fuel economy we haven't tightened the cafe standards you know these are the kinds of things that i think would make a difference conservation measures alternative resources renewables and i just don't see it acting on those again i think the republican leadership for the most part in the energy bills that have come up in this committee as well as an energy and commerce have not moved in that direction the emphasis is always on the republican leadership part is drill drill drill and drilling for limited resource less and less available resource more more course to the i rise in opposition to the polonia mammoth that strikes entire title i will freely admit one of the purposes of this title is to increase the amount of energy domestically produced energy that we have we were faced with in are faced with a situation where we have a number of states that have expressed interest in opening up their offshore areas at the same time we have a number of states including my home state of california that do not want to open up their offshore areas we did negotiate with the florida delegation the governor of florida we also sent several letters and made offers to the new jersey delegation to meet with them and talk to them and about what we were doing explain the underlying legislation those calls went on answered and but we did because of florida's position on offshore because of their great interest in protecting their shore their interests are very similar to that of california or that of new jersey or other states that do not want offshore development what we were able to do is reach a compromise that is not what mr peterson wanted it was not ideally what i wanted but it was a compromise position where states would control have much greater control over their coastlines than what they currently do under current law and current regulation and at the same time allow states the option of opting out of that moratorium and allowing offshore development in those states if your position is in opposition to offshore development off your coast of your state then this underlying bill should make you should be compatible with your position that is that is the compromise that we were able to rate reach we gave much greater control not only of waters off the shore of your coast but off the shore of your neighbor neighboring states coasts mr peterson is accurate when he says that this is an annual and annual moratorium that is attached to the interior appropriations bill and i think as we continue in an energy crisis continue to strive to develop more domestic energy there will be more and more pressure brought on congress in on the president to lift that moratorium i believe with this underlying legislation does is it protects those states who do want to protect their coastlines and want to continue to have not have offshore development it was a compromise i do believe that it leads to more energy domestic energy production i believe that is in the interest of the nation and of the country to do that we also have the added benefit of increased revenues to the federal government and to the state governments if we move forward with this underlying legislation i do realize of states like louisiana and texas have been allowing offshore development off their coast for a number of years and have not had the ability to share in those revenues the way that the underlying legislation would allow we continue to work with the louisiana delegation and the texas delegation and other states that have allowed short of them in the past so that they will receive fair treatment under the legislation but i do believe that this is the best compromise the best way to not only increase domestic production but at the same time allow states that have concerns about offshore development to control their destiny and control their future there are members of the committee members of congress who are opposed to any new development period it doesn't matter if it's on shore offshore you know at the time that that china is running all over the world cutting deals increasing their amount of production in doing and going to the point of bidding on a u s oil company in order to to get a hold of their oil we are arguing about putting a new well on an existing platform if we're going to continue to have a growing economy and continue to have jobs in this country we are way beyond the old arguments in the old debate that we have been going through for the last twenty years on this committee and in this congress it's time that people own up to the fact that we need to develop more energy resources for our country we need to produce more domestic energy oil and gas coal are part of that future they are a part of it they are not the entire answer but they are part of it you can't continue to oppose any new resource development in this country and continue to make us more and more dependent on foreign sources of  under the chairs prior announcement for the proceedings and this vote will be postponed until later in the markup we have just been called to the florida vote there are two votes  we i believe that we have two amendments still standing to be heard i would request that the committee return immediately after these two votes and as soon as we dispense with those two amendments then we will go to voting on the amendments that were rolled and we have a number of amendments that were rolled seven at this point that were rolled to a later point so if you want and excuse me we do still have to deal with yours ok so that's that would be three we do have to deal with yours ok thank you committee stands