To repeal a requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition of alternative fuels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you would yield for just a minute.

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

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

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

With a sail on the top of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago, there was an election. The Democrats won. They won fair and square. And for 18 months, Mr. Speaker, they have controlled the economic policies and the energy policies of our great Nation. Let's look back and take a look at what has happened in those 18 months.

Since Democrats have taken control of these policies, the price of bread, Mr. Speaker, has increased 21 percent; milk, 26 percent; eggs, 34 percent; gasoline, the price that we pay at the pump, has increased 71 percent under the energy policies of this new Democrat majority. As an aside, in the last 18 months, the value of one's home has decreased 7 percent under their policies.

Mr. Speaker, tonight many of us have gathered to specifically talk about the energy policies of the Democrat majority and how they differ so greatly from the policies of the Republican party.

All over America, families are going to convenience stores and they are having to make a decision: Do I buy a gallon of milk, or do I buy a gallon of gas? They are having to make decisions about do I take my children to school, or do I go to work? Families are in pain, having seen their gasoline prices increase 71 percent.

What has the Democrat majority brought us in the way of an energy policy? Well, their first policy was to beg. ``Let's beg OPEC. Let's see if maybe we beg them, they will bring down the price of gasoline at the pump.''

Well, that didn't work, Mr. Speaker.

What was their next policy? Their next policy was to sue. ``Let's sue OPEC. If we somehow bring in the trial attorneys, we will lower prices at the pump.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, that didn't seem to work either.

Well, here is another one they want to try. ``Let's tax. Let's tax oil producers, and somehow that will bring down prices at the pump.''

Well, something I remember from my eighth grade economics about supply and demand and cost. You impose another cost on a producer, well, he is going to do his best to put it in the price of the product. Well, in fact, that is what will happen. It almost sounds the like the policies of Jimmy Carter and a Democrat Congress of a bygone era which made us even more dependent upon foreign oil.

Here is another one: ``Let's try to castigate. Let's bring up people who produce energy and let's say nasty things about them and their companies and their families. Surely that will bring down the cost of energy at the pump.''

Well, that hasn't seemed to work either.

The new one we tried today, the Democrat majority, ``well, let's outlaw people who charge unreasonable prices. Let's criminalize that activity.''

What they never have thought of, Mr. Speaker, is why don't we try to produce more American energy in America? I mean, not only have they not thought about it, Mr. Speaker, they are moving in the complete opposite direction. They are passing policies that make it more difficult to produce American energy in America to bring down the cost at the pump.

In fact, in one of the many non-energy energy bills that this Democrat majority has brought to the floor, they passed a provision known as section 526 of Public Law 110-140 that would prohibit Federal agencies, in this case specifically the United States Air Force, from contracting, taking in long-term contracts in order to get energy from oil shale, tar sands, coal-to-liquids, alternative fuels, which is one, one of the ways that we could make ourselves more energy independent and quit relying so much on foreign sources of oil that are driving up the cost of gasoline at the pump.

Because of this section that was introduced in one of the many Democrat non-energy energy bills, or, as one of

my colleagues say, the Democrat lethargy bills, myself and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Conaway, have introduced H.R. 5656, which almost has 100 cosponsors now, that would repeal this section, which would allow the Federal Government to contract for these alternative fuels to try to bring in more energy independence to help jump-start some of these alternative technologies, which is a huge part of the solution in order to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump.

Mr. Speaker, many of us will come to the floor to talk about this very critical issue to American families, and those who have town hall meetings know it is the number one issue on the minds of our constituents, as it well should be.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to lead this Special Order tonight. At this time I would like to yield to the coauthor of H.R. 5656, which would repeal this needless section making it more difficult to enact alternative energy policies, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Conaway, for his opening comments.

Well, I thank the gentleman for his opening comments, and I certainly thank him for his leadership and for working with me in coauthoring this critical piece of legislation to help us really start, jump start, some of the alternative fuels that will help us bring down the cost of gasoline at the pump.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield time to one of the real workhorses in Congress, to one of the outspoken advocates of trying to produce American energy in America. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is recognized.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for joining us, and I certainly appreciate his illuminating comments.

Mr. Speaker, I hope people listened very carefully to what the gentleman had to say.

First, again, since the Democrats took over the Nation's energy policies 18 months ago, the price of gasoline, as almost every working family in America knows, has increased, roughly, 70 percent in just 18 months. How does that impact working families in America?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, and I go out of my way to make sure that I reach out to my constituents and understand the challenges, their hopes and aspirations, and I hear from them frequently.

I have recently heard from the Thomas family in Mesquite, Texas. They wrote to me.

``Dear Congressman, to make up for the rising prices, we calculate the use of the car to make the gas last a week. Some things we no longer can buy. We have had to cut back on our groceries. We rarely have three meals a day anymore.''

Mr. Speaker, I know they don't mean to do it. I know there are men and women of good intentions, but under the Democrat energy policies, people in Mesquite, Texas, can no longer have three meals a day. That is the result of these policies.

