To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 116 Helen Highway in Cleveland, Georgia, as the "Sgt. Jason Harkins Post Office Building".

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

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, the small business programs covered by this bill are almost totally without their critics; they enjoy widespread bipartisan support. But, Mr. Speaker, there is controversy and opposition to this legislation because of the manner in which Democrats have chosen to conduct the business of this House.

First, there are concerns expressed about the increased set-aside for these two programs, which will come at the cost of other important research. Concern and opposition of this bill has come from the head of the Small Business Administration, from the White House, and from the Association of American Universities, among others, which represents 60 leading research universities across the country.

Typically, there would be an opportunity to address these types of concerns through committee action before any bill comes to the House floor. But the Democrats have chosen to skip past a hearing of the full House Science Committee on this scientific research legislation. They're just bypassing that step and sending it here to the House floor, where the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee decided to further restrict action on the legislation by limiting the number of House Members who can offer amendments, and they just limited it, Mr. Speaker, to just 17 out of 432 Members in the House.

Now it is true that my Democrat friends on the Rules Committee have allowed some amendments to be offered on this bill, but they have certainly treated themselves very well. Under this rule, Democrat members of the Rules Committee get to offer one-third of the amendments allowed to the entire House. Out of the 17 amendments that would be made in order under this rule, the Rules Committee Democrats get six of them. But under the rules that the Rules Committee wrote, 415 Members will not be allowed to offer even one amendment.

Restricting debate on the House floor is really becoming an old habit for the new Democrat majority, the new Democrat majority that pledged to run a more open, bipartisan House when they won the election in 2006. The Democrat majority has not kept their promise to the American people and have instead passed more closed rules denying all amendments on the House floor than any Congress in history, and they did it in record time.

Despite this record of shutting down debate in the House, the new majority has failed to complete its work and address matters critical to American families, small businesses and the economy. They failed to meet last week's April 5 deadline to write a budget for the next fiscal year, for example. The current farm bill ended last September, and our farmers are still waiting for that bill to be finished.

House Democrats have refused to pass the Senate's bipartisan bill to modernize FISA and to protect our country. Vital tax relief is set to expire while Democrats propose the largest tax increase in American history. Families, workers and small businesses don't need a record tax increase, Mr. Speaker, and they can't afford the plans to cut the child tax credit in half, reinstate the marriage penalty, and raise rates on every single taxpayer.

While Democrats plot these record-breaking tax increases, they sit by while the price of gasoline rises to record levels. Since Democrats took control of Congress in January of last year, the cost of a gallon of unleaded gas has gone up by 50 percent. According to the AAA, the national average for regular unleaded gasoline has gone up $1.18. The cost of gas has gone up more in 15 months, Mr. Speaker, than it had gone up in the prior 6 years.

Two years ago tomorrow, on April 24, 2006, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then the Democrat minority leader, issued a press release claiming that House Democrats ``have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' This was 2 years ago tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks after that press release, then minority leader Pelosi said that Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at the pump.'' That was 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, just less than 2 years ago. But now they've controlled the House for over a year, yet the ``real solutions'' and the ``commonsense plan'' promised by Democrats are nowhere to be seen. They pledged to lower gas prices, and they've done nothing; gas prices keep climbing.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's time for Speaker Pelosi to reveal the Democrat plan and for this House to be allowed to consider ways to address the rising price of gasoline. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I can amend the rule to make in order any amendment to the underlying bill that would ``have the effect of lowering national average gas price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.'' This House can then debate the rising cost of gas and we can have that debate, Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I will insert into the Record both Speaker Pelosi's 2006 press release and a letter sent yesterday from Republican leaders to Speaker Pelosi asking for the Democrats to put forward the commonsense plan that they had promised.

Pelosi: `With Skyrocketing Gas Prices, Americans Can No Longer Afford

Rubber Stamp Congress'

Washington, DC.--House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

released the following statement today on President Bush's,

Speaker Hastert's, and the Republican Congress' empty

rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority's failure

to address gas prices follows Pelosi's statement.

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American

people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp

Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil

and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91

a gallon on average for regular gasoline--33 cents higher

than last month, and double the price than when President

Bush first came to office.

``With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and

record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority

Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric

rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas

prices now.

``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down

skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging,

rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies,

tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas

companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.''

Key Facts on the Majority's Failure to Address Gas Prices:

President Bush, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress

wrote and passed a Republican energy bill that President

Bush's own Energy Department said would raise gas prices on

American consumers. Big oil and gas companies wrote the

Republican energy bill, and the American people paid the

price.

