To expedite the construction of new refining capacity on closed military installations in the United States, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, Lord, I don't even know where to start. I've sat here for the last 45 minutes and listened to the Blue Dogs. And I appreciate them very much because there's about 40 or so of them, I think, and they could do a lot to help us, Madam Speaker, with the energy problem. I just hope that they will stand fast.

I listened to my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Ross). And I'm on his bill because it brings about more energy independence for this country, Madam Speaker. And it's interesting that the Blue Dogs talked a lot about all the things that we have done thus far, at least that the Democrats have done thus far, the majority, Madam Speaker. And I don't even know how to start to unravel some of the facts that have been laid out here tonight. There were some facts that I agree with, but there are some facts that are very, very misunderstood, and hopefully during this hour sometime, Madam Speaker, we can put some truth into it.

It's interesting that I heard some of the Blue Dogs talking about increasing oil production. And I know that in May of 2007 there was an amendment that we passed that prohibits us from drilling shale oil, where there's two trillion barrels of oil. Two of the speakers here tonight voted for that amendment to keep us locked out of that acreage out west where the shale oil is.

And Madam Speaker, if people could see this chart, May of 2007 is when the biggest spike in the oil prices happened. And I think that's a time when the speculators saw that this Congress was not going to do anything about our own oil production. We refused to do it. And I think the speculators took great advantage of this and said this is a country that's not going to look to their own resources, they're going to be totally dependent on foreign oil, so we'll do with them as we wish.

What has happened over the past, I guess, 3 or 4 weeks is people have been calling our office and calling me, Madam Speaker, and asking me if I had signed a petition; there have been several of them on the web page about ``drill here, drill now, lower prices.'' There's petitions on there from the Sierra Club and other environmental groups about not allowing people to drill. And as I got these petitions, and especially when I was at home, Madam Speaker, one day and I saw a petition on the counter of a gas station, and I guess the owner of the station had it there to give people something to do rather than talk bad to him about the price of gas, but it was a petition that said, ``Sign here if you want to lower gas prices.'' And so I came up with an idea that what I would do is start a petition, Madam Speaker, in this House where the American people could know how their Congress person felt about increasing the oil production in this country to lower their price that they were paying for gas at the pump. And so we came up with this very simple thing. In fact, there is no legislation attached to this, there is no discharge petition, there is just a simple statement where Members of Congress can make a statement to their constituents, Madam Speaker, much like our constituents have been making their thoughts known to us by signing these petitions online and at local convenience stores. This simply says, ``American energy solutions for lower gas prices. Bring onshore oil online. Bring deep water oil online. And bring new refineries online.''

And I put everybody's district, all 435 and the seven delegates that we have that represent territories of the United States. It gave people the opportunity to sign. And it simply says, ``I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans.'' And I don't care if it's the production of biodiesel fuel, biomass, oil, whatever it is, to make us less dependent on foreign oil.

And we've listened to a lot of the Blue Dogs tonight, but none of those Blue Dogs have signed this petition. And Madam Speaker, I have often learned in life that your walk has to match your talk. And some people say, well, this is just a political statement. It's not a political statement at all. We've had some Republicans sign it, we've had some not sign it. We've had some Democrats sign it, we've had some Democrats not sign it.

If you want to know if your Member has signed it, you can go to House.gov/westmoreland. And on that page we have those that have signed it and those that have refused to sign it. If you don't see their name in either spot, then we're going to take it that they did want to sign it, we've just not had a chance to talk to them personally, Madam Speaker.

But we believe that your walk should match your talk. And so we do have some Democrats on there, some people--Neil Abercrombie from Hawaii, a great leader, we have Mr. Cazayoux from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon from Louisiana, some from Texas--that are on here because they believe that we need to increase our oil production to lower the gas prices, and we do. That's just a fact. We heard about all these biodiesel plants, and those are great. But you know what? Until we start using our own natural resources--we see what the speculators did when we voted not to.

Now, oil came down $4 a barrel. It came down, and I understand one of the reasons it came down is because Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, Madam Speaker, sent a letter to the President saying we need to get into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a reserve of our petroleum that we have, millions of barrels of oil that we would have in an emergency, in a crisis, in a disaster. She wants to release that, which means to me, Madam Speaker, that she realizes that we need more oil, we need more production. But because of the radical environmentalists that have controlled the majority, or at least influenced the majority greatly, they cannot afford to do what we need to do politically; it's not politically correct for them.

I think that the American people, Madam Speaker, are tired of us in this body being politically correct. They just simply want us to do what's right, the things that we swore, took an oath that we would do, and that is to protect the American people.

And as the Blue Dogs said tonight, this is not just an economic policy, this is a national security interest that we have. And we've got to own up to our responsibility and make sure that we live up to the challenges that our constituents have given us by electing us to this body. We have got to act. We've got to get out of the fetal position, and we've got to act and do some things that will bring about some relief at the pump.

A lot of them in the past 45 minutes or the last hour or so have talked about all the great things we've done. Well, with all the bills that have been passed, I haven't noticed the price of gas coming down one dime. It's almost like putting lipstick on a pig. You can make it look good, but it's only going to be a pig. So we can make things look good, we can make things look like we're doing something, but all we're doing is just making a nice window for people to view at. It's time that we got down to some hard decisions. And there are some hard decisions that have got to be made.

And there are things that we are doing. We have put up discharge petitions--and I say ``we,'' I'm talking about the minority party--but they're there for everybody to sign. The week of June 9, we put a discharge petition, ``No More Excuse Energy Act of 2007.'' What that would do is it would reduce the price of gasoline by opening new American oil refineries, investing in clean energy sources such as wind, nuclear, capturing carbon dioxide, and making available more home-grown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the Arctic Energy Slope and America's deep-sea energy reserves. Now, what that takes is 218 Members to sign that discharge petition. We hear a lot of talk, but we don't see a walk.

The week of June 16, H.R. 2279, Madam Speaker, Expand American Refining Capability of Closed Military Installations. It would reduce the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process--which in 2005 was passed by a Republican Congress and later stripped out by the new majority--and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of siting new and reliable American refineries. A lot of people, Madam Speaker, might not realize that we import refined gasoline of almost seven billion gallons a year, almost the same amount of diesel fuel, Madam Speaker, that we bring into this country because we do not have the refining capabilities. Not a refinery has been built since 1978.

The week of June 23 it was H.R. 5656, the Repeal of the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels; reduce the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like shale oil, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid technology.

Do you realize in the energy bill, Madam Speaker, that was passed by this majority, that Federal agencies cannot use these alternative fuels? We heard a lot tonight from the Blue Dogs about using alternative fuels, increasing alternative fuels, but yet we will not let our agencies use it.

The week of July 7, this week, H.R. 2208, Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act, which, Madam Speaker, happens to be authored by a Democrat, reduces the price of gasoline by encouraging the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology, authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation fuel.

There shouldn't be one Member of this body not on that discharge petition to say let our oil go.