in recess  chairman my men that would strike subtitle f after extensive negotiations between the district of columbia the bush administration and members of congress complex legislation dealing with a list of federally own parcels in the district was introduced in september the original co sponsors of that bill h r thirty six ninety nine were chairman tom davis and representatives eleanor holmes norton and chris van hollen representative duncan  on to the bill the legislation contains a complicated series of land exchanges and sales designed to provide the district with more land in and around the anacostia waterfront and elsewhere while also streamlining the national park service land management in this area some of the parcels in this bill are part of plans for a soccer stadium as well as the baseball stadium here for the district of columbia h r thirty six ninety nine was reported by the government reform committee by voice vote on september twenty ninth the bill was the quench only referred to the resources committee but we have taken no action on this proposal yet subtitle f of the reconciliation legislation unilaterally writes the proposal contained in h r thirty six ninety nine i think that any rewriting should be done with the collaboration with the bill's chief co sponsors chairman davis and congresswoman norton whose district the parcels of land are located within most significantly a number of parcels including poplar point along the anacostia waterfront and mount vernon square across the street from the convention center which were to be traded to the district are now authorized to sale to the highest bidder virtually assuring that developers rather than the district will receive these parcels the subtitle would raise revenue directly out of the pocket of the district of columbia by undoing a carefully crafted bipartisan proposal put forward by the bush administration and sponsored by all of the local members in fact this was conceived by the administration to help to relieve at least part of the district's federally imposed structural imbalance so mr chairman hoping that  you will see and we understand that you have taken several of the parcels and made them available at fair market value in the bill before us today but we feel that it takes funding away from the district and because it has been a  bipartisan effort supported by the administration we offer this amendment risin in opposition to the lady's amendment under the the base bill there are nineteen tracks of land that will be sold it fair market value there are thirteen sites that will be conveyed to the district we do on the nineteen separate pieces of property we do put them to the highest bidder i realized that there were discussions between members of congress in the district that's nice that they were able to sit down and talk those discussions did not go to the committee of jurisdiction and the committee of jurisdiction being the resources committee has looked at this issue and in response to our budget reconciliation numbers we felt that it was fair to the district of columbia to give land to fair market value in the west and then to come back to the district of columbia and say that we should give everything to the district of columbia i think is somewhat disingenuous  if the next time that mr gibbons or someone else has legislation dealing with selling lands in the state of nevada or the state of utah or other states i look forward to the a minute say that we should just give it to him because it would be more fair to him but i do oppose gentle lady amendment i think that we've been more than fair to the district of columbia by giving them thirteen sites at no cost or further discussion on the amendment and all those in favor of the gentle lady amendment signify by saying i all those opposed signify by saying no you're the nose have it the nose have an image not agreed to their further in the market it is time i would like to recall the you'd all amendment and bring it up for further discussion to look ok and i need to withdraw my point of order against the amendment  suggest and we have the staff distribute mr given section sixty two zero one there the administrative provisions which one change the annual fee structure by making only one filing necessary instead of periodic filing also allows for opportunity to cure a failure to file with a payment of a penalty within a forty five day period also adds a real work requirement to hold on a mining claim and has a small minor pay a fixed per claim  twenty five dollars vs per claim which currently they don't have to pay section six o two allows for patents and a greatly increased cost for acre of land in increases the labor requirements for any determination there on six zero sixty two zero four allows for mineral development lands to be purchased on which we applied the already existing amendment that we've accepted mr chairman which is yours  and sixty two zero five makes it a national policy to encourage reminding as a function of reclamation i think these are good things that we do and i would certainly  encourage everyone to to look at those provisions in that light and if i if i skipped an area which i did it looks like i skipped sixty two or three which changes the discovery test but that's only putting it in the right area of the law but anyway going back to what i was saying overall administrative provisions are good things that i think we do and mr you to all of of course  amendment would prevent all of these things from happening and as a wrist as a result i've got a substitute amendment to your amendment