The Majority rejected imposing tough penalties on price

gouging companies three times in the past year, since that

time, gas prices increased by another 11 cents a gallon.

Speaker Hastert and the Majority have been blocking action

on Congressman Stupak's Federal Response to Energy

Emergencies Act (H.R. 3936) since last September, which would

protect American consumers from high gas prices by empowering

the FTC and the DOJ to investigate and prosecute oil

companies engaged in price gouging at each stage of the

energy production and distribution chain and outlaws market

manipulation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Two points: 415 Members of this House are denied an opportunity to offer an amendment because this is a structured rule, number one.

Number two, I would hope that my friend from Oregon would join me in voting to defeat the previous question because he has a view on why gas prices are high. If we have an open debate on that, he'll have his opportunity to make that argument and perhaps offer legislation that would lower the price of gasoline. That is precisely what I'm going to be asking my colleagues to do in defeating the previous question so they'll have that opportunity. I hope the gentleman will join with me in that regard.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

But my point is that when the gentleman was talking about the rising price of gas, he has an opinion as to why gasoline prices have risen. We haven't had a debate on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to say that we haven't had a debate, and this is an opportunity to debate this issue. And I hope the gentleman will join with me in voting to defeat the previous question so we can have his ideas on what would lower the price of gasoline, along with other ideas being debated.

That would not take away, would not take away at all, the ability to debate only those 17 amendments that you said were made in order. But the fact still remains 415 Members of this body do not have a chance to perfect this bill as they see fit.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, under suspension of the rules, there is generally agreement between both the minority and the majority. If the gentleman was upset then, he could have very easily have defeated the bill and brought it up under a special rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I find this debate of the last three Members absolutely incredible. All we have heard from the last three speakers is the problems, but we have heard no solutions.

So I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question, we can debate solutions on the floor of this House. I would hope that all of those, especially the last three speakers on the other side, would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question so they can offer their solutions so we can debate them on the floor of the House. That is the sum and total of defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Michigan just made the case for me one more time to defeat the previous question so that the gentleman could offer some solutions.

I just want to remind everybody, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago tomorrow, then Democrat minority leader Nancy Pelosi said: We have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. We have real solutions to lower the price at the pump.

When the Democrats took over, the price at the pump was $2.33. Now, it is $3.51.

I yield myself another 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question we can discuss and debate those solutions. That is all I am asking Members to do. I am not taking sides, I am not saying their ideas are bad. I am just saying we have an opportunity to debate those solutions.

I appreciate my friend for yielding. I just simply want to say, and you make my case. If you have these solutions, defeat the previous question and we can have a debate on that.

Mr. Speaker, I took all of my time because I was advised there were no speakers on the other side, so I can't yield time right now.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire once again of my friend from Vermont if he has any more speakers.

Thank you for being so precise, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate, we have had a debate on the problems. We haven't had a debate on the solutions. My motion then would allow that to happen. So let me repeat, Mr. Speaker.

Two years ago, Speaker Pelosi promised Americans a Democrat plan to lower gas prices at the pump. They

have controlled Congress for 15 months, but we still have not seen this plan. Meanwhile, the cost of gas is setting record highs.

Under their leadership, the national average price of gas has increased by $1.18. It is time for the House to debate ideas for lowering gas prices. It is time for the Democrats to reveal their plans.

Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow any amendment be made in order on the underlying bill that would, quote, have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.

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 urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can have this debate, so that we can consider these vitally important issues that America's families, workers, truckers, small businesses, and our entire economy face with these rising prices of gasoline.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1125 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during the consideration of this rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1125 provides for the consideration of H.R. 5819, the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program Reauthorization Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes controlled by the Committee on Small Business and 20 minutes controlled by the Committee on Science and Technology. The rule makes in order 17 amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The amendments are each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Since its inception in 1982, SBIR has assisted small businesses to compete for Federal research and development awards. It does that by reserving a percentage of the Federal R&D funds for qualifying small firms which would not otherwise be able to compete in the Nation's R&D arena with larger companies.

SBIR is a unique collaboration that allows Federal agencies to fund projects to meet specific agency needs while expanding opportunities for small businesses, including women and minority-owned businesses. SBIR has enhanced the role of innovative small businesses and higher education research institutions in federally funded research and development while fostering competition and productivity in economic growth.

SBIR, Mr. Speaker, targets the entrepreneurial sector because that's where the innovators thrive. The risk and expense of conducting serious R&D efforts are often beyond the means of small businesses, so SBIR funds are a critical start-up in development stages, encourage the commercialization of technology, product or service, which

in turn obviously helps the United States economy.