Again, as they have tried to beg, castigate, tax and criminalize their way into lower gas prices, they have failed each and every time. What they want to do is produce American energy in America. As the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, under their policies, Mr. Speaker, 85 percent, 85 percent of our deep-sea resources are put out of bounds, out of bounds. And 75 percent of our onshore resources, out of bounds.

The Arctic area of Alaska where more than half of America's proven energy reserves reside, no, can't produce American energy there. Why wouldn't you want to do that when people are suffering?

Now there are so many different things that we need to do, but the most important thing that we need to do, Mr. Speaker, is produce American energy in America. I just read today where there was a huge discovery of petroleum off the coast of Brazil. In Brazil, they celebrated. What a wonderful thing, we have these huge new energy reserves. America must be the only country in the world that when we discover great energy reserves, it is a cause for mourning. Oh, no, we have oil. Oh, no, we have natural gas. Quick let's go out, let's make sure nobody can touch it. It is a point of shame. We can't have these natural resources helping working American families.

I mean, what a fouled-up policy, Mr. Speaker.

I am very happy that we have been joined tonight by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) who knows all too well what the Democrat majority has done to put all of this energy out of bounds and who will speak to us more about what needs to be done in leasing our deep-sea resources and the Arctic area of Alaska. I am very happy to yield time to Mr. Carter.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for joining us this evening. I thank him for the valuable leadership that he provides us in the Republican Congress, and I particularly appreciate his comments, his illuminating comments on leasing and what it is that we can do as a Nation to provide more American energy in America.

Again, Mr. Speaker, elections have consequences. Since the Democrats took over the energy policy of this Nation 18 months ago, when they took it over, gasoline was selling at a national average of $2.33 a gallon. Today we know, Mr. Speaker, it is well over $4 a gallon in just 18 months. I'm not sure if history shows us any greater increase in the price at the pump in such a short period of time under the policies, again, of this Democrat majority.

Now, that's having a devastating impact, Mr. Speaker, on working families. And yet the Democrat majority refuses, refuses to do anything to produce more energy in America. And I think sometimes, Mr. Speaker, they forget about how their policies are impacting hard working American families.

Again, I have the privilege of representing the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. And I hear from my constituents often about the challenges they're facing having to pay this Pelosi premium, having to pay all of this extra money for gas. I recently heard from the Forest family of Mesquite, Texas. And they wrote to me, Dear Congressman, we cannot continue to operate this way. We have now canceled our life insurance policies, canceled our cable, scaled down our automobile insurance, and buy only the necessities at the grocery store. No movies or other luxuries. My son and his daughter have had to move in with us because he can no longer pay rent, day care, buy food, and pay for his auto insurance and gas to go to work.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I know they don't mean to do it, but the Democrat majority has got to wake up on how their no energy, no production policies are hurting working Americans.

People in Mesquite, Texas, are having to cancel their life insurance policies and take in their adult children back into their homes because they refuse, refuse to produce any American energy in America to bring down the cost of gasoline at the pump. That is a travesty, Mr. Speaker, a travesty.

And for further comments on the energy policies that we need in the Nation, and the need to repeal this Section 526 that for all intents and purposes will make it almost impossible to develop oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid technology, I once again want to yield to the coauthor of H.R. 5656, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Again, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership. I thank him for working with me and co-authoring, I think, a very important piece of legislation.

Again, Mr. Speaker, since the Democrats took control of the energy policy of this Nation 18 months ago, the price of gasoline has increased 70 percent to over $4 a gallon, having a terrible impact on working families all across America and the Fifth District of Texas that I represent.

I recently heard from the Gardner family of Dallas who wrote me: ``Dear Congressman, I am the proud father of an Eagle Scout. I know you are an Eagle as well. I have a younger son in the Scouting program. In order to afford sending our youngest to summer camp, we have had to cancel any summer family trips in order to afford the increased cost of fuel of sending our youngest to camp in Colorado.''

Mr. Speaker, I salute this family for their commitment to Scouting, their commitment to their son, but under the Democrat energy policies that have seen gasoline go to over $4 a gallon, families all across America are having to cancel their summer vacation plans.

Mr. Speaker, what's the answer? Well, I wish there was just one magic button or one magic wand that we could wave to get this done. There is not, but it has a lot to do with, again, producing American energy in America, and it is not just oil and gas. It is renewables. It is alternatives.

I am proud to say that our Republican Party has constantly, constantly supported renewable energy. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was almost $4 billion for the hydrogen fuel cell program, with the goal of launching hydrogen fuel cars by the year 2020; $3 billion dedicated to developing affordable, efficient and renewable energy technologies. We supported extending the renewable electricity production credit, the H Prize that would offer cash prizes for achievements in the development of hydrogen energy technologies, millions for biomass research, millions for solar research. Renewables are part of the equation.

Mr. Speaker, before I came to Congress, I was an officer in one of the Nation's leading retailers of green electricity. I'm committed to it. Mr. Speaker, I'm the father of a 6-year-old daughter and a 4-year- old son, and I hope one day that they are driving in hydrogen-powered cars. I hope that one day they will have solar cells on their roofs and no longer be tied to the electricity grid.

