Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008

Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

We're going to spend our hour tonight on behalf of the minority party talking about energy, once again. This is the most pressing concern, I think, of our Nation right now in these tough economic times.

But before I get started, I want to join with my colleagues, my Democratic colleagues, and pay tribute, Mr. Speaker, to Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the gentlewoman from Ohio. I guess you can say that everything's been said that needs to be said, but not everybody has had an opportunity to say it. I can't improve upon the kind words that we've heard here over the last hour in regard to her life and what a great person she was.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention one thing that I thought about a lot after hearing of her untimely and sad passing. She is the second member, Mr. Speaker, of the Ohio delegation to die in office during this 110th Congress. The first was a member on our side of the aisle-- again, very loved and respected--Paul Gillmor. Just like Ms. Jones, like Representative Jones, as bipartisan whenever he could be, as she was.

And I went to his funeral in Columbus, Ohio, the great capital of Ohio. And the eulogies that were offered on behalf of Representative Gillmor, the very first one, Mr. Speaker, was offered by Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones. And it was very touching, very loving. You know, it's a sad thing, of course, her passing. But God has His plan, and we have our plans, but His plan takes precedent over everything we do.

But she was a great Member of this body, and I join my colleagues in expressing my sincere sympathy to the family.

Mr. Speaker, we are here finally back in session after a long 5-week absence, the so-called August recess. And, Mr. Speaker, I think you and all of my colleagues know that many Republican Members--we asked our Democratic colleagues to join us on this floor during the recess--in fact I think some 134 Republican Members--that's not 100 percent on our side, but it's getting darn close to 80, 85 percent--Members came back, some several days, took a break away from their families, from their constituents in this traditional August recess to come back here and say, you know, we really should not be at home. We should not be in our districts no matter how important the work there is. It's very important. Certainly, there is some politicking going on during election season.

But I think, Mr. Speaker, most of my constituents told me, and I'm sure every Member of this body, that you need to get back up there and do the people's work. We're suffering, we're struggling with these high gas prices; our kids are going to be going back to school in a couple of weeks and the school bus is probably not going to be running, and it's a safety issue. And some school districts across the country are talking about cutting back to a 4-day school week. It's one thing for a 4-day work week, but a 4-day school week for our youngsters . . .

So we were talking about that every day. Every day we had anywhere from 5 to 15 Republican Members in this Chamber.

Now, the lights were dim, the air-conditioning was either too cold or it was too hot, the C-SPAN cameras were not running. These microphones--I'm hoarse today Mr. Speaker, because of straining my voice during that time. But it was an absolute wonderful experience.

All of the people that were visiting the Nation's Capitol, their Capitol, the people's House, during that time, during those 5 weeks, we asked them if they wanted to come and have a unique opportunity to sit in our seats right here in this Chamber. Rarely do they get the chance to do that. It's not like sitting in the gallery. To actually come down and sit in the seats where the Members sit and debate and vote.

And this Chamber was virtually full many of those days, a lot of times three-fourths full, half full. But untold numbers of American citizens had an opportunity. And they were not just Republicans, Mr. Speaker. They were Democrats, they were independents, they were voters. They were people that enjoyed listening to this discussion about the crisis that we're in and what, at least on our side of the aisle, we felt need to be done.

We talked at length about the American Energy Act, the bill that was introduced by minority leader John Boehner of the great State of Ohio. Leader Boehner introduced the American Energy Act probably 2\1/2\ months ago, in fact. And it languished wherever it went to, probably the Energy and Commerce Committee, and never saw the light of day. And that bill, Mr. Speaker, is the all-of-the-above Energy Act. Yes, the cornerstone of the bill is to drill, to drill here in the United States or off of its Outer Continental Shelf, to drill now so that we lower these gas prices and get some relief to the great people of this country who are struggling so much right now economically. And yet the bill never had an opportunity to see the light of day.

I have got a number of posters, Mr. Speaker, that I want to refer to, and I'm going to put that on the easel here for a minute so my colleagues can join with me in understanding some of the issues.

Well, the first poster says, ``Nancy Pelosi, we're here and where are you?'' Well guess what, my colleagues. She's back. She's back. But it took 5 weeks to get her back, and during the time that we were begging her to come back and call this Congress into a special session, she had the power to do that.

Madam Speaker was out, among other things, promoting her new book, ``Know Your Power.'' I'm sure Madam Speaker was referring to the power of a woman, and I think that's a good thing. I have three daughters and four grand-daughters, and I hope one day that they will have an opportunity to achieve what Madam Speaker's achieved. They obviously won't be the first female Speaker in the history of this country because she has that title now, but know her power, the power to convene the Congress and pass legislation. She, and only she, could do that, and yet she refused to come back even for a few days, even maybe for a week. She would still, as would the rest of us, have 4 weeks to work in our districts or go on vacation or whatever during that August recess.

The ironic thing, Mr. Speaker, about this is Ms. Pelosi said in the elections of 2006--gee, it's been almost 2 years ago when the Democratic Party was the minority party. She said that, you know, this do-nothing Congress, these do-nothing Republicans, we need to replace them, and among other things, of course, she said that bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. Now, that is a direct quote by Speaker Pelosi back in 2006.

Well, she has already pretty much said that any energy bill, Mr. Speaker, that comes to the floor is going to be basically with a closed rule. We, in the minority, are not going to have an opportunity to amend, and it's not going to look anything like the American Energy Act, the All-of-the-Above Act, which allows not just drilling here, drilling now, but it includes so many other things that we'll speak about during this hour.

But before I go on, I wanted to take the opportunity--two of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and I hope maybe some others will join us later in the hour, but the first colleague is the gentleman from Florida, and he should know a lot, a lot indeed, about the Outer Continental Shelf and what is being done and what's not being done. I yield at this time to my colleague from Florida, the honorable Ric Keller.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman from Florida being with us tonight, and I thank him for that very intelligent discussion of ANWR and some of the statistics that he presented to us.

Mr. Speaker, the 1.5 million barrels a day that Representative Keller was talking about is not an insignificant amount of oil, and if you add that to 2.5 million barrels a day that we could be getting from the Outer Continental Shelf and another 2.5 million barrels a day that we could be extracting from the shale out in the Midwest, those five Rocky Mountain States, you would have a doubling of the amount of domestic production of oil. We would go from 7 million barrels a day to about 14 million barrels a day, and of course, you know, right now we're importing 60 percent of what we use. So his discussion is very pertinent and very timely.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I was talking about what our current Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, some of the quotes that she made back in 2006, and I want to share in this poster a few more with you. She said then, This leadership team will create the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history. Now, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that November 16, 2006.