And the results, by the way, speak for themselves. Not only are 85 percent of the businesses competing in SBIR small firms employing 20 or fewer persons, but the program has generated 50,000 patents over 25 years. SBIR has helped thousands of small businesses drive enhancements in our Nation's defense, new protections for our environment, and advances in health care.

The National Research Council and the National Academies' report, in assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, states, ``The SBIR program is sound in concept and effective in practice. The SBIR program has created a competitive entrepreneurial environment upon which small, independently owned businesses can compete to strengthen America's high technology economy. Many consider SBIR to be one of our most successful technology development programs.''

This rule allows for consideration of a welcomed reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR programs. Just very briefly, what it's going to do is increase the existing set-aside for SBIR to 3 percent, and for STTR to six-tenths of a percent, increase SBIR and STTR grant award levels, increase congressional oversight and evaluation of programs, make changes to shorten the application review periods, and create an outreach development program for underrepresented States, regions, types of businesses, and numbers in the workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Research.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I am the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have mainly listened as this debate has unfolded, and I have an observation. This is a sad spectacle. The Congress of the United States has before it now a bill that is intended to address an urgent need to provide research funding for our small businesses.

Small business is the backbone of our economy, it is where most jobs are created, it is where some of the best innovations occur, and where our small businesses need some assistance to put together the financing package required to explore innovative research and development ideas. Our small businesses don't have the funds that are available oftentimes through big venture capital operations. And what we are hearing in this debate is a complete and utter disregard for the content of this bill and, instead, turning it into a political debate that veers wildly away from any truth about what the history of this whole gas crisis is.

Number one, the basic question before us is, are we going to help the research and development needs of our small businesses? We believe it is urgent that we do so, and we won't be deterred by what is now a political argument.

Second, since our friends on the other side have made an accusation that there has been Democratic culpability, almost a conspiracy, in raising gas prices, I want to respond to the absurdity of that.

We have heard from our speakers how the price of a barrel of oil when President Bush took over was $25, it is now $119. We know that the war in Iraq, when it started, that catastrophic war, the price was $35, it is now $119. But what we also know is that under the leadership of the Republican Congress, we turned a blind eye on the Government's responsibility to look out for the middle class. Why? We destroyed regulatory oversight that is necessary to help folks pulling up with their pickup truck to fill up their gas tank.

This Enron loophole, snuck in, in the middle of the night with the complicity of a Republican Congress is, Mr. Speaker, and I say this intentionally, unconscionable, unconscionable to meeting the needs of average Americans who are trying to work hard and pay their bills. Fifty cents at least in the price of a gallon of gasoline is because the speculators, the hedge fund managers, are singing every day as they make wire transfers to their bank accounts at the expense of everyday Americans.

And my question is, why will not those who are expressing concern about the cost of gasoline and how that impacts small business and impacts our families, why will they not get behind Congressman Stupak and support The PUMP Act, get rid of the Enron loophole? Why will they not join with many of us who have sent letters to the President imploring him to release the strategic petroleum reserve or at least stop buying. One action would reduce, according to Goldman Sachs, the cost of a gallon of gasoline by 25 cents. And then there is the legislation that we passed that the Republicans voted against.

So what we have is an accusation made by people who every time they have had an opportunity to take a concrete specific action that would help, have said no, have said no to the Enron loophole reform, have said no to The PUMP Act, have said no to stop buying in the strategic petroleum reserves.

So it leaves me with a question. Is what we are hearing about politics, or is it about policy? I have come to my own conclusion. But we are here on a bill that is going to help small business. That is our job. And our job in this rule should be to make that bill a better bill, not to hijack what is a good bill and turn it into a political food fight.

We have got two issues here that have been injected. One is, are we going to help small business or not? There is broad bipartisan support. The two committees of jurisdiction have done an excellent job.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

Amendment to H. Res. 1125 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution or the option of the previous question, it shall

be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which the

proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of

lowering the national average price per gallon of regular

unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall he considered as

read, shall he debatable for thirty minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be

subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand

for division of the question in the House or in the Committee

of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are

waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For

purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a

statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record

by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration

shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.

Sec. 4. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall

introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill

to provide a common sense plan to help bring down

skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the

appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause 1

of rule X.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the gentleman from Vermont very much.