The week of July 14, we are going to have H.R. 2493, Fuel Mandate Reduction Act of 2007. It will reduce the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend requirements and onerous government mandates if they contribute to unfavorable gas prices. Right now part of the problem that we have with the high gas prices in areas in California and other cities that don't meet the attainment is the boutique fuels that we have.

The week of July 21 brings H.R. 6107, the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act. It will reduce the price of gasoline by opening the Arctic energy slope to environmentally sensitive American energy exploration. The development footprint will be limited to 1/100 of 1 percent of the refuge, and revenue received from the new leases would be invested in a long-term alternative energy trust fund.

The week of July 28, right before we go on the August recess, H.R. 6108, Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2008, reduces the price of gasoline by enabling the United States to responsibly explore its own deep ocean to produce American energy. The bill would grant coastal States the authority to keep exploration 100 miles from their coastlines, and it would also allow States to share in the revenues received. As Mr. Cazayoux said today, it helps Louisiana protect their vital coastline and all the great natural resources that they have there.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield to my friend Mr. Roskam to hear his comments.

I thank you for your comments. And just a couple of points that you made about the amount of money that we give to some of the people who are not friendly to us, even in our own hemisphere, we give Hugo Chavez $170 million a day.

I hear the other side complain about what Big Oil makes, and I don't know.

Big Oil, according to the records and stuff I read, make about a 10 percent profit, and I am not saying if that's good or bad for their business. But what do they think Mr. Chavez is making off of $170 million of U.S. dollars every day? And, listen, he is not our friend.

And the other thing that the gentleman has brought up is a great point, and we heard it today and I heard it on the floor earlier today that we need to all work together. Well, I agree we do need to all work together. But when the majority party brings the energy bills to the floor, some under suspension, when there's only 20 percent of debate on each side, no amendments, no committee hearings, no subcommittee hearing, no regular process, how are we all working together, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, you know if we are going to all work together, if we're going to all be part of the process, if all the people in this country--this is a republic. It is a representative form of government. And if I don't have an opportunity to amend or give input into the process, my people are shut out of the process. If there are no amendments, nobody on this side of the aisle and many people on this side of the aisle, the people they represent are shut out of the process.

So let's do all come together. Let's have an energy bill on the floor that can work, this open rule. We can have 435 plus the 7 delegates offer changes, offer solutions, as Mr. Roskam just did, about the people that have come up with solutions in his district; as Mr. Scott did previously about the biofuel in his district. We all have good ideas, but when we are shut out of the system, you can't work together. And I don't know what part of that the majority doesn't understand.

I would like to now yield to my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

I want to thank my colleague from Georgia. That was a great test. I think anybody, anybody in the United States should be able to pass that test, Dr. Gingrey. I am glad you put it up, because that simplified it.

This is something, this little simple petition, I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans; 435 lines. So far, we have 191 signatures. This is just telling the American people we are ready to do all of the above. If you want to find out if your Member has signed this simple petition, much like the petitions that many of these people have signed, Mr. Speaker, that are listening to us, have gone on the Internet and signed petitions saying, Hey, drill here, drill now, lower our prices, and bring the U.S. back to being dependent--back from being dependent on foreign oil, go to House.gov/westmoreland and you will find out if your Member has signed, refused to sign, or is in the category of not making a decision because, Mr. Speaker, I feel like the American people are going to have to make the majority party understand that they want some change.

See, in April of 2006, then minority leader, now Speaker Pelosi made a statement that the Democrats had a plan. They had a commonsense solution to the skyrocketing price of gas. Of course, gas was about $2.05 then. So we are still waiting on that solution. We are still waiting on that commonsense plan. It hasn't been unveiled yet.

Although, in January of 2007, H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act, Dr. Gingrey, was passed in this House. The Republicans called it the ``no energy'' policy. I will read you some of the key words. This was a 300-something page bill. Crude oil was mentioned five times in that bill. Mr. Speaker, gasoline was mentioned 12 times. Exploratory drilling was mentioned twice in a 316-page bill about energy independence.

Offshore drilling was mentioned zero; domestic drilling, zero; domestic oil, zero; domestic gas, zero; domestic fuel, zero; domestic petroleum, zero. Gas price or gas prices, zero. Common sense, zero.

Now what was mentioned was greenhouse, 103 times. Green building was mentioned 101 times; ecosystem, 24 times; climate change, 18 times; regulation, 98 times; environmental, 160 times; geothermal, 94 times; renewable, 333 times; swimming pool, 47 times, because there was a swimming pool safety bill in the Energy Independence and Security Act.

Lamp, CFL, the new fluorescent lamps, 350 times. Three-hundred fifty times. Contains mercury. Only produced in China. We can't even dispose of it. If you drop one, you need to put on a mask, evacuate the house, let it air out until you can clean up a broken light bulb.

This was the commonsense plan, I hope not, that then Speaker Pelosi, then Minority Leader Pelosi was talking about bringing up, because gas has almost doubled, or more; maybe doubled when this commonsense plan came out.

But I want to read you one thing before I yield to my friend from Illinois. This was a statement made on January 18, 2007, the day, Mr. Speaker, this bill was passed. It says, ``It is sad to see the Republicans come to this. Now, they laughably say that this will lead to higher prices.'' That was Mr. Peter DeFazio from Oregon on how the Democrat's 2007 energy bill would affect gas prices. ``It is sad to see the Republicans come to this. Now, they laughably say this will lead to higher prices.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd hate to say this, and I hate to say this, but we were right. It has led to higher prices. It has led to oil going out the roof because now the speculators in this world know that we, as a country, are not going to become energy independent as long as the leadership continues the course that they are on right now.

I'd like to yield to my friend from Illinois, a great leader in the energy battle and somebody that I think has made some real movement in the policy here, and that's Mr. Shimkus.

If you would yield for just a minute.

When these energy bills have come to the floor, have you been able to offer an amendment for some of your ideas that you have had here to present it to see if your constituency and your ideas could possibly be heard on this floor?

So what I hear you saying is we need to take the politics out of this, and we need to put people in front of power, and we need to put process in front of politics and do something that will move this country toward energy independence, rather than just staying in the fetal position, so-to-speak, that we have been in, and being held hostage by radical environmentalists who the majority may feel is a big part of their base. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Right now, one of the reasons we are not being held hostage by our enemies, the people that supply us with our oil, is because we have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If it was zero, trust me, we would have a bad time getting any oil.

With a sail on the top of it.

I am going to yield now to my classmate that we came in together, my colleague from Texas, where there are thousands of jobs every day where people go to work working in oil fields, and that is my friend Mike Conaway from the great State of Texas.

If you will yield for just a second, every bill that has been passed through here has had Davis-Bacon, which is the union pay scale, attached to everything we have passed through here. So I am sure if they pass something, if they ever did about building a refinery, I am sure Davis-Bacon would be added to it.

I understand, but I am sure it would be part of what they do.