which states that subject to valid existing rights nothing in section sixty to zero to sixty two or three and sixty two zero for this subtitle shall be construed as affecting any lands within the boundary of any unit of the national park system national  national wild and scenic river system or the national trails system or any national conservation area any national recreation area any national monuments or any unit of the national wilderness preservation system as of the date of enactment here in what this will do is it in essence allow us to accept the idea that these administrative provisions are good and ought to be ought to apply in all areas including the lands which you have included in your amendment and i did remove the national landscape conservation area only because while it may be a term that is used in an appropriation bill it is not a defined area as these others in the same category so i think we accomplish basically what you want to do m yoo doll and what we end up doing is allowing for preexisting rights valid rights to continue and i would suggest that my substitute amendment alter your amendment in  would hope you are to accept it with the gentleman yield to yield to my friend my understanding is the chairman agreed to the language when we were having the discussion i'm happy to go with that language  the subject of valid existing rights i think took care of the problem the that we had i don't understand if you could explain to me mr givens what you want as your amendment  i think section sixty two zero six has to deal with the writing of regulations why not cover it well it's only regulatory doesn't apply to activities or permitted activities on existing lands in the list that we have here so it would be sixty two two sixty two zero three sixty two zero four sixty two zero five and sixty two zero six could we include all of them sixty two zero five sixty two zero six at all you've taken that phrase out in the first sentence why have you taken it out but i'm not sure that it was a necessary provision in the subsequent amendment what's the problem with it you have a unnecessary but i don't it's not hurting anything is it i mean that's i would prefer to leave it in i think what we're trying to do is avoid striking the chairman's amendment in other words we're amending yours to make it compatible with the chairman's amendment in that region so  i think with your language it would strike the chairman's amendment that's our interpretation might not be yours it's our interpretation it's not it's not our interpretation and why and why don't we change the date as of the date of enactment rather than as of october twenty sixth two thousand  why are you trying to change it what's the what's the thrust of where you're going with well it's not effective on october twenty fifth two thousand and five it would be effective the date of enactment wouldn't it you know you know no i'm trying to s phrase the status quo as of today i'm not trying to change anything we're just trying to make it effective the date that the bill becomes inactive the gentleman's time has expired construed as condemns consent that that be added there hearing no objection so ordered mr hugh to all that is i believe that the amendment as offered by mr givens gets to the heart of what you were trying to do hopefully you will accept that amendment it does expand to other federal lands that are a conservation status beyond what you did but i believe it gets to the heart of what you were trying to do and what your concerns were we're going to further discussion on the givens and the chairman i would ask unanimous consent to just add the language or any other member it's made by the subtitle is there objection where would that go go at the appropriate point right after the sections language there will the gentleman yield will you just explain for my edification why you feel that language is necessary what it will be the effect what's the intent of putting it in there for well i don't i don't see any problem with the way i had a you're the one that suggested changes i thought as unnecessary but i just want to know why you feel it's necessary to put it back in i think it's i think it's a desirable section of the staff is telling me that they believe that that negates the language that was adopted in my amendment to begin with so i will object to including that in the r further discussion on the amendment as amended chairman i have an amendment that i actually won't be offering today but i think it's important that general ladies recognize for five minutes to explain or amendment thank you i think it's important that we have some discussion on this amendment that it's a combination of four years of work between mr ray hall and myself and and mr peterson because of procedural problems we aren't able offer it at this time but going forward i fully expect that the leadership of the house will do what they can to help us get this passed before the end of the year what this amendment is is the  abandoned mine slam program or and now was created in one nine hundred seventy seven by congress and it made several obligations the first and most important obligation was to clean up abandoned mine site are amendment will ensure that that will happen another promise made was to return half of the money taken in taxes on the coal production to the state where that coal was produced congressional appropriators haven't lived up to that end of the bargain this amendment ensures that they will this amendment is also sensitive to the needs of the eastern historic production states which have