This is now, a recent quote. When we asked for an opportunity to have regular order on an energy bill coming through the Energy and Commerce Committee, a bill that was marked up by both Democrats and Republicans, majority and minority, and that would go through the amendment process and that maybe even some amendments submitted to the Rules Committee would be made in order so that we could have a fair and open discussion, when she was questioned about that, when reference to a quote back in 2006, Ms. Pelosi said, and this is a quote, I'm not giving the gavel to them. They will have to use their imagination as to

how they can get a vote. Speaker Pelosi said that on August 3, 2008. I guess kind of like she's using her imagination to lower energy prices.

And I think my next colleague who is going to speak will talk a little bit about the imagination and what her plan happens to be, but I'll show a couple of more slides before I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) who has been such a strong advocate on this issue.

This is another quote from Ms. Pelosi. This call for drilling in areas that are protected--in other words, the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR that the gentleman from Florida was just talking about--this call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax. It is an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration.

Another quote from Speaker Pelosi, If you don't agree with that, my colleagues, just call (202) 224-3121 and voice your concern about a quote like that.

But listen to this. Look at this quote that Ms. Pelosi, our distinguished Speaker, gave on one of the national news networks a week or so ago when she was asked: ``Why not drill? Why not open up these areas?'' After all, the United States owns this source of fossil fuel, both natural gas and petroleum. Her quote then was: ``I'm trying to save the planet.'' I think she actually banged the table and repeated it. ``I'm trying to save the planet.''

Well, so is this guy Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. His quote was: ``We're better off without cheap oil. We're better off without cheap gas.''

So what they want to do is save the planet, but I fear, Mr. Speaker, that in the process they'll be destroying this country.

With that, I am going to yield to my distinguished colleague from North Carolina, a champion who has been back on this floor for most of the August recess, not just for a day or two. In fact, she led the Republicans on several occasions, and she does such a great job. At this time, I'm honored to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx.

Would the gentlelady yield for just one comment on that before you continue?

Representative Foxx, you requoted what the gentleman from the Sierra Club said. Again, he said, ``We're better off without cheap gas.''

Also, I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the Senate, the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, said fossil fuel is poison, that fossil fuel is poison and that we need to completely rid ourselves of that by, I think, the year 2012. So I just wanted to point that out.

I yield back to the gentlewoman.

In reclaiming my time just for a second before yielding back to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, what she is talking about, Mr. Speaker, is an energy trust fund that could be, as she pointed out, obtained from royalties that the Federal Government gets from the oil companies--Big Oil, the Democrats use that pejorative constantly--but they would have to pay significant royalties to the Federal Government, which, as Ms. Foxx pointed out, would be put in a trust fund to have grants for research and development for alternative sources such as wind and solar and other things.

I'll continue to yield to the gentlewoman.

I want to thank again the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who did a wonderful job, I think, of explaining what has not been going on in this body.

And I think it's important for the American people to understand something. When the Democratic minority back in the 2006 election cycle, Mr. Speaker, when they were campaigning--this is campaign season now; so 2 years ago they were in the minority and talked about the ``do-nothing,'' ``do-nothing'' Republican majority and made statements such as, well, they are only here 3 days a week, only here in Washington doing the people's business, passing laws that need to be passed, these Republicans, these ``lazy'' Republicans was the characterization, Mr. Speaker, of the then Republican majority. They are only up here 3 days a week, not doing anything, not doing the people's work, and when we get the majority, we promise to do the people's work. And indeed, Mr. Speaker, you weren't here at that particular time,

but the statement was we will go to a 5-day work week like everybody else across America, and, indeed, some people work 6 and 7 days a week and they have two jobs, not one. So this idea of coming and doing the people's work, that sounded good to me. I liked that.

Now, keep in mind what has happened since the Democrats have gained the majority. The people gave them that confidence, gave them that trust and said okay, that sounds good to us, and they gained the majority. Well, what have they done? Well, let me just say that we are now back in session here in September, the second week in September. And we are going to be here, including today, and this day is almost gone, it's 10:30 at night--Mr. Speaker, we are going to be here 15 days. Now, we are going to be here 15 days. Maybe it will turn out to be 12 or 10. But the Democratic majority says that we are going to be 15 days, 5 days this week, 5 days next week, and 5 days the following week. Ladies and gentlemen, that's 15 days out of 5 months.

Remember now, the whole month of August and the first week in September, we were on recess, and the Democratic majority, Mr. Speaker, has already emphatically said that we want our Members to go home and be in their districts and campaign for re-election or whatever and we are not coming back until the next Congress, until the 111th Congress in January after the new President is inaugurated. I mean it's just unbelievable.

Now think about it. Mr. Speaker, if the American public were watching our proceedings tonight and they heard what I'm saying to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 15 days in 5 months, that's deplorable. If that's what we are going to do, if that's what we have resorted to in this Congress, then this ought to be a part-time job. This shouldn't be a full-time job. That's fine with me. If you want to make it a part- time job, I will go back home and start delivering babies again 6 months out of the year.

But let me just use a word that I think most of my colleagues understand: This is the height of mendacity. This is the height of hypocrisy to make that kind of promise and then not deliver to the American people. Ms. Foxx talked about it, Representative Foxx, Representative Keller.

And Representative Keller is still with us, and I would be happy to yield to him for further thoughts or comments that he may have on this issue. We only have about 10 minutes left, but let me yield back to my friend from Florida.

I thank my colleague and friend from Florida.

As I was saying, of course, Mr. Speaker, 15 days in the last 5 months, and you look at the schedule for this week, and there is unbelievably nothing, nothing on the agenda that has anything to do with energy.

We are going to have two bills, one I guess on Thursday and one on Friday or maybe Wednesday and Thursday. One of them is the No Child Left Inside Act of 2008 to reauthorize the National Environmental Education Act to help improve the quality of environmental education for primary and secondary school students. And then if you think that one's important, H.R. 3667, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008, authorizes $300,000 for a study of a segment of the Missisquoi River in Vermont for potential designation as Wild and Scenic. Not only does H.R. 3667 not create more American energy, but it might actually prevent future energy exploration along the river like the siting of a liquefied natural gas plant as an example.

And the other 2 days we are doing nothing but suspension bills, and those suspension bills are the ones that you have to have a two-thirds vote. There is little opposition to those bills, and yet they are given 20 minutes of debate on each side, 40 minutes on each of these suspension bills to make it look like we're doing something up here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will say that the Democratic majority has done some things since they took control. In January, 2007, when the price of regular gasoline was $2.22, that date we congratulated the U.S. Santa Barbara soccer team. And then on September 5, when the price of regular had gone to $2.84, that was National Passport Month. February 6, 2008, when the price of regular had gone to $3.03, we were commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team. Then on May 14, 2008, the price of regular $3.77, that was National Train Day. Then on May 20, 2008, regular gasoline $3.84 a gallon, that was Great Cats and Rare Canids Act. Really important. On June 10, 2008, the price of regular $4.09 a gallon, the International Year of Sanitation bill. Really important. And then last but not least, June 17, 2008, when the price of regular had gotten up to $4.14, that was the Monkey Safety Act day. We were doing some things all right. We were really working hard up here.