I think it is interesting, you mentioned the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the letter that Speaker Pelosi wrote to the President. It is interesting that oil came down $4 a barrel. Now, if it will come down $4 a barrel on just a letter going to the President asking him to take the crude out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, think of what it would do if we voted in this body to drill without even sticking a drill in the ground. These speculators would run for the hills. And so I think you make a great point. And trust me, if we didn't have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we would not be getting oil from our enemies because they would know that they had us down.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we have got just a few more minutes here, let me just say this. I think what you have heard tonight is that this is an all-of-the-above solution. It is all of the above. But a very important part of this is this country producing oil, to increase our oil production.

Rahm Emanuel on TV said, yes, increasing oil production is part of the solution. The Speaker has acknowledged that increasing oil production or at least having more oil is part of the solution. But as my colleague from Texas said, we don't need to take that out of our savings account. We need to bring it out of our natural resources, out of the ground.

Senator Schumer in the Senate about 3 weeks ago said that if we could just get Saudi Arabia to increase oil production 1 million barrels a day, it would drop the price of gas 50 cents a gallon. I don't know if that is true or not, but at least on the other side of this building some of the Democratic leadership understands that increasing oil production would bring down the price of gas.

I don't know why it is so hard to get a bill like that to this floor. I think the reason is strictly politics. It is strictly the radical environmental groups that has a grip or their claws into this majority.

And so I think what is happening is we are putting power above people, we are putting politics above process. Because as these gentlemen have talked tonight, with these ideas that they have shared they have not had one opportunity to offer one amendment on the energy bills because they have been brought either under suspension, under a closed rule, no committee hearings, no subcommittee hearings. The process has been broken. And so when the process is broken, the product is flawed.

Let me just close with this: www.house.gov/westmoreland. Mr. Speaker, go there, see if your Member has signed this simple petition that says I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower the gas prices for Americans.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And just to make sure that my constituents know that I have not changed States, it's Michigan. It starts with an ``M,'' it's up north, it's cold, generally. I can understand that. But I'm sure proud to represent Michigan, and more importantly, the Seventh District of Michigan in this great House of Representatives.

Tonight I am committed to talking about an issue that is of extreme importance to my constituents, and in fact from what we read, constituents of all of our districts all over this great United States because we are in a time and place and setting right now that, frankly, we aren't used to.

And may I submit tonight to all who would listen that, frankly, I don't think we should ever get used to it for America is too great of a Nation and has been the ambassador of great blessing to the rest of the world in many cases. It has set the course, has charted the way toward greater economic achievement, standard of living, advances in technology, business, industry, education, medicine, and transportation.

I happen to come from the district where Henry Ford had his home, made homes and schools for his employees in a great part of my district, used the resources from that district, including during some wartimes some Sassafras trees just three miles from my house that were used to make a light but strong frame for his motor cars with the absence of steel at that point in time because of the war effort.

I come from the State that has been known as the Motor Capital of the World, Michigan. Detroit has set the standard that the rest of the world has followed, emulated, copied, and sometimes even expanded upon, and yet still America, Michigan, the Motor Capital, charts the way.

Just the other day--I tell this story for a purpose, but just the other day I had something of an experience happen to me that has never happened before, nor did I expect it to happen. I filled the tank of my Harley Davidson motorcycle, which has a 5-gallon tank, and it cost me over $20. Now, for those of you that have ridden motorcycles, it is almost unbelievable to think that a vehicle that gets great gas mileage, that has a small tank like that would ever cost double digits, let alone over $20 to fill. But that's the place we're in right now with gas today on average across the United States at $4.04 a gallon. My Harley happens to take premium. So I paid $4.27 a gallon for that 5- gallon tank fill.

Less than 2 years ago, very seldom, if ever, would I double-digit fill my tank, even if it were on empty. Now, I don't ride my Harley Davidson for transportation anymore.

It's primarily for recreation, but 38 years ago when I started riding my first motorcycle it was for transportation, to get to and from my work.

Over the course of successive years, I would use my motorcycle in the better seasons of the year, the warmer time, to ride to work and enjoy that experience but also as commuting. I don't do that anymore, but we're paying gas prices now that should not be part and parcel of what America is.

We talk a lot about energy independence and being willing to compete and make sure that the rest of the world has to compete with us, as opposed to the other way around. And yet, up to this very day, in the outcome of what has gone on in Congress, it has been just talk and no action.

Last week, I heard the governor of our great State of Michigan announce on a major radio talk show that she was now riding a bicycle to the Capitol from her governor's residence each day, and when the host expressed concern about her safety, she said, oh, no problem, my security detail are following me on their bicycles as well.

Now, that's a nice story. I don't give any negatives toward our governor for being efficient in her use of energy resources, but you've got to understand that, when I heard that, it shocked me. And in fact, if not angered, it frustrated me to think that the governor of the motor capital of the world was riding a bicycle to work, even though she has an energy efficient, flex-fuel vehicle that I've seen her use and seen her actually fill the gas tank with fuel.

Right now, more importantly, getting to the real world of real people, people who pay those gas prices each day, people who pay their taxes, that includes supporting this Congress in what we do, right now most Michigan families that I know of, as I go back to my district each weekend, are giving up things like nights out eating at restaurants or family vacations or traveling to family events in order to cover the rising cost of gasoline. If Congress does not take action soon, families will be giving up much more than that. They will be giving up very specific needs, necessities in their life. And in fact, what I've heard in many town hall meetings, some are already giving up even necessities of their life in order to pay for the gasoline to get to their workplace the next day in order to sometime hopefully pay for some of these necessities.

Just this past weekend, AAA announced that the nationwide average gas price finally reached over $4 per gallon. It's been much higher in Michigan for several weeks. High gas prices are affecting families, truckers, farmers, small business owners. I met a small business owner in my office today who said the cost of transporting copy machines, office equipment to and from her client is getting almost prohibitive. Emergency services, public safety, and numerous other entities in Michigan's Seventh District and all over this U.S. are being negatively affected by the high cost, and I say the unnecessarily high cost, of fuel.

Despite fuel costs at levels previously only seen in Europe, leadership in this Congress refuses to increase American energy production. Instead, Speaker Pelosi and leading House Democrats would rather increase taxes on domestic energy production and increase our reliance on OPEC or, as suggested last week, sue OPEC for what all that's worth.

On a related note, the United States Department of Commerce recently announced the U.S. trade deficit reached its highest level in 13 months in April. Our trade deficit also increased by $4.1 billion between February 2007 and February 2008.

This is why our country is facing a rising trade deficit, even though American-made exports grew by 12 percent in 2007. The issue related to energy and the cost of energy has a direct influence on this. This is why we need to provide incentives to increase America's investment in alternative energy and overall production of energy.

The United States imports around 12 million barrels of oil a day, and a barrel of oil has gone from $70 to $140 over the last year, dramatically increasing our trade deficit. Our reliance on imported oil and increased oil prices means we are sending even more money to foreign countries and some that don't like us very much at all and certainly don't share our interests.