But in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, every day in America somebody needs to drive to work today. Every day in

America somebody needs to take an elderly parent to see a doctor. That's today. Somebody has to take their child to school. That is today.

There are wonderful renewable technologies, but I can tell you as one who has worked in the industry, for these to be commercially viable, for them to be scalable, these technologies are easily 10 years away, perhaps 15, and in some cases, 20.

Another part of the answer, Mr. Speaker, is diversification. China is building two to three nuclear plants a year. In America, we haven't built a new nuclear plant and we haven't had any new permits in 30 years, and yet we know nuclear power has zero emissions, no impact, no carbon footprint whatsoever. We need diversification.

Another thing we need to do, Mr. Speaker, under the Republican plan to bring down the price of fuel at the pump is reduce the number of boutique fuels. There was a time in America's history where if you drove from Spokane, Washington, to Kansas City, Kansas, to Dallas, Texas, to Miami, Florida, there's only one gasoline you bought. Now it may be as many as a dozen, which drives up the price and leads to spot shortages.

Mr. Speaker, not only have we doubled, we are twice as dependent on foreign sources of energy today as we were at the height of the Arab oil embargo. Not only are we importing more oil, we are now having to import refined gasoline. Why? Because we haven't built a refinery in a generation because of this worshipping at the altar of radical environmentalism.

And Mr. Speaker, sometimes I think my friends on the other side of the aisle have forgotten that people are part of the environment, too, and they're struggling. They're struggling to keep their job, pay their rent, fill up their cars. We have to expand American refining capacity.

And then we have to produce the energy we have. Mr. Speaker, we are blessed with great energy resources. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. That's why I and the gentleman from Texas have introduced this bill to ensure that Federal agencies can contract to help to develop these promising technologies in coal-to-liquid. It's already being done in Britain, in Saudi Arabia. We can do it now if the Democrat majority would get out of the way and let us produce.

And our oil resources, Mr. Speaker, the Outer Continental Shelf, our deep sea resources, why is 85 percent of that outlawed? Why is it off the board? Why can't we produce there?

There are decades and decades and decades of energy just sitting there for the take, and again, the radical environmental left that helps control our Democrat majority won't let it happen.

The arctic area of Alaska, half of our proven petroleum reserves sit there in an area of America where almost no one lives.

Mr. Speaker, I get to represent a large portion of East Texas, and I can tell you, somehow man, nature and pump jack can coexist. They can coexist peacefully, and it can be done in Alaska as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that something as challenging as the high price of petroleum, that we could come together as Republicans and Democrats and work for the betterment of all the people in America.

But Mr. Speaker, you cannot outlaw supply and demand. You cannot do it. Demand has increased precipitously over the world, particularly in areas like China and India, and we're sitting on these great supplies, and we're the only Nation in the world that I'm aware of who sits on so much energy and refuses to produce it.

And instead, what does our Democrat majority offer us? Beg OPEC, sue OPEC, tax oil companies, castigate oil companies, impose a form of price controls. That does nothing, nothing to help American families.

The Republican plan will, and with that, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman, and for our final closing comments, I yield to the other gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1304 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1304 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008. The resolution provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and makes in order five amendments submitted for consideration.

The rule also permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules relating to two important measures: one, a measure concerning the Commodity Exchange Act and energy markets; and two, a measure concerning the issuance of oil and gas leases on Federal lands or waters. This authority is needed because House rules allow for bills to be considered under suspension only on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays. In order for the House to consider the bill today on Thursday or on any other day, the House must adopt a rule granting specific permission.

Madam Speaker, hardworking Americans all across this great country are being squeezed by this painful Bush economy that has brought on increased costs for housing and for health care. My colleague from Florida can attest to the rising costs of property insurance for Floridians and other Americans, and of course, gas prices are socking it to our neighbors back home.

Now, many of the reformers here in Congress have been standing up to the White House and have been urging them for years to change direction and to focus on long-term solutions to our energy challenges. But the oil men at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and their Big Oil allies have had a stranglehold over our country's energy policy, and unfortunately, families and businesses across America are paying the price.

Now, some bipartisan progress has been made here in our new-direction Congress over the past year and a half. One of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first initiatives was to establish a new bipartisan Select Committee on Energy Independence and Climate Change, which has been extremely productive. Democratic reformers also pushed through a historic increase in the required gas mileage of 35 miles per gallon for our cars. Now, better gas mileage for our cars alone should save families from $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump and should slash consumption in America by 4 million gallons per day, but it cannot happen soon enough. The sad thing is this technology has existed for years. Cars in Japan travel almost twice as far on a gallon of gas.

What has been missing here in our country is the political leadership to make these necessary changes. So many of the changes we have been fighting for have been blocked by the White House and by their Big Oil allies.