Well, look, the bottom line is this: We have a bill. The Republicans have a bill. We have a comprehensive bill. Yes, the cornerstone is ``Drill Here, Drill Now.'' But this is the all-of-the-above approach to energy independence, and that's what we have to have, not only for our domestic needs but for the security of this Nation. And I commend our nominee for President, John McCain, and our nominee for Vice President, Sarah Palin, because they understand we need to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf. And we will have a Vice President who is from an energy State and understands the importance of those resources that we own.

So, Mr. Speaker, we want to do things in a bipartisan way. And in closing, I know we are getting very close to that hour, but in closing let me just say this: We can work together. We can work together. I know I spent a lot of time up here railing tonight against Speaker Pelosi, but I respect her. She is the Speaker of this House not just for the Democrats but also for the Republicans. We respect her. We respect the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the distinguished Mr. John Dingell from Michigan.

He knows about this country and its needs. Why can't we get together, Mr. Dingell and Mr. Barton, and let's have a bill that is comprehensive, a little give and take on both sides of the aisle, because it's for the American people, and let's worry more about them than the next election. The next election, Mr. Speaker, will take care of itself. Let the people judge on that.

I am going to tell you, when you go back home I am hearing from my constituents, and I know everybody in this House Chamber is hearing from their

constituents. We can do it. It's time. It's time to do it, and it's time to do it now.

I think it would be unconscionable if we go home 3 weeks from now and we have not done this. I am willing to stay. I am willing to stay, and 134, maybe even 194 Republicans, and hopefully some good, rock solid Democrats will stay with us this time until we get an energy bill done in a comprehensive, bipartisan way.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and it will be quite awhile.

Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are in a 15-day session. We're now one- fifth of the way through our final session before we end. The Democrat leaders, who have set the agenda and run this floor for almost 2 years now, have had 5 weeks in preparation for this day. So the first issue of significance, the only issue we may have this week that has a rule, the most significant piece of

legislation we're talking about today is a study that, if passed, may perhaps someday, if conditions allow and the elements are conducive, possibly create a compromise that would might possibly pass an additional 70 miles being added to the inventory of the national government, and only costing the taxpayers $300,000 to do it. That's what we're doing today.

I would like to make a couple of points about this particular bill, not necessarily in opposition to it. But one point that is significant; we talk a great deal in government about transparency. It's important to government to be transparent. It's good to be transparent--until it deals with how we treat people.

One of the things that the Republican Party has tried to do on almost every bill that has come either to committee or to the floor that deals with a trail, a heritage area, an historic area or a scenic river is to ensure that the people who will be involved in that area are informed up front about what may or may not happen to them. Because once we go to the next step and actually create this wild and scenic river, the Federal Government is given--not in this bill, but is given in the existing powers they have--the right of condemnation of any of that land that will be in that area. They have almost unlimited rights of easement. They always have the ability of dealing with local officials to create zoning ordinances that have a huge impact on the people in those areas.

Almost always these studies are done with small groups. And then citizens will come back to us afterwards and say we were unaware of what was actually happening at this time. The dairy farmers along this river--who may or may not need protection and may or may not be happy and satisfied with what will result to them--may or may not have any idea what will happen as they go through this study.

The first year I was here in Congress I passed a wilderness bill. I made sure that I went to every single property owner in that area that would be impacted by that wilderness bill, even the guy who was dead and had no heirs, which was a neat trick. But we went to every one of them to make sure they were well aware in advance of what was to take place. And yet when we tried to add an amendment, both in committee and once again before the Rules Committee, to make sure that everyone who may be impacted by this new designation and this study was made aware and they had to respond affirmatively that they wished to be part of the study, it was again rejected.

Why do we not treat Americans with respect? We will pass these types of provisions to empower government, but we will not ask the citizens who will be impacted by our decisions to be part of this particular process. It's something that used to be standard language that we would add to these types of provisions, and it should be added again. That's a flaw.

For 2 years Speaker Pelosi has been the one who was to set the agenda for our discussions here on the floor. One of those issues that I think people would like us to talk about is obviously energy. We have been talking about that for a long time. When this new leadership took over the House, on day one, when the energy prices started to climb and it was $2.22, the topic of discussion we had on this floor was congratulating the University of California-Santa Barbara soccer team. When energy reached $4 at the pump, I was here to spend a rollicking hour and a half talking about monkey bites. And today, after our 5-week adjournment, after people have been talking to us, after our constituents have said what is affecting them, after 5 weeks of preparation, what we are proposing to talk about today as the significant issue on the agenda is to study two rivers in Vermont. The only bill we will have with a rule, to study two rivers in Vermont.

And I hate to say this; I'm not opposed to it. There's no reason to be. It's fine. The bill is a nice bill. It can be improved significantly, but there's nothing wrong with it. The question is, why are we here talking about that after 5 weeks of getting prepared to talk about significant issues?

I had a couple of my constituents come to me. They said what they wanted to see Congress do is something in a bipartisan way; that we should come back here and show that we can work together. Indeed, the Senators have already told us that there is only a bipartisan energy plan of theirs, that's the only thing that can be passed, therefore, we should come together and support what they are trying to do in the spirit of bipartisanship, not only between two political parties, but between two branches of Congress. I am sure maybe someday this week we might even have another energy bill proposed for discussion on this floor, and I'm sure somebody will say this is the only thing we can pass; let us now embrace this in a spirit of bipartisanship so that we can show that we can work together.

Sometimes I have the feeling that we on this floor believe that if we toast one another or we slap one another on the back or we have congratulatory comity, that that, indeed, is the end of the discussion; that is the goal, not the means to reach some kind of discussion; when the end should be, have we solved the problem?

We have now had eight votes over 3 days on this floor, each of them getting around 400 plus votes. That is bipartisanship, that is comity, that is coming together. But have we solved what the needs of the American people are? Those eight votes, we've named three post offices, we said we're against hunger and we're for the Red Cross. That's good. But that does not solve the problems plaguing Americans.

If I was to go to a hospital and I was on the gurney being rushed into the surgery room, is it logical that I would look up at the assembled doctors and nurses and say, ``Look, when you open me up, I don't really care what you do inside just as long as you do it together in harmony, in a bipartisan way''? Or would it be much more logical for me to say, ``Ladies and gentlemen, when you open me up, solve the problem''? And that is, indeed, what the American people are looking at us to do here today is not necessarily find out how many bills we can pass on suspension, how much comity we can have, but how we can solve the problem.