For both economic and national security purposes, and again, I want to reiterate that, national security purposes, Congress needs to finally get serious about an energy plan that truly lowers prices at the pump, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and makes real progress towards energy independence. Instead of increasing our dependence on OPEC, America needs to return energy production to the United States. Doing so will create American jobs and provide needed economic stability and transportation that's efficient and usable to our American taxpayer.

The answer to our current energy crisis must be multi-pronged, and I have cosponsored legislation to provide incentives along those lines for solar, wind, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel and other green alternatives. We must increase domestic energy production through carbon-free nuclear power and clean coal technology as well. I'm also cosponsoring legislation that would encourage conservation with tax credits for green buildings and legislation that would spark a revolution in clean hydrogen technology.

There are many sources where we can move toward if we're willing to dig down deep and do what's necessary and walk away from those unnecessarily strong, critical, excessive environmental forces that don't speak to the welfare of this great country.

Today, I introduced a discharge petition, something that isn't done regularly in Congress, something that isn't successful regularly but has been. I trust that this discharge motion will be. As of this point in time, with just a few hours with that discharge motion being on the floor, 93 of my colleagues have signed on, moving toward the 218 that are necessary.

This petition, if effective with 218 signatures, will force a vote on Congressman Mac Thornberry's No More Excuses Energy Act, an Act suitably entitled, legislation to increase U.S. energy production and invest in alternative sources of energy as well.

This appropriately named legislation would impact the price at the pump and lower electric bills. It would encourage the construction of new refineries, boost alternative energy, supplemental energy development by extending the wind production tax credit for 10 years, giving some certainty that if I were to invest in wind energy production, I would have a reasonable amount of time to see a return on my investment.

It would increase American oil production by allowing environmentally sound drilling in Alaska, the Outer Continental Shelf and the Gulf of Mexico, and it would help increase our supply of electricity by encouraging the construction of new nuclear power plants. Even leaders, in fact, one of the founders of Greenpeace, have come out strongly encouraging the use of nuclear power as being clean, green energy, not given over to continuing production of greenhouse gases.

Rather than increase taxes on domestic energy production, as some in Congress have proposed, I'm working to pass sound legislation that will bring down the price of gas and reduce our dependence on Middle East oil. Legislation like the No More Excuses Energy Act of Mac Thornberry would increase the supply of American energy and increase the number of good paying jobs in this country and in my district, the Seventh District of Michigan.

Policies such as a 23-year moratorium on exploring and developing offshore production of clean and green natural gas need to be lifted in order to lower prices and reduce our dependence on foreign gas. Natural gas provides 23 percent of our Nation's energy. It should be more. And America is the only developed Nation that prohibits offshore production and exploration of this clean, green, clean burning resource, and Americans are paying higher electricity and heating bills as a result of this.

Like all of you, I'm tired of paying these high prices. Whether it's for my motorcycle, whether it's for my car or whether it's for my pick- up truck, I'm tired of paying this because it's unnecessary, as we've done nothing to change that except talk, and it's time to put action into place.

I know high prices are affecting all of us. This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for America to put up with this. The good people of south central Michigan, the good people of Michigan, the good people of the rest of the States in this wonderful country who depend on gasoline or diesel to get to work, drive their kids to baseball practice and visit family members deserve better.

The volunteers who offer to drive veterans to VA hospitals in my district and other districts in other States deserve better.

The volunteers who offer to drive Meals on Wheels to needy senior citizens deserve better than this.

Our churches and synagogues, our places of worship all across this great country that will be looking at looming fuel bills that many will be unable to pay this coming heating season deserve better than this because America doesn't need to be in this situation.

So I'm delighted that tonight I'm joined by a number of my colleagues who will add to what has been stated already, probably more eloquently, with points of experience that come from all over this country. I appreciate their commitment to doing something more than talking about energy independence, doing something more than talking about resuming America's position of leading the world in all areas, including the area of energy production and usage.

We have blessed the world with our standard of living, with our technology and with our energy, and it is time to get about that project again.

So at this time, I would like to ask my good friend and colleague from Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun, to add to what has been said. I appreciate you taking the time to be with us this evening.

Well, Congressman Broun, I think we want to do that. And I think you've brought up some points that are interesting to think about. Not only do we have a governor riding a bicycle to the Capitol, we are exploring for ice on Mars, but not doing exploration for oil-- that we know is there----

In Alaska, in ANWR.

And for those nations that love America and appreciate America, we're not standing in a

strengthened position that we can afford to them the assurance that America will be there when necessary because we can take care of ourselves, we're independent. And I think those are issues you bring up.

I'm delighted that we have the Dean of the Michigan delegation here, Congressman Fred Upton, who has been here through a lot and I'm sure has taken a lot of grief on this issue.

And Congressman Upton, before I turn to you, let me just, for the record, state, as you and some of my longer serving Republican colleagues are chastised for not getting this done in the House, you have attempted to get it done on numerous occasions. If we look back at the last decade, by the numbers, votes on ANWR exploration: House Republicans, 91 percent support it; House Democrats, 86 percent opposed.

Coal-to-liquid: House Republicans, 97 percent support it; House Democrats, 78 percent opposed. Oil shale exploration: House Republicans, 90 percent supported every vote on that in the House; House Democrats, 86 percent opposed.

Moving to the Outer Continental Shelf exploration, where right now foreign countries like Japan, China and Mexico are within 44-50 miles of our shores, and they are drilling and taking out natural gas and oil. On these votes, House Republicans, 81 percent support it; House Democrats, 83 percent opposed.

And then finally, refinery increased capacity, and now that we're offering the ``no-more-excuses'' Energy Act, the opportunity to put them on abandoned military facilities, government lands, House Republicans, 97 percent support it; House Democrats, 96 percent opposed.

Who is willing to take action? Who has evidenced that by their votes in this great body, this House of Representatives? Republicans, 91 percent, when you put it all together, of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas while 86 percent of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

And so why do we see an ``energy-less'' energy bill that you talked about that gives incentives for bicycle riding and not energy? I think we have to say it's a leadership problem. So I thank you for bringing up those points.

Congressman Upton, from my home State of Michigan, I want to turn it over to you as well for a little perspective.

As long as my colleagues don't yield and sing them the theme song.

If my colleague could yield just a moment here on one point that ties into that. We heard yesterday from one of our Senate colleagues from a northern State, a northeastern State, say that what we ought to do is buy one million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. That would reduce the cost at the pump by about 50 cents. Well 50 cents right now would be great. But why not take that from ANWR? We can get one million barrels per day from ANWR right now, we are told, at least that, if we are to take it from there, and not have to buy it from any other foreign country, have it shipped to us from any other foreign country, and use it exactly like you said down here to make this great country run on its own fuel as opposed to buying from someplace else.

I thank you for that and the points you make so clear.