Remember, just 7 years ago, the administration's Energy Task Force met behind closed doors, and it consisted of former oil company executives and of other oil executives, like Ken Lay of Enron. The administration also fought to keep the other identities secret. Saving American families money through innovation was not a priority. Conservation was not a priority--the Vice President made that clear-- and public transit and public transportation were not priorities. They were stuck in the past then, and they still are today because what has been their answer to high gas prices? Their recommendations today are the same as they were 7 years ago: More drilling; more of the same.

Now, as the reformers in this Congress continue to fight for a new direction in energy policy, inexplicably, the White House announced yesterday that it opposes today's public transit bill, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act. What a shame on the White House, because expanding public transportation use is one of the most promising ways to reduce energy consumption and reliance on foreign oil.

Now, with the White House's $4-per-gallon premium, even more commuters are choosing to ride the train and to bus to work rather than to ride alone in their cars. According to two recent studies, America already saves up to 1\1/2\ to 4 billion gallons of gasoline annually. That's more than 11 million gallons of gasoline per day due to public transit.

Ridership across America is way up. 2007 was the highest ridership in public transportation in 50 years. Light rail riders are way up in Denver, Seattle, Portland, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Charlotte, and in many other communities. And my colleague from Miami will be pleased to hear that South Florida posted a 20 percent increase over last year in ridership in March and April. Transit agencies are also using more alternative fuels and clean energy technologies that improve the air we breathe and that aid America's energy independence.

Our transit bill on the floor today and under this rule will lower fares and will expand routes and frequency so public transit is an even more attractive alternative during this time of high gas prices.

So I urge my colleagues to continue to stand up to the White House, to support this rule and our first bill today, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act.

Madam Speaker, our second bill today under this rule is entitled ``Use It or Lose It.'' In the bill, we are calling the bluff of the White House, of Big Oil, and of other prominent Republicans who claim that oil companies are being blocked from drilling for oil and gas and that that is somehow related to gas prices. Well, after the White House announced that policy last week, one commentator called it a massive fraudulent and pathetic excuse for an energy policy.

You see, 68 million acres are already leased and have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 4.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. Now, if 68 million acres are already open to drilling, please do not insult the intelligence of the American people by claiming that the oil companies need more.

The truth about America's energy policy and the White House policy is that Big Oil has stockpiled supplies and has pocketed profits. A report has been generated by the Committee on Natural Resources, entitled ``The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits'' of June 2008. If American families and businesses are interested, they can obtain this report on the Internet at resourcescommittee.house.gov.

The chairman of the Natural Resources Committee is Nick Rahall of West Virginia. It's his bill. The bill forces oil and gas companies to either produce, to use it or to release the leases, to lose them, the leases they've been stockpiling. These companies can't obtain new ones unless they can demonstrate that they are diligently using the ones that they already have.

Now, what was particularly interesting, Madam Speaker, is that, last

year, the administration's own energy department, the Energy Information Administration, issued a report that determined that opening more areas would not have a significant impact on gas prices. The 2007 report of the administration's Energy Information Administration, titled ``Annual Energy Outlook 2007, with Projections to 2030'' can be found at www.eia.doe.gov/oaif/aeo/.

In fact, Madam Speaker, just yesterday, the director of the EIA reconfirmed the 2007 report and noted that expanded offshore drilling in the U.S. will not affect oil and natural gas prices very much at all.

I would like to submit yesterday's reconfirmation by the EIA director of the 2007 report.

[From Bloomberg.com, June 25, 2008]

Offshore Drilling Won't Affect Prices Much, EIA Says

(By Tina Seeley)

Expanded offshore drilling in the U.S. won't affect oil and

natural-gas prices much, the head of the Energy Information

Administration said.

Guy Caruso, speaking today at a press conference in

Washington, said his agency had considered the effect of more

drilling in a 2007 report. Higher energy prices this year

might change the results, although the time needed for

resource development would damp any outcome, he said.

``It does take a long time to develop those resources,''

Caruso said. ``Therefore the price impact is muted by that.''

President George W. Bush last week proposed expanded

drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and development of

energy sources in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as

a response to record prices. Crude-oil futures hit a record

$139.89 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange on June

16.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican

presidential nominee, has expressed support for more

drilling. His potential Democratic opponent, Senator Barack

Obama of Illinois, opposes more drilling.

``The projections in the OCS access case indicate that

access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions

would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and

natural gas production or prices before 2030,'' the agency

said in its 2007 report.

The Energy Information Administration is the statistical

arm of the U.S. Energy Department.

Madam Speaker, this sounds all too familiar: the Bush administration ignoring information generated by its own agencies. They've been downplaying, ignoring climate change, possibly intelligence, and now it comes as no surprise that they're playing games on energy policy as well. Thanks to the administration's years of inaction and incompetence, America is left with record prices for consumers and with record profits for oil companies with disastrous national security consequences.

Now, the third bill we will consider today as part of our energy package is a direction to the administration, encouragement, as we continue to stand up to the misguided policies of this White House.

Our third bill today encourages the White House to take more aggressive action in regulating the energy futures market. This is our first step in tackling the outrageous speculation that is occurring that many experts have noted could help reduce the price of gas at the pump.