To simply pass a political statement does not make a difference to individuals. We are supposed to be here to try and solve the problem. And it is very clear that the problem has to be some way in which we have an overarching, comprehensive energy proposal. That is the problem that we're facing. We need to come to this floor and actually encourage people to conserve, not by mandating conservation efforts, but by rewarding Americans for conservation efforts and they will take it from there.

We must come to the floor and finally realize that our problem is supply and demand, and that we have to increase production of that supply, that we do not have a logical pattern of funding alternative energy sources. But if we could actually increase the amount of oil and coal and oil shale and natural gas, that we could use the royalties this government would then create to actually fund a comprehensive energy program for alternative energies--for solar, for wind power, for anything else that happens to be there--if we simply decided to use an ``all of the above'' approach. We can solve our problem in the emergency, for the beginning, for the present time, as well as coming up with a long-term strategy for the future that actually would be funded.

We could finally realize that this country does not have an infrastructure that will allow energy to be moved from one part of the country to the other. There are good friends in New England who will face high costs of heating their homes this fall. We have a good pipeline that goes, but it stops before it ever gets to their part of the country.

We need to solve those problems. We need to make sure we have more refineries. We need to make sure we do something on the electric grid. And we are not. That is the solution to the problem for the American people.

We need to finally realize that the future of this country is not going to be solved by bringing experts into Washington to sit around a room and come up with an idea, but the ability of America to solve its problem rests with the people out there. Because within the American people, without their soul and heart, is the ability and the creativity to come up with real solutions if we just empower them to find those solutions and then reward them

for the creativity that they can expound.

We need to realize that the solution to our problem is that the next time we lose 84,000 jobs it is not exacerbated by the lack of energy; that the next time an airline doesn't have enough energy to run 100 planes, they don't have to fire 1,100 people because of it; that the cab driver in Washington, D.C. who now drives 2 hours extra every day because he needs that to provide enough funds for the new energy he has to provide could actually be back at home meeting his kids after school the way he used to; or that we provide enough energy in here so the father in Virginia can finally go with his son to a father and son outing; or the family in Maryland can finally have enough energy so they can re-enroll their daughters in dance and gymnastics; so that school kids in the middle of this country can finally make it to field trips this year; or the teachers in our districts throughout this country will not find their salaries to be depressed or in some cases slashed because of unusual and unexpected energy costs in their districts; so that home heating oil will not drive people out of existence; so the farmer in the field will have enough energy to put in diesel in his tractors to produce the food so that truckers will have enough energy to drive them to market so that the prices of food that we have to pick up at those markets will not be spiraling this winter and this next year. And all of those is what we should be talking about.

The river is nice; it's okay. The study is okay. But it is not where we should be at this particular time because it doesn't solve the problem.

There are a lot of rich people in this body. For them, this energy crisis is an annoyance. But for those people on fixed incomes, those people at the bottom of the scale, those people in the middle class, we're not talking to them about energy policy. We're talking about the way they cook their food, the way they heat their homes, whether they have a job or not.

Three days into the last 15 days of this session, and the most significant issue is a study bill on two rivers in Vermont. This country is aching for legislation that will nourish the body politic, and yet we continue to put up, day after day on this body, pieces of legislation that are as nutritional as cotton candy. We need to do it differently.

But, on the plus side, we will probably do this bill in a bipartisan way. Doesn't it make you feel proud?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the discussion especially about Teddy Roosevelt, a famous President. But I would remind my friend that William Howard Taft, who came after him, created more national parks, created more land in the national forests, and busted more trusts in 4 years than Roosevelt did in 8. The difference was he didn't use public relations.

Our issue is still the same. Talk about these issues after we have had a debate on real issues for a real solution on the real problem of energy that affects real Americans here on the floor. That should be our priority.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

In my 6 long years of being here on this floor, and I welcome my freshman colleague from New Hampshire, we have been involved in many issues that deal with energy, and I found that what was not stopped by filibuster in the Senate, was stopped by litigation in the court, and that is part of the overall reform we are talking about, which is why we desperately need a real vote on a real solution, the American Energy Act.

May I just inquire how much time we have remaining.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I was about to be critical of the remarks of the gentlewoman from Ohio, but once she said the Senate is a problem that should be working, how can I reject that?

I would, though, remind you, if you really want to help Exxon, don't do anything. Sixty-eight percent of all the oil and 87 percent of all the natural gas is being drilled by small entrepreneurial companies. If you want competition, allow those to be successful.

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope when my chairman rolls me into the surgery room and opens me up, he will solve the problem.

May I inquire of the other side if they have additional speakers left up and how much time remains.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my last 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, though not in opposition, I claim the time in opposition on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in a unique situation on this particular amendment. The gentleman who proposed it thinks it is unnecessary. I think this is a wonderful amendment. It was great when

somebody first wrote it, and now that you have incorporated it into the general discussion on these bills, I am equally as enthralled with that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I wish to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I wish to defend my good friend from Georgia. Actually he said NOT-A, which is N-O-T-A. It is just that Georgian accent, it's hard to get the letters straight there. That's something we don't face in Arizona or Utah, I realize that.

Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity, we support this particular amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of talking about a bill that asks us to review energy issues with this particular piece of legislation.

When the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was originally established, it was designed specifically to inhibit, if not stop, the production of dams across rivers where electricity could be the result. It is fitting and proper to see what kind of impact this wild and scenic river would have in that area, as well as the fact that this river, the Missisquoi River, translated means the great grassy meadow. It could possibly be the ``great gassy meadow'' if we find some kind of minerals down there, which, once again, a review of that I think would be appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has spoken at length about the reasons--though not as long as I thought he would, let's put it that way--why he believes these stretches of the river in Vermont to be studied for the designation as Wild and Scenic, and it's very clear that he strongly believes in this bill to enact this study. He obviously has a great deal of love for his State when he challenges all of the other 49 States as not being as beautiful, at least indirectly, as Vermont. And I would just point out to him that in my State we have so much geographic diversity as far as beauty is concerned, from one area of the State where we have more rainfall than anyplace in a country--I'm not talking about Seattle; I'm talking about the Olympic Peninsula--to the area where I live, which is a desert area that has in some areas where I live less than 7 inches of rain. So I invite my friend any time he wants to come out to see what real beauty is in a short period of time, and he may want to ask me up there and I might respond to that.

But having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it's fair to say that the American people, frankly, are far less concerned about the rivers in Vermont and are far more concerned about the high price of gasoline and the fact that Congress is not acting right now on real solutions to lower energy costs.

The House of Representatives will spend over 2\1/2\ hours today discussing rivers in Vermont but not 1 minute,

Mr. Speaker, not 1 minute, on actual legislation to lower the price of gasoline. I really believe that the priorities of this Congress since we have come back from the 5-week August vacation are wrong. High gas and energy prices are hurting American workers and it's hurting our Nation's economy.