I would like to yield back for a moment to my good friend from Georgia, since we have two Michiganders here and two Georgians now speaking, Dr. Paul Broun, for some additional comments, I know you have a point to make, before I go on to my good friend from Oklahoma.

Congressman Broun, you point out the fact that we have all sorts of energy sources. And we ought to be using them and developing them.

I want to move to a good friend, colleague and leader in our conference from Oklahoma. Congressman Cole, I appreciate your joining us tonight. I know you have taken some ribbing already about Oklahoma. I know you can handle it, but certainly I know our people would like to hear what you have to say about this issue.

I thank you for sharing that history. It is a good point to know what has been attempted and what hasn't been accomplished. But it would also give the opportunity for our constituents to voice their concerns now with factual information to say there are things you can do. Now get it done.

In the time remaining, I would like to turn a portion of that over to my good friend and colleague from Texas, bringing the southern States in now, Congressman Randy Neugebauer.

I thank my good friend and colleague from Texas for ending it on a point that is poignant, that reminds us what this really costs. I wish we could go on and on tonight to bring out more points like this. This is critical. It is a security issue, as well as a point of life, and you made it very clear. I don't want to write a check for $170 million to Hugo Chavez. Let's get it done.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me this time to discuss the proposed rule for consideration of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.

I rise in opposition to this so-called structured rule which makes in order no Republican amendments and the only amendment that it does allow is a Democrat manager's amendment, and to this legislation, which would provide government bureaucrats with benefits in excess of what four out of five hardworking private sector employees enjoy.

I disagree with the gentleman from Massachusetts, I think Federal Government work is very important to this country, but I believe that we do not need to extend benefits, to further ask for or to make ourselves available to as an incentive for hardworking people to come to work for the Federal Government. Thus, Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, as the father of two children, one of whom is a person with Down's syndrome and whose birth was more medically complicated than most children's, I understand the importance of families and their ability to deal with their problems. I return home each week to Dallas, Texas, after votes to be with my family, and families are important. I, like every other Member, understand the importance of family and how strong families are important to our country.

The question is not whether Congress should support families, but whether it makes sense when so many American families are already struggling with the high price of gas and other economic concerns to increase their tax burden to pay for this increased paid time off from work, especially in light of the fact that Federal workers don't really seem to need it or even be asking for it.

Currently, Federal Government employees between the ages of 20 and 45, those employees most likely to take advantage of this benefit expansion, have an average combined leave of over 7 weeks a year. But for even those workers with the least amount of Federal service, between 1 and 2 years, this program is duplicative because on average they already have a balance of 3.4 weeks of combined leave already at their disposal.

These generous paid leave policies already in place are why 88 percent of the 221,000 respondents to the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey described themselves as ``very satisfied'' or ``satisfied'' with their paid leave for illness, including family care situations, for example what is talked about in this bill, childbirth, adoption or elderly care, and less than 5 percent described themselves as dissatisfied in any way.

What a shame we are trying to give away a benefit that taxpayers are going to pay for when it is not needed, and most of all, not even asked for.

Of course, creating this new, extra paid leave perk following the birth, adoption or fostering of a child, and include a provision that would allow the Office of Personnel Management to double the amount of paid leave to a total of 8 weeks, comes at a high cost. By the way, that 8 weeks may be asked for with no excuse or no reason necessary at all, simply by requesting it.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this new benefit in search of a problem would cost $850 million over 5 years. Pretty tough for a new majority that thinks that they want to have pay-as-you-go rules when now we are going to add a new $850 million worth of cost.

Madam Speaker, at a time when the average hardworking American families are already struggling and working more hours to fill their tanks because of this Democrat Congress's refusal to do anything constructive to address the high cost of energy, I don't believe it is appropriate for Congress to increase the paid leave of Federal bureaucrats beyond their already generous levels, and using taxpayer dollars.

As an alternative to today's legislation, the administration has proposed a fiscally responsible but functionally similar program: short-term disability insurance which would assist employees who need to use large amounts of time due to pregnancy, recovering from childbirth, accident or illness.

Because the majority of Federal employees, almost 60 percent, are not within the standard childbearing age, this proposal would be a better and more efficient fit for both employees and for the taxpayer and the Federal Government in dealing with the needs and costs associated with employees that need an extended period of time away for a number of reasons.

By providing Federal agencies with additional benefits that better meet the needs of the 21st century worker, the administration's short- term disability insurance proposal would safeguard Federal employees during a period of temporary inability to perform normal occupational duties while also safeguarding the pockets of the American taxpayer.

Despite the Office of Personnel Management providing this commonsense legislation proposal to Speaker Pelosi on March 4, 2008, today this Democrat-run House will only have the opportunity to vote on one functionally closed rule and the underlying legislation, with all of the other good ideas provided by Republicans completely shut out on this debate.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against this rule and the egregious underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate the gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts' characterization of Republicans wrecking the economy and all these things, negative things that the Republicans have done at the expense of the American taxpayer.

And yet I think that the American public understands who balanced the budget back in 1997. It was the Republican-led Congress. It was the American people who said we ought to balance the budget.

When I first came to Congress some 12 years ago, I did this under the pretext of balancing the budget and, secondly, growing the economy, growing the economy through the creation of new jobs.

So how well did Republicans do? Let's see. Balanced the budget in 1997 because we forced it; 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. In 2001 this country was struck by terrorists. That's right. We've not balanced the budget since. But what we have done during that period of time is created economic opportunity, economic opportunity for millions of Americans, created 5.3 million new jobs. That was the free enterprise system that did that, but it was done through the policies of this body, lowering taxes, giving working families more money back home, taking 5 million people completely off the tax rolls so they could take care of themselves.

And now, here today what we see is a bigger government, a government that will cost almost a billion dollars more as a result of what we're doing here.

So it's amazing to see how my good friends on the other side come and talk about how irresponsible we were, and yet, what we've done, when Republicans led, was to create new jobs in this country, to make sure that we grew our economy.

I see nothing, nothing in the Democratic budget or the bills that they've passed that have created new jobs. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts referred to the Republicans and President Bush wrecking the economy.

In fact, what happened is, you can just look at it directly on a calendar. The day America began having economic problems was the day this new Democrat majority was elected; came in and promised higher taxes, promised the opportunity for a new direction, higher gas prices.

Then what are we told?

We're told by the leaders of the Democratic Party, America, you're going to have to change the way you live your life. This sounds a lot like the mid 1970s when we had President Carter around. We're going to have to change the way you live your life.

Government knows best. That's what we're here on the floor talking about today. Government knows best. We're going to give a group of very faithful Federal employees a new opportunity that will cost almost a billion dollars more to Federal employees. And yet, my colleagues will stand up and talk about Republicans ruining the economy.

Now that's not what ruins the economy. What ruins the economy is bigger government, bigger government, more spending and continuation of the assault on the investor in this country.

So the Republican Party, once again, is in favor of a balanced budget. We're not in favor of wrecking the economy.