This is our package today. We look forward to the debate.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm very happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, a leader on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Cummings.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Vermont, a member of the powerful Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that, under the underlying bill, we provide extensive assistance to rural America. It is clear that folks in rural America oftentimes bear the brunt of high gas prices brought on by this unfortunate Bush economy and by the failure of leadership over the past 6 to 8 years. The underlying bill provides over $100 million for rural America to expand the alternative use through public transportation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The reformers in this Congress are working for solutions and are casting aside the politics of the past, and for the first time in a decade, they are setting the right priorities for American families. See, American families are caught in this very unfortunate Bush economy that is squeezing them, whether it's health care, the rising cost of housing, and, of course, gas prices.

This New Direction Congress, led by Democrats, is on the side of middle class families, and we are responding to their call for change in the direction of this country. But, Madam Speaker, it has not been easy. It has not been easy in these final years of the Bush administration. A number of times we have stood up to the administration to repeal the massive subsidies to the big oil companies and instead take that money and invest it in new renewable energies and biofuel technologies because one of the most promising ways to end our dependence on foreign oil is in the creation of renewable energy sources. But we were blocked by the White House and Big Oil.

But we are not going to give up. If we had given up, the reformers in this Congress would not have been able to push through the first increase in fuel economy standards in over 30 years. The increase of 35 miles per gallon for each automobile will save American families $700 to $1,000 at the pump when fully implemented.

American families are clamoring for a bold, new direction in energy policy. It is vital to their family budgets, and we know now, as, unfortunately, the leaders of the country have had to traipse over to Saudi Arabia and ask for more oil, that this is vital to our national security. So the contrast between the policies of the past and our forward-looking efforts could not be more clear.

But, Madam Speaker, it is so easy to be frustrated by the misguided policies of this administration over the past 8 years and by their political gimmicks where they pretend that drilling for oil in new areas is the answer to high gas prices when their very own Energy Department dismisses the idea as untrue. After all, there are 68 million acres already open and currently leased to oil and gas companies. So why here at the end of this administration would we give Big Oil even more?

Madam Speaker, American families are counting on us. So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to back up your rhetoric with support for our bipartisan bills today, to provide American families with greater opportunities to use public transit by lowering fares and by increasing the frequency of buses and trains in their neighborhoods. Reject the oil drilling gimmick for what it is, and urge this President to address the oil speculators that are causing a run-up in high gas prices. My colleagues, stand up to the powerful interests, and end the practice of using energy policy as a way to support Big Oil. Instead, help our families; help our communities; enable researchers and innovators to lead us to a cleaner, safer, and more affordable future.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and of the underlying legislation. Chart a new direction for America on energy. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Amendment to H. Res. 1304 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

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. 5656) to repeal a

requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition

of alternative fuels. 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 chairman and ranking

member of the Committee on House Oversight and Government

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

offered by Representative Waxman, 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.

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

Well, I thank my colleague from Texas, and I want to say a few things. We'll get to some of our other speakers who are here tonight before we get into the heart of what you and I intend to talk about.

Mr. Speaker, the serious business of providing energy for America, whether that energy is electricity to light the lights in this hall or to run manufacturing facilities or gasoline, whether it is diesel or jet fuel to move people and goods and us around, is serious business. Yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not treating it seriously. This week's get-out-of-town energy strategy included four peripheral bills that are not intended to really deal with it or intended to give cover, political cover, for the folks who voted for these four bills.

Next week, when we all go home to our constituents, we'll have to look them in the eye and tell them that, yes, we've done absolutely nothing to address the cost of gasoline that you're paying. The interesting thing about gasoline is that we may not buy gasoline every single day, but as we drive around, we see the price posted all over town, and I dare say that every single driver looks at the price to check to see what it is. Even though you may not intend to buy gasoline that day, you check those prices constantly. So it's constantly in front of our minds as it is when we have town halls or telephone town halls.

The get-out-of-town strategy included a price-gouging bill--again, puffery--because seven DOE and Federal Trade Commission price-gouging studies over the last decade have shown absolutely no evidence whatsoever of price gouging. This serious business of providing gasoline to consumers at prices that they can afford has been reduced to sloganism: ``Use it or lose it.'' ``We can't drill our way out of these problems.'' They're casual, offhand, flippant comments that don't do the seriousness of this issue justice. A 30-second sound bite works well on a television commercial, but at the heart of the matter, these are complicated issues that deserve and that should get serious consideration on both sides of the aisle.

The solutions aren't Republican. The solutions aren't Democratic. The solutions are what are best for America. To the extent that we can begin to delve deeper into what the issue might be and into what the solution might be, the better off we are, but as long as we're just very cavalier about what we're doing with the get-out-of-town energy policy or with the sloganism that seems to permeate everything that we do with respect to energy, we will not solve this issue.

Gasoline prices will continue to rise. Electricity costs will continue to go up as natural gas prices rise and as we use more and more natural gas to generate electricity. So we are not about the good work of trying to find solutions. We are simply about the bad work of being very casual, very cavalier and very unthoughtful, quite frankly, about this particular issue.