With jobs at stake, Mr. Speaker, this Congress twiddles its thumbs and busies itself once again, as we did earlier in the year, naming post offices and, today, studying the value of rivers in Vermont, in all deference to my friend from Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, this House should be permitted to have a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on legislation to expand alternative energy sources and to lift the ban on drilling offshore, both coasts, Mr. Speaker, and in ANWR and other Alaskan lands in Alaska. But, unfortunately, the liberal leaders in this Congress have blocked, up to this point have blocked, a fair ``yes'' or ``no'' vote for months because I believe, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the majority of Members of this body knows that if we were to put the all-of-the-above energy plan up for a vote, that a majority of this House would vote for it. But we have been denied that opportunity time after time after time. Instead, they voted to go on a 5-week vacation in August to avoid working to lower gas prices, to protect American jobs, to make our Nation more energy independent.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that during that time since the adjournment for the 5-week vacation, a number of my Republican colleagues, 136 of my Republican colleagues, were here every day for several hours a day, trying to attempt to call the ask the Speaker to call Congress back in session. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. So now we are back here again on a regularly scheduled basis, and we will certainly have an opportunity to have a vote on the all-of-the-above, and I will talk about that more later.

But, Mr. Speaker, in the past, in the past, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Harry Reid, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, they are the leaders of the Democrat Party here in the U.S. Congress. Yet the one thing, other than being Democrat leaders, the one thing they all have in common, Mr. Speaker, is that they have in the past always opposed offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska. I think the majority of the Americans feel contrary to that view. And they fight and block any action on that at every turn. They refuse to act and to allow a vote on a drilling and alternative energy plan that would ultimately lower gas prices.

To me, Mr. Speaker, I just simply have to say in this election year that it's clear that liberalism has been put ahead of the need to help American workers and families struggling with high gas prices. We need to end the stranglehold that they have on America's ability to produce more of its own energy and on American jobs and the economy. And we can do that, Mr. Speaker, very simply by opening the resources that we have in this country. We need to change their no, no, no stance on producing more American energy.

This Congress, Mr. Speaker, and we all know this, needs to vote on the all-of-the-above energy plan. In that plan it includes promoting alternative energy sources, like wind and solar power. I might add parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that we have a nuclear plant in my district, we have hydro plants in my district, and we have wind machines in my district. I am all in favor of all of the above, and our all-of-the-above energy plan includes precisely that.

This plan recognizes the need for more nuclear power. As I mentioned, I have a nuclear power plant in my district. Of course, it protects the value of hydropower, and that is the most abundant energy source for us in the Northwest. But it also allows, while we transition to a new energy source in the future, it allows drilling offshore and in Alaska and on other Federal lands.

Mr. Speaker, it really is time for the liberal leaders of this Congress to stop blocking a vote on producing more American-made energy. It's time for Members of Congress to stop hiding and to start voting.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that we are not elected to avoid taking positions on tough issues. We are elected to stand up and resolve those tough issues for the American people. So it's time for Congress to set aside naming post offices; in deference, again, to my friend from Vermont, studying rivers. It's time to get serious about addressing the high cost of gasoline and voting yes or no on real solutions, including drilling offshore and in Alaska.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is the last speaker, and he is prepared to close. I know I have several Members that have asked for time. So, Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself such time as I may consume until other Members come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned just briefly in my remarks that after the adjournment prior to the 5-week vacation and, by the way, that adjournment resolution was passed on a straight partisan vote. Every Republican voted against it because we felt we needed to stay here to help resolve the energy problem rather than go on a 5-week vacation. But there were a number of Members, I can mention 136 Members, that came down here and talked about the need for energy.

During that time, Mr. Speaker, the lights were off here, the microphones were off, and the cameras were off. Yet there were a number of tourists, as we always have coming through the U.S. Capitol, their Capitol, and they were invited to sit on the floor and talk with us, interact with Members that came down and spoke.

The 2 days that I was here, and I admit I was only here 2 of those days, the last 2 days, and I had private conversations with a number of tourists that came through here. I have to say they were not from the Northwest, although there were some from the Northwest, but there were some from the South, and they were all kind of perplexed as to why the people's House, the House of Representatives, probably the genius part of our Founding Fathers in making a representative body, of which all Members that have served there, and there are slightly over 11,000 Members that have served in this body and, Mr. Speaker, every one, every one of those Members have been elected to this House. There has never been a Member that was appointed to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Now why do I say this in the context of energy prices? The genius of our Founding Fathers was that the House of Representatives and the fact that every one was elected is probably more in tune to what the people's wishes are across the country.

And so they were, frankly, the people I talked to, perplexed. Well, if this is the people's House, why haven't you had the opportunity to have a vote, just a vote up or down, recognizing, listen, we know that a majority rules, and I am prepared to take the consequences of that if my position on any issue fails to get a majority vote. I recognize that. I think every Member of Congress understands that. But to not have the opportunity, not have the opportunity to even vote, even vote on a proposal, really perplexes the tourists that came through here the 2 days I was on the floor.

In talking to my other colleagues, some of whom were down here as many as 13 days, and more, they had what I would say were similar experiences with their conversations with people that came through here.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that my district is the district that in central Washington that is a center of virtually--I won't say all, but a great deal--of electricity that is produced in the Pacific Northwest. Within my district, for example, probably the hydroelectric facility that most Americans can associate with is Grand Coulee Dam. Half of that dam is in my district and the other half is in my colleague's from the Fifth District, Cathy McMorris Rodgers' district.

But, in addition to that, I have up to 10 dams that are wholly within my district or I share with other Members of Congress, including my friend and colleague from across the river in Oregon, Greg Walden. There are three dams there where we share half of those dams.

That produces about 70 percent of the electricity in the northwest. It is renewable, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely renewable, and we need to expand that, and a portion of expanding hydropower is in the all-of- the-above energy plan I talked about earlier that we have been denied a vote on. We have been denied a vote on.

Furthermore, I mentioned that I have wind plants in my district. Because generally in areas that I mentioned earlier on, that there was not a whole lot of rainfall in certain parts of my district, but the wind does blow. Now the wind, of course, is only good if the wind blows. But if the wind blows, it adds to the other facilities, like hydro, like hydro, or like nuclear. And I have a nuclear plant in my district.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that my constituents are well aware that we need to have a diverse energy portfolio. Without having an opportunity in the people's House to at least address the issue of all of the above, seems to me to be contrary, seems to me to be contrary to what this Congress is all about, and indeed what the House of Representatives is all about as it was envisioned by the Founders.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have talked about what we did in August, and I have talked about the fact that up until August, and now we have a new session coming in after the break, that the Democrats have blocked and blocked any vote on lifting the ban.