significantly greater cleanup needs than many states in the west several provisions in this amendment reform the reclamation side of the and  program to address those specific cleanup needs that we've heard voiced by our friends in the east and within any realistic and they'll reform debate there also has to be a discussion of the health benefits for retired mine workers mr ray hall at the in my night in mine workers have worked very conscientiously and in a compromising way to get all of the needs met by all of the stakeholders and certainly the health care the retired mine workers will benefit from that effort on their part the cuban rainfall peterson amendment reauthorizes and reforms and the program by extending the abandoned mine land program for fifteen years while phasing in a reduction to the m l fees over time fees will be reduced from thirty five cents to twenty eight cents per ton for surface coal from fifteen cents to twel underground coal and from ten to eight since per tonne of lignite by ensuring that congress supports the maximum level of abandoned mine cleanup possible going forward by providing that all  unallocated state shares are paid back by way of the mineral leasing act receipts freeing up more and mail dollars for their original intended purpose that is to clean up abandoned sites by amending smacker to provide for annual transfers of the m l fund interest each year to the combined benefits than one thousand nine hundred two and ninety three funds this transfer will help pay for the health benefits of orphan beneficiaries and cover any budgetary shortfalls in the funds making available to the c b f one nine hundred ninety two and ninety three funds all stranded interest credited to the m l fund that has not previously been transferred to the c b f the annual cap on the amount of interest to be transferred will also be lifted by providing that transfers to the ninety three plan are limited to those orphan beneficiaries enrolled as of december thirty first two thousand and five thereby closing the funds to any new financial obligations providing minutes minimum program states with an appropriation for cleanup and increasing the flexibility of states to use a m l grants for acid mine drainage and allowing the secretary to promulgate rules allowing for the practice of reminding two issues that are vital to eastern states like pennsylvania as i said this amendment represents four years of work and compromise and it's very disappointing at this point to have the majority leadership pull the rug out from under us and not be able to move forward i fully expect that there will be pressure brought to bear that we will be able to find action on this before the end of the year i cannot press my disappointment and frustration any more greatly but believe me this isn't good it is a good to resolve this issue she has been great to work with we've linked arms on this matter for many years now appreciate as well the support of john from pennsylvania mr peterson for helping to round out a broad unlikely coalition of stakeholders here that's brought about what we had hoped was going to be historic agreement i agree with every point the gentle lady from wyoming has stated she has s very well it is unfortunate however that we find these alleged procedural roadblocks that are now stand in our way not from the leadership of this committee with whom i have nothing but words of praise for the support and help along the way but from powers above that have now stood in the way this reauthorization has been done three times in the close to thirty years now that i've been in the congress going back to one nine hundred seventy seven as a gentle lady stated one time as part of budget reconciliation one time as a stand alone provision one time we authorize it as part of part of the chosen to exercise jurisdiction because it's not their jurisdiction over this issue and now they've come to this committee at literally last second some hidden powers around this room and said they're going to exercise and that's an affront to this committee on resources mossad's it out of this issue is not a ways and means issue now for other reasons unbeknownst perhaps known to many but above this gentleman's paygrade we're now told it's  procedural roadblocks that are that are stopping us from from getting this historic agreement and putting this behind us once and for all which many coal companies want behind them our mine workers deserve in our efforts to reclaim band and mine sites we must not abandon the coal miner him or herself this legislation takes that into account uses a interest only interest only and thereby no way undermining our reclamation efforts to clean up the environment interest only that would go to the combined benefit found of the united mine workers to help our retired coal miners as a general way to explain so i'm frustrated and again i say no affront and i thank  gentleman you big audio hope it doesn't cause you to change your position on this but i couldn't agree more with what you're saying and i appreciate your position it's doesn't need to be dealt with you're still ok so supporting but thank you for your comments on i'll be very brief i just want to thank the gentleman from wyoming and gentleman from west virginia we had competing bills we had differences for quite a while we talk talk talk talk and works and we came up with an agreement i guess i'm a little more optimistic than some but i i i feel there is an assurance from our leadership that they're going to just to get this done my stats what i've been told so let's let's just keep