So I look forward to hearing the comments from the other two speakers we have with us tonight, and then I look forward to delving a little deeper into things that I've already talked about.

With that, I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for hosting this night's hour. I hope that it helps some of our colleagues learn a little bit more about the oil business. One of the things that is true in almost every area is that before you begin to regulate something, before you begin to try to control something, you really ought to understand it first. And the lack of understanding, not malicious, but it's not in their professional background. But the lack of understanding of most of our colleagues about the oil business and how it happens is--most of that information is limited to the ``Dallas'' TV show and J.R. Ewing, which was anything but the truth.

The interesting thing about Section 526 is that it basically says the Federal Government can't buy fuel from unconventional sources unless it can be proven that the lifecycle greenhouse emissions are less for the unconventional source than under the conventional source.

What this mechanically does is it takes a tremendous buying power of the Federal Government out of the development phase of getting to unconventional and new sources of ways to drive our cars that are better. The Federal Government has great capacity to buy and buys great quantities, particularly the Department of Defense, and we've now pushed that market aside in terms of being able to use that market to be able to develop these alternatives.

In addition, we've said that rather than buying fuel from tar sands in Canada, which no one can prove whether or not the lifecycle of greenhouse gases is more or less under those circumstances, we can't buy that fuel, but we can buy fuel and crude oil from countries that are, at best, not our allies.

In fact, we have recently passed on the floor of this House, hopefully it won't get any further in the Senate, the opportunity for Americans to sue OPEC to increase OPEC production. Again, an example of how the wrongheaded energy policy has become under the leadership that currently runs this House.

On the one hand, we will sue OPEC to increase production, on the other hand, we say it is not in our best interest to have oil and gas production from stable sources like the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States or the Rocky Mountains of the United States. We don't want to produce those resources, but we want to sue OPEC to force them to produce more crude oil that we would, in fact, buy.

I'm also anxious to see how OPEC is going to respond to that by allowing--setting in place the mechanisms to allow their citizens to sue America to force America to produce its own energy. And the reason they would do that, of course, is that crude oil is a worldwide market, and to the extent that America is withholding her crude oil from the market, she is, in effect, pushing up the price of crude oil worldwide. So on the one hand, we want to sue OPEC, force them to produce their barrels, but on the other hand, we don't want to produce our own barrels which would go into the worldwide supply and would help bring down that cost.

Now, I suspect there is some crafty Federal Trade Commission lawyer that would look at America as creating some sort of a tort within that system by withholding specifically supplies off the market in order to push up the price of crude oil. I think that you could be arguing with that.

I wanted to walk through the energy work that we're going to take up this week.

One of them we've already taken up was the price gouging bill. Price gouging is an interesting phenomenon. There's no real good definition for it. It's pretty vague and in the eye of the beholder. But the price gouging bill that we took up today would have penalized gasoline retailers for trying to adjust their prices during a time of emergency to equalize supply shortages and demand circumstances in those shortages. The market is the best allocator of that resource, and it happens to be on price.

So what we were setting our retailers up for, must of which are mom- and-pop shops or small convenience store chains, or corporations like Valero, which is simply a refiner and also a retailer of gasoline, for the fall of this deal because if this bill had passed today, the Federal crime that would have been committed was ill-defined.

And I want to read briefly from a CRA international study done back in 2007 talking about price gouging.

It says, Under legislation that threatens to punish acts that are defined vaguely and ambiguously, the behavior of the enforcing agencies is inherently unpredictable. And businesses potentially affected by the legislation could form expectations of prosecutorial conduct that could discourage the efficient functioning of markets. Excessively harsh penalties for setting the wrong price could give pause to market decisions that are critical to alleviate shortages, especially if individuals, unsure about the actions of the enforcers, were to adopt very conservative behavior so as to ensure compliance with the law.

The result would be exactly the opposite to the good intentions of the legislation's authors, disincentives to provide additional . . . the waste occasioned by gas lines and the failure to allocate supplies to those who benefit the most.

And then finally, this FTC study is in fact only the most recent assessment of claims of gasoline price gouging. In the last decade, the United States Department of Energy and the FTC have investigated all of the numerous incidences of regional price spike--gasoline price spikes. Their conclusion in every case has been that gasoline prices increases--gasoline price increases were due to the operation of supply and demand in light of an interruption of supply and that the magnitude of price increases was consistent with the magnitude of the loss of supply. There has never been a finding that gasoline price increases were caused by manipulation of the markets.

And yet we continue to hammer away at price gouging, the second time at least that this bill has come up, and it failed again today.

There is also a title of a bill that will deal with speculators in the market. And as of early this afternoon, we've not seen the actual language of that bill. But it is an attempt to go after speculators. Now, it's interesting that the ag committee that I serve on, the full committee had a hearing today in which Walter Lukken, who's the acting chairman of the CFTC, the Commodities Futures Trading Corporation, which oversees the speculative market in crude oil, among other things, testified today that while he is constantly on the lookout for potential manipulation by speculators and/or other participants in the market, that they have seen no evidence that those speculators are having undue influence on the price of crude oil. And then in fact the price of crude oil is set by supply and demand as best they can tell it.