The Republican Party is in favor of us allowing drilling to take place in this country. Some of my colleagues this morning talked about, you know, all these millions of acres. Well, there's not oil under all those millions of acres. Trust me. Energy exploration companies will go where the energy is.

And yet, now we're talking about adding almost a billion dollars' worth of new spending on the taxpayers that are already having trouble paying for their own gasoline. And we're going to talk about raising taxes. That is how you ruin the economy. That is how you lose jobs instead of job creation and balancing the budget.

The Republican Party does get it. We do recognize that there are tough times there. I go back every weekend. I've never missed a weekend going back home in 12 years. I do get it. I see people at the grocery store. I know how much the cost of a gallon of gasoline is. I'm not sure all the leaders of this House of Representatives do know that.

So we ought to be working to find ways to reduce cost, to make government more efficient, not to find a way to add overhead. Unfortunately, that's what this new Democrat majority is all about; raising taxes, more rules and regulation, making government more powerful by, in this instance, giving Federal employees who don't even ask for it, want it or need it, more time off, and have the taxpayer pay for it.

Madam Speaker, I do disagree with the legislation. And I will tell you that I think the American public, as they learn more about it during this debate, will come to the same conclusion.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I do not have any additional speakers other than myself.

Madam Speaker, I think what we have talked about today is an opportunity where the Republican Party presented an alternative to Speaker Pelosi, an alternative based upon a perception of a problem by the Democrat majority.

President Bush, last March, came to the table and said, let's use a free market approach that does allow families the opportunity, when they need time, to have that time and to utilize it. But let's let those individual families make their own decision, based upon disability insurance.

I understood a long time ago, from my previous job, when I had a very large team size of people that I worked with, that really, the American worker, at least where I was, was satisfied that they had a job and earned enough money to put food on the table, but also competed for family time and they needed time at home. That I understand.

But I encourage that in terms of being able to take time off. And having unpaid leave through a disability insurance program, is the right way to do this. So the Republican Party, through the President of the United States, brought this to Speaker Pelosi.

Instead, what we got was a billion-dollar answer to the taxpayer, a billion dollars more of spending, a billion dollars more of having the taxpayer have to pay things, and a billion dollars more, so the Republican Party comes to the table and says, why don't we try and balance our budget, rather than making government bigger and spending more money?

That's what we're doing here today. We are politely coming to the table in this constitutional body and saying, we disagree.

Since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has totally been negligent in its responsibility to do anything constructive to address the domestic supply issues that have created the biggest problem that we have in America today, and that is energy and the cost of energy. Skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs are facing the American public today big time back home.

Meanwhile, we find that the Congress is trying to spend another billion dollars.

So today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to the energy costs.

If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 2279, which would expand the American refinery capacity on closed military installations. That's right. We're suggesting that we will use Federal installations that have closed to have a better way to make sure that we have more gasoline available.

This bill was introduced by my dear friend, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, way

back in May of 2007, over a year ago. See, Republicans saw it a year ago as a problem, and came to the table with answers and questions about what we can do.

This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process, and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of setting new and providing new, reliable American refineries.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to take a second look, to become a student, just as we're asking the American public, to look at who really is trying to address the issue of the cost of energy. We're asking the American public to look into, and to see who's really getting gouged. Who really is getting gouged?

And it's families back home. It's businesses that are trying to provide services. It is our airlines that are trying to make sure that we keep this economy going.

And what do we hear back from Washington, DC? Let's sue OPEC. Let's tax Big Oil. Let's stick it to Big Oil.

Well, in fact, what we ought to be saying is that energy companies are our friends. Energy companies need to and want to supply cost- effective and reliable opportunities for the American public to have gasoline without long lines.

What are the energy companies saying? They're saying, Please give us the opportunity to go where there is oil or the perception that there's oil and go looking for it and provide it to the American public. It's American security. It is the opportunity for America to be able to use its own resources.

Is this the final answer? Heck no. That's not the final answer. What we're trying to do is bridge us through this until the technologies of, as we know, the battery-operated car and other technologies are coming to fruition, but in the meantime, we should not be spending our hundreds of billions of dollars that this Democrat majority is allowing to happen because they're cutting off American energy to go overseas to keep building Dubai and the next cities and countries that are after that off American money.

Madam Speaker, I really believe that the American public, when they understand, because they will become students of this issue, they will see that the opportunities for American energy, American security, American independence, and American jobs are what are on the line. And then they will look up and know that there's very consistent behavior. They will know which group of people in Washington, DC is really for them.

Today, we see where that same group of people, the United States Congress, is going to come together and say who is going to add another billion dollars to the price tag of running government, who is the same party that cuts off and won't even accept the good ideas of allowing more drilling here in the United States for American security. They're going to draw a conclusion. And that conclusion is going to be, they're going to see which group of people has the best ideas to empower job growth and investment in this country.

Who are the people that really are aiming at balancing our budget? Who is the group of people that are trying to do every single thing that we can to protect this country? Madam Speaker, that is the Republican Party. The Republican Party is trying to make sure that the taxpayer of this country does not pay higher taxes. The Republican Party is trying to make sure that we have enough energy, American energy, available for consumers of this country. And we are standing up today saying we do not believe adding almost a billion dollars worth of new spending for Federal employee benefits is the right thing to do right now.

So we're going to ask that our Members vote against this bill. We're going to ask that we do something by voting against this bill and voting for the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6184) to provide for a program for circulating quarter dollar coins that are emblematic of a national park or other national site in each State, the District of Columbia, and each territory of the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all that Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and insert any extraneous material as they so wish.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6184, America's Beautiful National Parks Quarter Dollar Coin Act, introduced by my good friend and colleague from Delaware, Congressman Castle.

I have had the great pleasure to work with Mr. Castle on several coin bills of this nature in the past, the very successful State quarters and most recently the Presidential dollars. I am proud to be the Democratic lead sponsor of this bill, and I am happy to report that it has strong bipartisan support, as shown by the fact that it passed out of the Financial Services Committee on a unanimous vote in support.

I want to thank Congressman Castle for all of his hard work on this legislation, as well as Chairman Frank for his support, and the support of the staff of the Financial Services Committee and our individual staffs for their hard work on this bill. Of course, all of us love our national parks, and especially those of our home State, which will be honored on each of these coins.

Beginning in 2010, new quarters will bear a design representing a national park or site in each State and the District of Columbia at the rate of 5 new designs a year. The sites will be selected at the beginning of the process by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the States, and the coins will be minted in the order in which the sites selected were established as national sites, which I think is a very clever touch.

As a former teacher and educator, I am always excited about the new designs on everyday coins because they encourage more Americans of all ages to pay attention to the coins in your pockets and learn a few facts about what is depicted. I can say of the very successful State quarter program, it became a very popular teaching tool. Many teachers devised lesson plans around the quarters, and many of my constituents collected these coins. My own daughter had a book with each of the quarters in it; and many people would ask me, when is the next quarter coming out? And because it was so successful, the 50 State quarter program raised $6.2 billion over the past 10 years of its life span which is just ending this year. And we can hope that we will have similar results from this series of coins.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. It is an education tool. It also will generate needed revenues for our Treasury.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my dear friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle who has attacked the Speaker of this House really unfairly and with false statements.