the keep the pedal to the metal keep the pressure on and our agreement intact and collectively i have high hopes we can get it done see i'm a little bit frustrated perturb we were finally able after all these years to come to an agreement on on this amendment on this legislation and i will commit to the three that have put so much work in this mr ray hall miscue then mr peterson that we will continue to push on this and at some point we will make the effort to get it put back in where it should have been to begin with thing be part of the reconciliation package for the further amendments subtitle unfinished business of the committee is the postponed recorded vote on the marquee amendment to subtitle a which was just stripped out and warm mr chairman could i could i just make a very brief statement before we start the votes the gentleman is recognized i'll be very brief i most people expected me to have an amendment perfecting amendment to the outer continental shelf portion of abercrombie and i had an amendment that we passed the last time this measure was before us and we decided because we have a commitment from the chairman that our bill will be given a hearing our bill will be given committee senate consideration and if we have the votes to get it out of committ then we will get consideration on the floor and i think that allows america to debate the natural gas issue as it should to better understand the complexity of it and why we're in the problem more in and that there are things we can do to improve this country's competitiveness improve the ability of seniors to heat their homes and companies to stay in this country and not leave so i want to thank the chairman for his willingness to give us the consideration of having our measure considered as a single issue change is my home state of texas and probably lose janish well in regards to the funding the funding formula for offshore drilling royalties and it is my understanding that that because work something that is fair and i know there are some states that the not allow a need drilling we do because we know that in the sense that the and the need something else and i hope that someday we can meet with the industry i am concerned that in my district that expanse one hundred fifty miles i go to one service station like bay for dollars and fifty five cents a gallon then i move to the south and that they have dollar nineteen there are some discrepancies in this bill not on this bill but on the way that  the people are being i'm not saying they can for their money but it's hard for them to fill up their cars with gasoline especially when you know that we are the ones that provide most of the energy and we are not being compensated just hope that the staff can work together on this builds the gentleman would yield i will continue to work with him and i've discussed this with mr mehlis on as well i know that the states of louisiana  texas have been the ones that have provided a great deal of the energy that's consumed in this country and have been unfairly treated under current law and i will continue to work with you mr mehlis on to make sure that your states are fairly treated mr duncan mr duncan votes now mr mr dale class mr mr pallone mr jones mr jones it's no mrs christiansen mrs christiansen votes i'm mr cannon alone mr jones mr jones of call names those who didn't respond the first time around mr miller clerical report the results of the vote mr sharon on this vote there are seventeen eighteen twenty nine the amendment is not agreed to the end finish business of the committee is a postponed recorded vote on the instantly amendment to subtitle mr duncan mr a call the names of those who didn't respond the first time mr miller mr keelty mr we have been called a vote there are seven votes on the floor i ask unanimous consent that the you do all inslee amendment be voted on and block udall amendment can we do this by a show of hands vote the vote is there objection to a show of hands you want to roll call there's objection corker call the right in here the objection do you object or not the role will come on let's do it clerk or report the roll mr chairman on this so there eighteen years and twenty four nays the amendments are not agreed to the unfinished business for the house before the committee is the udall manages subtitle de klerk a call the rol mr saxton both times to mar mr jones mr mrs christiansen flake votes no mr  have all members voted mr chairman mr chairman machine to point order i think when mr blowers name was called there was a no that was thrown out i think it came from your side not intentionally but i think somebody there i may have missed out there emoting for four hours mr polonia corded was recorded as no he's not he was in the room he should not be recorded he is not here is mrs drake recorded mrs davis recorded as you know is there any members present who have not voted are there any members who wish to change your vote clerical report the results of the vote mr calvert mr calvert both know mr abercrombie mr abercrombie both by mrs cuban mrs cuban votes all members voted the members who wish to change your vote clerk will report the results of the pol there are fifteen eyes and twenty five was the amendment is not agreed to the question is now on transmitting the committee print as amended to the committee on the budget pursuant to the reconciliation instructions has everyone been recorded as every member been recorded doing they want to change your vote the clerk will report the results of the the mr chairman on this vote there are twenty four yes and sixteen