But they are on the lookout every single day. And again, Mr. Lukken feeds his family trying to protect markets from manipulation like the speculators might have an impact on.

The other bill is a ``use it or lose it'' that my colleague from Texas has already talked about. One of the other facts--it's interesting. If we say facts around here, if you say a wrong fact often enough, and often enough as we clearly do, it becomes legend; and that 68 million acres is tossed about by every member of the Democratic leadership, 68 million acres. We have asked how they came up with that number. The Bureau of Minerals Management can't figure out how they've come up with it. The Department of Interior can't figure out how they've come up with it. And we've gone to the leadership and said, We don't know if that number is right or wrong. Tell us how you got to that number. And much like the extrapolated production numbers that our colleagues just talked about, they won't tell us.

All they'll say is that the majority staff of the Natural Resources Committee came up with this number. Now, we don't know if it's good or bad without knowing what it is. So we're having to defend against a number that may have just been flat-out made up. But our colleagues across the aisle won't come forward with their methodology to help us understand what they've done.

And it's a pretty clear statement. If you're going to beat us about the head and shoulders with a number of 68 million acres, then you need to prove to us what that is and how you came to it and whether or not we should be beat about the head and shoulders with it.

And then the final bill which we take up is something referred to as the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008. This is an attempt to help Federal employees cope with these higher commuting costs through public transportation and reimbursements for that, which is not a bad thing, but it clearly shows how tone deaf our colleagues across the aisle are.

They will listen to their employees who are saying we're having a hard time getting to and from work and we need help to reimburse that, but not being able to understand that that is going on across the United States, that that's not limited to just Federal employees.

So they've taken the position that it's a good thing to try to help Federal employees help deal with and cope with these higher gasoline prices, but let's ignore the rest of America who are actually paying the taxes that would have to be used to pay for those commuting costs.

So looking forward to my colleagues' continued comments on these and other issues, the 526 bill, Section 526 repeal is important. We've made several attempts at it. We've included with that a refinery siting bill that would ask the President or require the President to locate no fewer than three potential unused military bases for sitings of refineries, go through all of the proper evaluation and permitting processes, and the governor of the States involved would have a veto.

But nonetheless, an attempt to say, Here are some places we can build refineries to help alleviate the strategic vulnerability that this country has. And so far, we've just been shut out on any attempt to move towards actual more and new production of crude oil and natural gas that would, in fact, deal with this issue of higher prices.

I want to thank our two colleagues for being with us tonight to talk about this.

What you're really talking about is an attack on the American lifestyle. We have built a Nation predicated on cheap gasoline because it has always had cheap gasoline, and we've built suburbs. We've expanded into rural areas. We've built a lifestyle that demands low gasoline prices.

And what we are telling Americans is that this Democratic-led Congress wants high gasoline prices and wants to attack the American lifestyle.

I am honored to be here with my colleagues from Texas. As I start, I am sure there is someone somewhere who is saying, yes, there are three Texans on the floor from the largest petroleum-producing State in the Nation, and of course they want to talk about oil and gas. Well, of course we do.

Also, I think most of us who are here tonight have lived with this industry in our homes and our hometowns in our State. And there seems to be some kind of mystery about terminology that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle I assume are confused about but I don't think that they would intentionally use sloganism to misadvise the American public. But they are in charge of the House, and it is their responsibility to know what we mean when we say lease space for production of oil and gas.

Now the concept of leasing is not a tough concept. This House is full of lawyers, but it doesn't take a lawyer to

talk about a lease. Most Americans know what a lease is. Most Americans some time in their life have leased a home or leased an apartment. Some Americans have leased a house for their family or they have leased a car over a period of time.

Now when they lease, let's say, a car, they say I will pay you so much money for the ability to have this car in my possession and use it as I see fit for a period of time. And I am going to use it for transportation. But they don't have to use it for transportation. They can park it in the garage if they want to, but they would be economically stupid to park it in the garage when they are spending good money for the right to use that leased car. But they certainly would be entitled to do that. If they were doing it for business purposes, they certainly would lose money on that business.

There is no difference, really, between an oil and gas lease and any other sort of lease. The concept is the same concept. A company goes and bids to lease from the Federal Government a certain amount of land for the production of oil and gas and petroleum products. And they pay money to the Federal Government for the right to be able, for a period of time, 5 or 10 years, to explore and ultimately drill for and produce petroleum on that land. If they haven't done that within the period of time of that lease, then the lease is void and goes back to the government. I suppose the government can lease it to somebody else.

Now, we have a term that has come out ``use it or lose it'' which is nebulous, to say the least, because every single oil and gas lease that I have ever heard about from the Federal Government is a use-it-or- lose-it lease. The terms of the lease say you have the right to explore for and produce on this property for a set period of time, say 5 years. After that period, if you haven't done that, if you haven't explored and you haven't produced, the lease goes back because that's the purpose of your using this land. You either use it for that or after 5 years, the terms of the lease that you paid for, you lose it.