We welcome this debate. We welcome a debate on the Bush-Republican energy policy. Let's begin with a brief review of where the price of oil was back when President Bush was sworn in as President. It was $27 a barrel. That is what President Clinton, that is what

Vice President Gore, handed over to President Bush, $27 a barrel oil. Now let's look at what the price of a barrel of oil was yesterday: $119 a barrel for oil. So President Bush and Vice President Cheney, they might not know a lot about other issues, but you would think oil policy they would understand.

Well, this is what you get after 8 years of a Bush-Cheney Presidency, abetted and aided for 6 of those years by a Republican Congress.

Let's even take it further. Let's take it to the next step. Let's look at oil company profits. Let's just take the big five oil companies in the United States, led by ExxonMobil. Well, the cumulative profits of all five companies in 2001 was $37 billion. All five of the big oil companies cumulatively made $37 billion.

Now let's look at last year. Last year, those five oil companies made $123 billion in profits. And ExxonMobil alone made $42 billion, the largest profit of any corporation in American history, exceeding the total amount of all of those oil companies' profits in 2001.

So what has happened after 8 years of the Bush-Cheney administration is that they have allowed Big Oil and OPEC to take the American consumer and tip him upside down at the gasoline pump every single day, shaking money out of their pockets.

And looking over at this strategic asset that was built by the American people, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which now has 700 million barrels of oil in it, as the American people say to the President, please deploy this weapon which the American people have to protect the American economy and the American consumer.

I thank the gentleman.

The Bush administration continues to purchase 70,000 barrels of oil a day from Big Oil and OPEC. They are doing it today, buying it at $119 a barrel, buying it today, even though it makes no economic sense. We shouldn't be contributing to this speculation, which is driving up the price of oil. Instead, what the Bush administration should be doing is taking some of that Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the 700 million barrel asset, and beginning to deploy it as a weapon against the speculators who are driving the price of oil up and driving our economy into the ground.

The Bush administration won't do either. They won't stop buying oil at $119 a barrel and they won't at the same time use this asset now that is supposed to be there to protect the health of the American economy and deploying it in a way which, I will tell you, it will prick the speculative bubble almost immediately and begin to drive down the price of oil. That is only something that the President can do, if he determines that there is an economic emergency in our country, if he believes that our country is being adversely affected by high energy prices. That is a decision that can only be made in the Oval Office.

Obviously, the Bush administration, having seen the price rise from $27 a barrel to $119 a barrel, still does not believe that we are absent any energy policy, still believes that it is a free market and that OPEC and big oil are operating in a free market and that is just the natural price of oil.

But here is the interesting testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence last week.

When I asked the number two executive at ExxonMobil what he was doing with his $42 billion worth of profits last year in terms of investing in renewable energy resources, the CEO said that he was going to invest $10 million in renewable energy resources. $42 billion worth of profit, $10 million going into renewable energy resources.

When I said to him, you know, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress gave you $18 billion worth of additional tax breaks 3 years ago and now at $119 a barrel you don't need them anymore, can we take those and give them as tax breaks for renewable energy resources, all of the oil executives said, no, we want the tax breaks. We don't want that to go over to renewables. And, secondly, we love our profits, and we are not going to invest them in renewables.

That is a recipe for continued abject subservience to this oil industry and to OPEC. The President has to get aggressive on deploying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, stopping his policy of buying $119 barrel oil, 70,000 barrels a day from OPEC and Big Oil. Secondly, we need a new policy on getting aggressive on renewable energy, which the Republican majority for 12 years and the Bush White House has turned a blind eye to. And that is why we are in the mess that we are in today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly come to the floor today in support of the Small Business Innovative Research Act, and if some of the amendments, particularly the one offered by my friend on the other side, Mr. Welch, is approved, and maybe a couple of other amendments, I definitely plan to support this bill.

But in regard to this rule, Mr. Speaker, I am fully supportive of my colleague from Pasco, my former colleague on the Rules Committee, that says we want to defeat this previous question to give Members an opportunity to come to this floor and talk about something that indeed is more of a crisis than what we do with our Small Business Innovative Research Grants, although that is important. So that is the reason why I will vote in favor of defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the promises that were made, and I just want to show, if my colleagues will look at this chart, the day George Bush was sworn into office as President, the price of regular gasoline was $1.49. Two years ago, about 2 years ago, the day that Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker, the price of a gallon of regular gasoline was $2.33, and today, 15 months into her leadership, gas prices have spiked at $3.50 a gallon for regular, a $1.30 increase in my home State of Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, this is really unacceptable, it's downright deplorable, especially when the new Democratic majority and the new Speaker of the House campaigned and made a pledge that they would bring down the price of gasoline. Instead of bringing it down, Mr. Speaker, look what has happened. This is not a linear growth, this is an unbelievable exponential growth.