But I have heard during the break that there are a number of brave Democrats who I think went home, talked to their constituents, and find out that their constituents were saying we need to become more energy independent. As a result, they proclaim that they support now offshore drilling to increase the supply of gasoline and oil and to make America more energy independent.

Well, listen. To all of my colleagues that maybe during the August break and having listened to their colleagues or to their constituents at home, I have a very positive message for you, and I have an opportunity for you, because by voting against the previous question, Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues can prove that you are supporters of drilling and producing American-made energy. Of course, if you do not, that means that you side, of course, with Speaker Pelosi and you oppose drilling.

By defeating the previous question, Mr. Speaker, I will move to amend the rule to make in order H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, and I have talked at length about what it is. This bill will reduce the price at the pump by enacting an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Once again, what it does, it increases the supply of American-made energy by using environmentally sound technology and innovations. It does so by improving conservation and efficiency and, Mr. Speaker, it promotes a diversity by renewing alternative energy sources, like wind that I had talked about, and solar.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I again ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Congress, as they return from the 5-week recess--vacation, in some people's terms--and begin the work here in the fall before the election, so that we can finally vote, Mr. Speaker, on real solutions to the real and painful problem of high gas and energy prices.

American workers and families are hurting. Congress can help, can help today by voting on and passing this legislation, the American Energy Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's time to show whether you're really for lowering gas prices or whether you will continue to vote in lockstep with those against lifting the ban on offshore drilling and promoting alternative energy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Well, of course I am going to do that. And, listen: Mt. Rainier I can see from my district on a clear day, because it is 14,410 feet high. But it is quite a view when you view it from a desert setting. So I invite you the next time you come back to come over to my district for all the great wines, where the wine grapes are grown, by the way. And I understand my friend likes to have a cold beer once in a while. The taste of that beer comes from the hops that are grown in my district.

So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding on that basis, and I look forward to his visit. I appreciate it and yield back to him.

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1419 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, my friend, Mr. Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend remarks on House Resolution 1419.

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

H. Res. 1419 provides for the consideration of H.R. 3667, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources, makes in order three amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Representative Grijalva, Ranking Members Young and Bishop for helping to bring this bill to the floor today. And I would like to thank the staff of the Natural Resources Committee for their very hard work on a bill that is of great importance to my State of Vermont.

The Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are two of the most beautiful rivers in the most beautiful State in the Nation, and that, with all due respect to the man from Washington, I claim to be the State of Vermont. These rivers are bordered by the largest and perhaps the highest quality silver maple floodplain forest remaining in our State of Vermont. They are also home to diverse animal life, including brook trout, rare freshwater mussels, and spiny soft shell turtles. It's a favorite walking, hiking, fishing area for many people in northern Vermont and, indeed, from Upstate New York and all around Vermont.

Additionally, the Missisquoi River is part of this extraordinary 740- mile northern forest canoe trail, which is home to some of the best flat-water canoeing in Vermont and in the Northeast. Both of these rivers are highly valued by the surrounding towns and the communities. It has great recreational areas, swimming pools, and boating. Vermont parents that grew up swimming in these rivers take their kids back there, and it's a place in Vermont of just extraordinary scenic and natural beauty.

The bill, as these study bills all do, provides for a study of the two rivers, and it represents a first step toward protecting Abenaki Indian archeological sites along the flood plains, protecting scenic waterfalls and gorges, and a way of life that has been in these communities surrounding the two rivers for generations.

Passage of the rule will allow the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act to be considered on the floor by the full body, and I urge support of this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am the last speaker on our side, so I will reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that my friend from Washington would question my assertions about the beauty of Vermont, and I will invite the Member from Washington to come to Vermont so I can let you firsthand experience the evidence that I have had so much opportunity to observe myself.

By the way, I have been to Washington. I climbed Mt. Rainier three times and was out on the San Juan Islands.

For bragging about Washington, yes, I will.

Thank you, my friend from Washington. We better get back to the focus at hand, because now Vermont quality beer has been challenged as well as the beauty of Vermont rivers. So we will just call this part of the debate a draw and proceed.

Two things in response to comments made by my friend from Washington. Number one, it appears that there are no reservations or no stated objections to the study itself that is, frankly, quite important to Vermont. This is a very special part of our State that has the opportunity with the benefit of this study to be preserved for generations ahead, just as it has been cared for and enjoyed by generations in the past. So it is a very, very serious issue to the folks in Vermont. It is just a very special place.

The gentleman has not raised any specific objections. His objections are more in the nature of spending time on this instead of spending time on something else. So I would urge the Members to take that into account when they are voting on the previous question.

Second, I will address the energy arguments. This has been the refrain on the part of our friends on the other side as a response to every piece of business that we are doing on behalf of the American people. I think it has become apparent that this has become much more of a political debate than it has been an effort substantively to solve a very, very serious problem. Let me give a little commentary about that.

Number one, my friends on the other side have been in control of this institution and had the Presidency and the control of Congress for the past 12 years, until this Congress, and had an opportunity to enact comprehensive energy legislation when it was quite apparent to the American people that the problem of our excessive dependence on oil was a real and urgent problem.

They did nothing. In fact, the energy act they passed quite astonishingly provided taxpayer incentives, tax deductions, tax credits, to oil companies that were enjoying record profits. It is a mature industry, it is a profitable industry, yet the energy policy that was pursued and failed by our friends on the other side during the 12 years they were in charge basically was to give oil companies more taxpayer money.

It made no sense. There was no effort to use the power they had of the majority to bring to the floor legislation that would promote alternative energy. There was no effort to take the power that they had and provide tax incentives for the alternative energy industries that we know we must support if we are going to reduce and ultimately eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

I won't yield. My intention, my friend from Washington, is to respond and bring this to a close, thank you.

So, number one, we are hearing objections from people who when they had the power to do the things they

claim they want to do, didn't use the power they had to accomplish those objectives.

Number two, when we have brought forward legislation and passed it, it has been with their objection. And what they claim they want to do are many things that we did over their objection. I will give a few examples.

To deal with the short-term price pressure at the pump and with home heating oil, this House of Representatives passed legislation that I sponsored to stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and take off some of the demand on oil. That has contributed to helping bring down the price of gas at the pump by 5 to 25 cents a gallon.

Secondly, this House of Representatives has gotten tough on speculators. The evidence is overwhelming that part of the runup in the price of gasoline when it was heading up to $150 a barrel was because of the speculative control and influence of hedge funds in foreign trading operations. We brought to this floor legislation, and just the fact that we did it finally, when it was ignored and accepted and mollified by our friends who were in control for 12 years, has helped bring down that speculative premium.

There is no justification for any one of our constituents when they pay for a gallon of gasoline or a gallon of home heating oil or a cubic gallon of natural gas to have included in their price a speculation premium for profiteers, and this Congress passed legislation to challenge that, against the opposition of our friends on the other side. So we have taken very specific actions to try to do what we reasonably can do to bring down the price pressure that is ripping off the American consuming public.