The point is and the reality is that we have two oil men in the White House and their policies are the ones that have benefited Big Oil and hurt the American consumer. Now under the leadership of the Democratic Speaker and the New Direction Congress, we have been passing solutions for the first time to help American consumers and to help this country move into the 21st century with policies that are important for conserving energy, renewable energy, efficient technologies, and reducing energy prices for the long run.

No, I will not yield. I have my time; you had yours.

First of all what, the New Direction Congress passed was the first new vehicle fuel-efficiency standards in 32 years. We also passed an historic commitment to affordable American-grown biofuels. If the other side of the aisle was interested in moving us into the 21st century and conserving energy, why in the world didn't they pass new vehicle fuel- efficiency standards? We passed it. This Congress passed it. The Democrats passed it, and are forcing the car builders and others to move in with fuel-efficient standards.

We also took action to lower gas prices by suspending oil purchasing for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. These are very important initiatives.

Now the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, my very good friend, talked about the need to build new refineries. Well, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell have publicly stated that they have no plans to build new refineries; instead, they prefer to expand existing facilities. These are their statements. Shell and BP all testified that they were unaware of any environmental regulations preventing them from building new refineries or expanding old ones. They can do that now.

Internal memos from oil companies make it very clear that oil companies decided that they needed to reduce refinery capacity to drive up their profits. And the New Direction Congress is

continuing to bring real relief to those feeling the pinch of the high gas and diesel prices, and ensuring the needs of families and businesses are put before the interests of Big Oil companies.

Now my dear friend on the other side of the aisle talks about drilling, drilling, drilling, drilling, as if we could drill ourselves out of the challenges we face.

The fact is that there are over 68 million acres on shore and offshore in the United States of America that are currently leased by oil companies and they are open to drilling and actually under a lease to do so but are not developed. Now we are talking about leases on 68 million acres of land that is owned by the American people. Now what Chairman Rahall says is use it or lose it, and I think he is absolutely correct. I support his bill, to say that you either drill on those 68 million acres or you give up your lease and let someone else drill there. That's what the Democrats are saying. We are not going to hand out more leases to the oil companies on public land that is owned by the public and is the land and the reserves of this country. We are saying to them if you have a lease, you use that lease. You drill. You're not going to get another one. And if you're not going to drill, then let's put it out for competitive bid and let someone else come forward and drill on that land.

The fact is that 80 percent of the oil available on the Outer Continental Shelf is in regions that are already open to leasing, but the oil companies haven't decided if it is worth their time to drill there. The fact is that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge wouldn't yield any oil for 10 years, and then would only save the customer, the consumer, 1.8 cents per gallon in 2025. The fact is that America uses a quarter of the world's oil consumption every day, but only 1.6 percent of the world's supply, so there is simply no way to drill ourselves to a solution.

I repeat, while my colleagues were running this body, where were their solutions? I didn't see any. I didn't see them raising the mile per gallon of gas, I didn't see them conserving. I didn't see them investing in biofuels or moving forward with innovative energy solutions, as this new Democratic leadership has been doing. They have just held onto the failed policies of the past which have gotten us to where we are. As I repeat, we have two oil men in the White House that have been behind these policies.

So I would say that the Democratic leadership has done a great deal to help the American consumer. They are facing many challenges. Their wages are stagnant. The price of gasoline is now over $4 a gallon. The price of milk is over $4 a gallon. So they are facing really inflation and many, many challenges.

The Democratic leadership has come forward with a stimulus package to help the American taxpayer, the American citizen. We have come forward with a fuel-efficiency standard. We have come forward with many hearings today on the possible manipulation of oil in the futures market so that we can curb those abuses if they are documented. We are for drilling on the 68 million acres that are currently under contract and should be drilled on.

So this Congress, I congratulate the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats and the relevant committees. We have passed legislation, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act. We have passed the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act. We have passed the Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act which will provide consumer relief by giving the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate and punish those who artificially inflate energy prices. President Bush has threatened a veto of this very commonsense consumer protection measure.

So I say with all due respect to my wonderful colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle, where were your ideas when you could pass them? Where are your ideas now? The ones that we are passing that helps the consumer and moves this country into the 21st century, and that makes a profitable use of land that is owned by the American people instead of giving more, and in many cases in a no-bid process to oil companies who are just sitting on it and not doing anything to help the American consumer.

So I would say you brought it up, so I am just responding to some of your allegations.

I feel this is such an important issue that I would like to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the great State of New York, Congressman Serrano, on H.R. 6184, and I thank him for his leadership on this important bill.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman for his statement. He has been a strong advocate for the Territories. He raises and highlights an important point that the Territories are included, and I appreciate his recognizing the many contributions from the citizens of Puerto Rico and other Territories to our great country.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to support this creative bill that is before us. I hope that it passes unanimously and moves to the Senate with swift passage.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I do object. We have a system. We have gone through it, and I feel we should move to a vote.

If the gentleman feels so strongly about it, he has worked so hard on this bill, it's a successful bill, and we hope to have another successful bill, so I will allow the gentleman to reclaim his time.

I would inquire how much time remains on both sides, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for reciprocity. If he is reclaiming his time, then I would like to reclaim my time.

I do ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

The gentlewoman has no further speakers, but I wonder if the gentleman on the other side of the aisle yields back his time.

Just to respond to my dear friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, I'm very appreciative that you're supportive of the bill before us, but I want to point out that there is nothing in this bill that would in any way prevent drilling. In fact, they can drill now on 68 million acres of land on which they have a lease.

And we did have a vote, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not support the vote that would compel the oil industry to start drilling or lose permits on this 68 million acres of undeveloped Federal oil reserves which they are currently warehousing and keeping domestic supply lower and prices higher. I believe that's a very balanced premarket approach. Use it or lose it. Let someone else drill there.

And industry is only using a fraction of its leases now. And refining is not an issue. Refineries are running below capacity.

But we have enacted in law, past laws, that are laws now, the Energy Independence and Security Act. This historic Act would increase vehicle fuel efficiency to 35 miles per gallon, and this is the first congressional increase in more than three decades. And this would be very helpful.

And I'd like to place into the Record an entire list of laws that have been enacted by this Democratic leadership, laws that are coming up to be considered, including cracking down on price gouging, and legislation that the House has passed and we're waiting for the Senate to act on: the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act, the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act, the Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act. These are all important concrete steps, not rhetoric, but concrete steps to help consumers.

New Direction Legislation

Enacted into Law

Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007--Historic

energy legislation with provisions to combat oil market

manipulation, increase vehicle fuel efficiency to 35 miles

per gallon in 2020--the first Congressional increase in more

than three decades--and promote the use of American biofuels.