So as part of this changing of the rule if we defeat the previous question, it would require, Madam Speaker, within 5 days, she's had 15 months, but it would require her within 5 days to bring a bill to provide a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.

The previous gentleman from Illinois had some great ideas; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) had some great ideas. There are so many Members that could come to this floor on both sides of the aisle and give some amendments and some ideas that would truly bring down our dependence on foreign oil. Right now, 60 percent of our usage comes from either the Middle East or from Venezuela.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. My good friend, my subcommittee Chair on the Science Committee, made a comment. He said, the reason for the skyrocketing price of gasoline is because of what is going on in the Middle East; this war that we are waging in Iraq.

Well, I would like to point out to him that the production of oil from Iraq today is exactly what it was prior to the war 5 years ago commencing. And that is about 2.5 million gallons a day from Iraq. So the price of oil has nothing to do with that. It absolutely has nothing to do with it. We are going to control this with some of the ideas, the coal-to-liquid idea that Mr. Shimkus, the gentleman from Illinois, just talked about. We are going to help solve this problem by licensing some new nuclear power plants.

As the former chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, the gentleman from California, talked about, yes, we are going to look at solar, we are going to look at wind. We certainly, as our minority party, now former majority party, have tried so hard to get us to explore for more oil and gas in this country. ANWR could produce another 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, and drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, why are those things blocked?

It's time for us to do something about it, and I am glad that the gentleman from Washington is going to ask all Members to vote against the previous question and let's give an opportunity for Members to come down and give their ideas.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am proud to come to the floor to talk about solutions that the Democratic Party has put forth and this House has tackled in the last year. But let's not try to rewrite history, as we see being done on the other side.

Let's remember when President Bush came to office in 2001, crude oil sold at $25.88 a barrel. When the Iraq war began, that terrible, misguided war, crude oil was $35 a barrel. Gas was approximately $1.56. In my district today, gas is $3.56. Crude oil is over $119. That is what the Republican policies have brought us, a bad war and gas and oil that we cannot afford.

The Energy Information Agency says gas will be $4 this summer. Diesel is already $4. So what have the GOP and this President said they are going to

do? Remember? He is going to jawbone his friends the Saudis to produce more oil so we would have it here in this country.

Oh, he jawboned all right. He jawboned all the way up to record prices, record profits, where ExxonMobil can pay its CEO a $400 million pension with $44 billion in profits last year. Oh, boy, they jawboned all right. Their jawbone is chewing on our pocketbook and is hurting the middle class in this country.

What have we done? The energy price gouging bill, H.R. 1252, which we passed last May 284-141. One hundred forty-one on the other side wouldn't even vote for us to stop the gouging of prices that we see day in and day out. This legislation would have provided the Federal Trade Commission with the authority to investigate and prosecute those who engage in price gouging, predatory pricing and other unfair practices.

I don't know about you, but I am tired of seeing gas go up 30 cents like it did earlier this month in my district. One day, 30 cents. Now, if that is not excessive pricing, predatory price gouging, I don't know what it is.

Let's take a look at the PUMP Act, a piece of legislation we have been working on since April of 2006, and we have plenty of cosponsors. We had a hearing last December, December 12. What did they say? Pass the PUMP Act to prevent the unfair manipulation of prices. Professor Greenberg said we could save $30 a barrel. For every barrel of oil that comes into this country, we can save $30 by getting the speculators out of the market.

Why do we continue to allow speculators to run this country? They sure did a good job with mortgages, didn't they, with the subprime mortgages. That is why the values of our properties have gone down. Now the speculators are in the oil field, in the energy field. And why is that? Because of a little thing when the Republicans were in charge called the Enron loophole. The Enron loophole in 2005 allowed the speculators to come into the energy field, and therefore they have run up the price. What did the hearings show?

Ninety-five to 98 percent of those playing in this market have no intentions of taking possession of oil or providing a product. They are there for one reason, to rake all the profits off the American people that they can through their excessive speculations.

This Democratic Congress has also passed a Renewable Energy Tax Act to help lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources.

Look. Since this war started in Iraq, everything has doubled and tripled. We have heard nothing from the other side. This Democratic Congress continues to do things to try to curb the abuses we find in the energy field, that we find in manipulation of prices and speculation. We will continue to work towards that.

To come down here and somehow try to rewrite history, it is just not going to work. It is important to note that tax breaks that are eliminated in the Renewable Energy Tax Act are equivalent to less than 1 percent of the oil companies' net income, but yet they complain.