Second, we have passed energy legislation that is comprehensive, again over the opposition of our friends on the other side. One of the things we did was provided for tax credits for the alternative energy industry. We have to do that. That is of urgent, vital economic and environmental concern to this country.

We passed legislation that took away the tax breaks that are going to oil companies. There is no basis whatsoever to ask the taxpayer to pad the profits of a mature and profitable industry. They don't need it. They are doing quite well without additional taxpayer money to their bottom line.

But the new industries, the alternative energies that my friend from Washington mentioned, wind and solar, geothermal and biomass, they do need a boost, and historically when we have been at our best is when we have had the wisdom to use tax policy in a targeted and focused way to give a boost to these emerging industries and technologies that are good for the American economy and good for our environment, and that is what we need to do.

We have passed this in the House several times. Our friends on the other side opposed it. Our friends in the Senate won't move on it. We are prepared to do it again. But the suggestion that has been made repetitively, over and over again, that the leadership of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives is standing in the way of energy policy is flat out wrong. It is flat out false. Why is it being offered? It is being offered for political purposes, I would suggest.

Now, let me tell you this: That although we have passed comprehensive energy legislation several times in this House, although each time we have done it we have had to overcome the opposition of our friends on the other side, and although every time we bring up a legitimate piece of legislation that is part of the public business that this Congress must conduct, whether it is a study on the Missisquoi River, an energy bill or any other bill, every time we do our friends try to cease the debate and distort what has happened, we are prepared, as the gentleman from Washington knows, we in the Democratic Party, our leadership is prepared to bring up yet another comprehensive energy bill that does include all of the above.

The fact is, on our side we have passed all of the above time and time again, against the opposition of our friends on the other side, and then it has run into a brick wall in the other body or the steadfast opposition of the President of the United States. But the gentleman from Washington is aware that the leadership is prepared to bring up yet another bill to give us another opportunity to do the right thing.

Let me say this: I actually think it would be great to work together with the other side. I come from a State where we shift majorities back and forth. Sometimes the Democrats were in control, sometimes the Republican were in control. I was the senate president and I was the minority leader. I learned that in order for us ever to get anything done, we had to ultimately work together. I also came to understand that neither side had an absolute claim that they were the only people who had a good point of view, who had an iron grip on truth.

I believe that it would be best for all of us if there was some willingness to try to work on the substance, rather than just use this as a political football, and my observation is that for whatever reason, it is tough to get to that point here in the House of Representatives in Washington.

I wouldn't yield, my friend, because I will be bringing this to a close.

I want to take the opportunity, as I must, when the assertions are made, falsely in my view, that the Democratic leadership is standing in the way of energy policy change, that is just flat-out wrong. The energy for energy reform has come from the leadership on the Democratic side. Frankly, it has come from the American people, who are tired of a Congress that passed off as an energy policy giving more money to the oil companies.

We have to make a fundamental decision in this hyper-political atmosphere of a presidential election whether we want to continue politics as usual, which in my view is a dead end, or we want to work together to achieve what we know is important for the American people, that is, short-term relief for prices at the pump, and it is a long- term energy policy that frees us from the dependence on oil from foreign countries.

So, Mr. Speaker, having said that, let me just close by coming back to this very important bill. It is a study. It is not necessarily important for many other parts of the country. But one of the things that makes this Congress and this country great is mutual respect. When there is a disaster in the Gulf Coast, all States pull together to help out. When there is flooding in the Midwest, all States pull together. When there is an opportunity for a small State like Vermont to take a step with Wild and Scenic River study that will help us and help our citizens enjoy the beauty of our land, I seek the help of my colleagues to let us accomplish that goal.

It is my request and my urging that all Members vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1419 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. 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. 6566) to bring down

energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production,

encouraging the development of alternative and renewable

energy, and promoting conservation. 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 final passage without

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

equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority

leader, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if

offered by the majority leader or his designee, 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.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is it is my opportunity now to yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question.

Well, thank you, Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Congressman Gingrey, for your leadership on this hour tonight as well as for your help earlier this year in August for what we were doing in calling to the attention of the American people those who are creating this problem with the high gas prices. I want to add some comments to my colleague from Florida's comments about drilling in ANWR.

I had the great opportunity to go to Alaska in 2005. I'd been there once before just purely as a tourist, but I went as a Member of Congress in 2005. I also saw Prudhoe Bay. I also saw Valdez. I also flew over ANWR. I want to add my comments and support to the things that he has said.

When the ANWR was set aside, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--I think it was in the early 70s--it was specific in the bill that some of that land would be set aside for oil drilling because people knew then that there was oil there and that it should be drilled for, but since that time, the Democrats have time and time and time again stopped us from drilling there. A bill passed in 1995--it passed both Houses--to allow drilling in ANWR, and President Clinton vetoed it. Since then, many, many times we have brought up votes, and the Democrats have consistently voted against drilling there.

He is absolutely right. The ANWR area is nothing but a frozen desert. Where we would be drilling is a frozen desert. It looks gray like that picture he showed. We saw it from the air. It looks exactly like that. It is akin to the deserts of Saudi Arabia, but it happens to be a frozen desert.

You know, the Lord gave us all of the resources, I believe, in this world that we need, but they just don't always look like they're the resources that we need, and sometimes they're tied up in unusual places, but the way I've described it to my colleagues and to my constituents is the way that I have heard it described as to the area that we would drill in ANWR, the 2000 acres: A postage stamp is to a football field as those 2000 acres are to the State of Alaska. It's a minuscule part of the State of Alaska, and it would do no harm.

Also, there is one thing that my colleague Mr. Keller didn't mention. He did show a wonderful map of how close the pipeline is now to that area. We're told that, in 18 months, we could have oil flowing from ANWR into the Alaska pipeline. In fact, it's going to be necessary to keep oil flowing into that pipeline or the pipeline is going to have to be shut down. So the Democrats continue to say it's going to take 10 years. It will only take 10 years if they and their trial lawyer friends and their radical environmentalist friends continue to bring lawsuits. What takes so long for us to create the energy that we need in this country are the lawsuits that keep getting filed. We could do this. We could be getting gas from the Outer Continental Shelf, I understand, in 3 years if we don't have to continually fight lawsuits to get this energy.

During the period of time when we were debating this in August--when the cameras were turned off, when the lights were turned off, when the mikes were turned off--I said that we have a choice to make here in the Congress. We are either going to be pro-American energy or anti- American energy. The Republicans in this Congress are pro-American energy. There is no reason why this country cannot be completely energy independent. Now, today, we've emphasized drilling.