Signed into law, December 19, 2007.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer

Protection Act--Temporarily suspends the filling of the SPR,

starting June 30th, to put more oil on the market to help

drive down gasoline prices. Signed into law, May 19, 2008.

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008--The new Farm

Bill makes an historic commitment to more affordable American

biofuels and increases Commodity Futures Trading Commission

(CFTC) oversight authority to detect and prevent manipulation

of energy prices. President Bush vetoed this bill, but the

Congress overrode that veto.

Recent and Upcoming Legislation

Reducing Transit Fares (H.R. 6052)--Gives grants to mass

transit authorities to lower fares for commuters pinched at

the pump and expand transit services.

Cracking Down on Price Gouging (H.R. 6346)--Gives

enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission to

investigate and punish those who artificially inflate fuel

prices.

``Use It Or Lose It'' for Oil Companies Holding Permits and

Not Drilling--Compels the oil industry to start drilling or

lose permits on the 68 million acres of undeveloped federal

oil reserves which they are currently warehousing, keeping

domestic supply lower and prices higher.

Further Close the ``Enron Loophole'' for Petroleum

Markets--Takes steps to curb excessive speculation in the

energy futures markets, which experts have noted is driving

up the price of a barrel of oil.

Legislation that the house has passed

Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act--Extends and expands

tax incentives for renewable energy (including incentives for

plug-in vehicles), retains and creates hundreds of thousands

of green jobs, spurs American innovation and business

investment, and cuts taxes for millions of Americans. The

President has threatened a veto.

The Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act--Combats record gas

prices by authorizing lawsuits against oil cartel members for

price fixing, and creating an Antitrust Task Force to crack

down on anticompetitive behavior or market manipulation.

President Bush has threatened a veto.

Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act--This bill will provide

consumer relief by giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

the authority to investigate and punish those who

artificially inflate energy prices. President Bush has

threatened a veto.

I'd like to remind my dear colleagues on the other side of the aisle that when President Bush came to office he had a $5 trillion projected surplus. We now

have a series of records that have been given to us by the Republican leadership, only they are the wrong kinds of records.

We have record debt that is galloping towards $9 trillion. Each and every American owes over $30,000 to this debt. We have the largest trade deficit in the history of this country, over $900 billion, and we have the largest deficit in the history of this country. We have lost more jobs in the first half of this year than have been lost since the Great Depression, and if we continue at this rate, we will lose over 1 million jobs in this year.

Now, that is the record of the Republican leadership. But what is before us is a very important bill, one that I support, one that I urge my colleagues to support. And I urge my colleagues to support consideration of H.R. 6184, and I hope that we will have a bipartisan commitment to passing this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1276 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1276.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

House Resolution 1276 provides for consideration of H.R. 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

The rule makes in order two amendments that were submitted for consideration and are printed in the Rules Committee report, including a bipartisan manager's amendment. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The bill before us today, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, responds to an urgent need to protect our Nation's vulnerable children. An estimated 20 to 30,000 U.S. teenagers attend private residential programs, including therapeutic boarding schools, wilderness camps, boot camps, and behavioral modification facilities. These residential facilities are intended to help treat children with behavioral, emotional or mental health problems.

However, many of these facilities are loosely regulated, if they are even regulated at all. As a result, some of the very facilities that are supposed to be providing a safe environment for our Nation's vulnerable children have, instead, provided us with some of the most shocking accounts of child abuse and neglect we have ever been witness to.

A comprehensive report by the Government Accountability Office recently uncovered thousands of allegations of child abuse and neglect at private residential programs for teens. Tragically, in a number of these cases, this abuse and neglect led to the child's death.

I won't describe the horrifying stories, but I will say that they go far beyond simple maltreatment. The stories are deplorable. They are inexcusable, and they are inhumane.

This bill, H.R. 5876, will keep children safe by imposing new national standards for residential treatment programs. These standards include prohibitions on denying children food, water, clothing, shelter or medical care for any reason, including as a form of punishment.

The bill upholds core moral values by specifically prohibiting programs from engaging in practices that physically, sexually or mentally abuse or torment children in their care.

It requires programs to train staff in understanding what constitutes child abuse and neglect and how to report it, and it requires programs to have emergency medical care plans in place.

The bill also includes several other provisions, such as requiring programs to disclose to parents the qualifications of staff, notifying parents of substantiated reports of abuse, and providing grant money to States if they develop their own standards that are at least as strong as the national ones.

On a personal note, I would like to say that my wife, Kathie, and I are proud parents of three children, two of which we adopted from foster care. I can tell you from my own personal experience that nothing is more important to a child's life than having a secure home.

No child should ever be subject to abuse or neglect, especially when in the care of those who are supposed to be providing treatment.

I commend Chairman Miller for his tireless efforts on behalf of our Nation's children. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that my colleague from Florida has been a true champion on behalf of the pro- democracy forces in Cuba; that certainly I join him in denouncing any of the horrible acts that he described today, and I praise the emotion and spirit with which he brings his fight towards democracy in Cuba to the floor. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

But I will tell you, however much I praise his efforts there, with regard to the seven amendments that he talked about, the seven Republican amendments submitted in the Rules Committee, they were disposed of in I believe a very fair and equitable manner.

Two were withdrawn by the authors. One was addressed in the manager's amendment. The amendment of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) was addressed in the manager's amendment. Two amendments amended portions of the bill that were deleted by the manager's amendment and thus are moot; and two dealt with earmarks that are not in the bill. So frankly, all of the amendments were dealt with in a fair and evenhanded manner. I believe this truly is a bipartisan bill.

It is with that spirit, Madam Speaker, that I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), the chairman of the Healthy Families Subcommittee and a champion for children.

Madam Speaker, I have one additional speaker at this time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee and a true champion for children in this House.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I am the final speaker on my side of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I'd like to remind my friend and colleague from Florida that it has been the other body, the Republicans in the other body and the White House who have stymied the Democratic efforts to actually reduce gas prices and provide alternative energy for this country. Certainly, it is a problem, and certainly, the American people are very frustrated at paying $4 or more, in my State it's much more for a gallon of gas. But had we at least moved in a new direction, we could be heading in that direction. But we have been totally stymied by the White House and the Senate on these questions.

Madam Speaker, today's bill deals with children, and there is an urgent problem in many residential treatment facilities that have gone unchecked for far too long and must be addressed. H.R. 5876 will go a long way towards ensuring the safety of our Nation's children who depend on these treatment facilities.

Again, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation to protect our kids in these treatment facilities.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1276 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2279) to expedite the

construction of new refining capacity on closed military

installations in the United States. All points of order

against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and any amendment thereto to find passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the

chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed

Services; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute

if offered by Representative Dingell of Michigan or

Representative Skelton of Missouri, which shall be considered

as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-llinois) said: ``The

previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New

York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to

him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 1091th Congress,

(page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule

using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools

for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and

allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer

an alternative plan.

Madam Speaker, I yield back my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.