By the way, let me make one other comment about the drilling in Alaska that nobody has made. I saw this again when I was there. You know, when you see the pictures of ANWR again, you see caribou grazing in a meadow with daisies blooming. That's, again, not the area that we would be drilling in. There are no caribou. There are living things there, I'm sure, in that frozen wasteland but not anything that you can see.

The other things that you see are these oil rigs like you see in Texas, these things that go up and down, and they're not very attractive armaments or implements, but when we saw the oil wells in Alaska, for the life of me, you couldn't have known that those were oil wells. They are simple boxes, maybe a little bit taller than I am, and they have valves on them. They look sort of like oxygen tanks with some valves on them, but they're not unattractive at all. They're in little boxes that sort of look like cabanas. We saw a whole row of about, I'd say, 100 or 150 of them. You would have no idea. They might be refrigerators for all one knows, but they're not unattractive at all.

Again, the radical environmentalists want us to think that we're going to be assaulted visually and that the environment is going to be assaulted by our drilling in ANWR. They want us to do nothing. I think the comment by the gentleman from the Sierra Club is very typical of what they feel. They don't want us to have cheap gas because they don't want us to use the good resources that the Lord gave us.

Sure.

Well, I thank my colleague from Georgia for mentioning that because I wanted to also mention that Republicans have consistently said we're for all of the above. We're not just for drilling in ANWR, just for drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. We want all of the alternatives. We want to be energy independent. We certainly believe in advancing solar, wind, hydro, and whatever other sources there are out there. Most of us believe that, in a short period of time, we'll be completely independent of many fossil fuels. We have coal that we could be using, clean-burning coal. We're the Saudi Arabia of coal.

The interesting thing about the fact that the Democrats don't want us to drill is that they say they want alternatives, but they don't fund alternatives. Our bill that would allow for

drilling would take the money that the Federal Government would get from those leases, and it would use that money to develop alternatives. While they've authorized programs for alternatives, they haven't funded them. So they're being very disingenuous when they say they want alternatives, because they are not allowing us to have alternatives because they're not funding them. It's a program that, I think, deserves the emperor's new clothes' award.

Well, again, I appreciate that help with what I was saying because it reminds me of another point that I want to make, and that is, by not allowing this new exploration, we are ensuring that Big Oil will stay in control of the issues. When new areas are opened up, it opens up the opportunities for smaller oil companies and for new entrepreneurs to get involved in the business.

So the best thing that could happen to the ``big oil companies,'' those people who the Democrats demonize constantly, is for us not to open up new areas for drilling, because they have such a lock on the existing areas, and so they are helping, unwittingly perhaps, the existing oil companies to stay big by decreasing the competition for them.

Now let's talk a little bit about what is the Democrats' plan. They say no, no, no, no, no to all of the things which we have proposed which we believe the American people want. We know that from the surveys. Our hope in coming back here for this session is that the American people will have put a lot of pressure on our Democratic colleagues in saying to them: ``You must tell the Speaker that she needs to bring up a bill for a vote, and that's all we're asking for. We want a clean up or down vote.''

Now, I had said this many of the times that I was here during August. One day in July, before we went on recess and when the Republicans were talking about this--we'd been talking about this all of this year that we needed to do something to increase the supply and bring down the price of gasoline--somebody asked one of Speaker Pelosi's aides: ``Well, what is your plan for bringing down the price of gasoline?'' The answer was: ``Drive small cars and wait for the wind.''

Well, this is how somebody has characterized this. This is the Democrats' energy plan: drive small cars and wait for the wind. Well, most people in this country can't trade their big cars for small cars. They need their big cars. They have families, and they need to transport them or they have so much invested in those cars already, and they're not wealthy people like our Speaker is. They are people who are working hard for a living, and they can't do that.

Well, I have likened this to when the French people told the Queen of France that the people had no bread. She said, ``Let them eat cake.'' Well, that's, I think, what the Democrats are saying to the American people. Let them eat cake. Whereas, the Republicans are saying we have alternatives. Let's vote on those alternatives. Yes, I think this deals with some of the quotes that Mr. Gingrey was talking about, that Congressman Gingrey from Georgia was talking about a few minutes ago.

We did get promises. In fact, the Speaker promised in 2006 that the Democrats had a commonsense plan for bringing down the price of gasoline. That was when the price of gasoline was around $2. Now it's almost $4. They've done nothing about it. This is what one of their Members said: ``We sort of stretched the truth, and people ate it up.'' This was stated by Representative Paul Kanjorski, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, on the Democrats' campaign promises. They made those promises.

Now, what have Republicans done? Thirty-five times the Democrats have voted down Rules Committee Republican-offered solutions to lower your gas prices and to address America's urgent energy needs. The Speaker said we'll have to use our imagination for ways that we can get a vote. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we have used every opportunity presented to us in this Congress to force a vote on providing American-made energy.

And every time the Democrats have stifled that.

We're not asking for a lot. We are asking for an up-or-down vote. Now, we have it broken down. We are not asking you to take our word for it. We have it broken down. Eleven times they voted ``no'' to consider amendments that would lower the average price of regular unleaded gasoline; four times to lower the price of gasoline and diesel by increasing our domestic fuel supply; six times they voted ``no'' to address alternative fuels; and fourteen times to address additional energy solutions provided by the American Energy Act, No More Excuses Energy Act, Coal-Liquid Fuel Act, Deep Ocean Resources Energy Act, Boutique Fuel Reduction Act, and the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act.

Republicans continue to try, and we are going to continue to bring up these issues every day that the Congress is in session and when we go out of session. But we do need the American people to help on this. We're going to bring it up. But if you live in the district of a Democrat who has not yet said he or she will vote ``yes'' for additional energy, then you need to be calling the House of Representatives and you need to be calling the Speaker's office to let them know. But it's better to call your Member of Congress and ask that Member to tell them.

Now, here's the other energy plan presented by their nominee for President. Our nominee for President, Senator McCain, has said he wants to increase American-made energy. Senator Obama's plan is check your tires and get them inflated properly and that's the solution to the American energy needs. That's just not going to cut it, Senator Obama. I'm sorry. We have got to increase supply.

Americans have been doing a wonderful job of conserving. And, again, I want to make it very clear Republicans believe in all of the above. We support conservation, but we support alternatives such as solar, wind, hydro, every other alternative that there is out there. We are willing to do that. But we know we cannot do this without increasing supply. And I simply think that we need to ask the Democrats are you pro-American energy or are you anti-American energy? If you're not interested in increasing the supply that we have within our borders, then you're anti-American energy. That is being anti-American people because it's the average working person, the retired people, young people who are being hurt by the high price of gasoline. And I think that that approach is the approach of people who are totally out of touch with the real world, and I am very disappointed in that.

I am going to yield back to my colleague now, Mr. Gingrey, from the great State of Georgia.