Now the oil companies spend billions of dollars for these leases because there is something peculiar about oil, and I think most people in this country understand this. The peculiarity is that it is not everywhere. It is sometimes in your backyard, and sometimes the nearest place is five States away. So the oil companies are speculating based upon sort of known concepts, but they use very highly technical equipment and procedures to give them an indication of whether or not there is oil or gas underneath a piece of property.

For my lifetime they have been using seismic measurements to determine whether or not there is the possibility of a formation below the ground that would be producing oil or gas. This seismic thing is not really fancy. It is vibrations through the earth and they use explosives to make it. Now from the time when I was a kid when I tried to get a job on a seismic crew, that was pretty old-fashioned technology. Today I am sure it is digital and high tech and much better than it was in those days. And I just recently learned they are using some kind of magnetic survey that the big companies are working on that give them other indications where it might be. But the bottom line is it is either there or it is not, and they have to look for it and spend money to see if it is there. So they lease large parts of the country or the offshore area, and they go out and they spend lots of money to look and see if there is oil. And you know what, if they don't see any good indications for production that will pay for itself, they are in the business of oil and gas. So just like you wouldn't lease something you wouldn't use, they won't continue to lease a lease that they can't produce on.

But to say use it of lose it for the leases that are out there, believe me, every oil company that is in the business of producing petroleum products is going to utilize the money they spent on those leases to try to make discoveries to find oil and gas products.

So to come up this slogan that means nothing because it is already in the contract, it doesn't make sense. It is not a good way for us to stand up for the American people. The Democrats are in charge of this House. They have to be willing, as we were when we were in charge, to take the heat for the things that are happening in this country. And quite frankly, the heat right now is the price of gasoline. It has gone up $1.75 or so since they got in office, and they have to take the heat.

What we Republicans are saying is basically what we have been saying since 1990: America has the potential to produce its own energy in multiple forms and we support all those forms that are clean, can be produced environmentally safely, and oil and gas falls within those parameters. And we should be using American energy that we can produce in America.

I would like to tell you, there is an issue about ANWR. ANWR is the frozen tundra area in the far north part of Alaska. You can probably see the pictures of those pristine mountains in the distance if you use a telescopic lens to make it look like they are in your backyard. But most pictures you see of actual ANWR, it kind of looks like this table but it is marshy and frozen.

And this is a good example so you know what we are talking about. I think every American knows what a football field looks like. If they don't, they know what a soccer field looks like. If you take a book of matches and toss it out on the football field, that book of matches would represent the area that is being sought to drill the well to produce in ANWR, and the football field would represent ANWR.

So when they are talking about destroying the wildlife preserve, we are talking about a tiny bit of a place the size of South Carolina. That's what we are looking to drill on, that is what we are looking to produce on. And the track record is undisputable as far as drilling is concerned. Drilling is environmentally safe and almost spill-proof. Last year we spilled one tablespoon of oil in the drilling process. Remember, I said the drilling process. So one tablespoon of oil worldwide producing oil through drilling. So yes, there is a little spillage, but that ain't bad. That is pretty good, and I think we could do that without even spilling a drop in ANWR.

So these issues that are making so much noise come down to basic, sound principles that we can't afford $4 or $5 or $6 a gallon gas until we start making some common sense about American policy towards oil and gas.

I don't even want to mention because I happen to be blessed to live down in a State where at least in my part of the State it doesn't get real cold in the wintertime. But I have been in Congress long enough to know that the minute it starts getting cold up here in the northern clime, people start getting real cold when they don't have heating oil to heat their homes. And then they start running to Congress and asking us to give them money to supplement their heating bills because the price of oil is through the roof. Well, they haven't seen the price of oil through the roof until they look at this $138 or $139 a barrel price for crude oil. And the heating cost that is going to be hitting the northeast and the midwest and the far west and the mountain areas of this country come cold weather time is going to make this problem with driving our automobiles look like a walk in the park for people in that cold weather.

So let's start dealing with this issue now so that we can, as we show the courage to do what is right and not block what is right, then those people who are speculating, and also just bidding in competition with us on the futures that are available in the oil market, will realize that America is serious about producing its own energy. And when they see us serious, they will know that we won't be the big players to drive up the market, and I believe they will start to dump those holdings they are holding now. As they dump those holdings into the market, the price will go down. It is the argument that everyone has said here today, the law of supply and demand. Right now we are short on supply, certainly short on domestic supply. As we show the will to seek domestic supply, our competitors will realize we are going to have our own supply which will make that international trading in the market less valuable to them and they will start to dump their oil before they start to lose money on their speculations. So I think this is common sense. This is easy. This is economics 101. I hope that everybody will remember that leasing is just exactly what it is.

There is nothing magical about an oil and gas lease. It is paying money for the use of land for a period of time. That's what we are talking about here. So this use it or lose it idea is really strange.

In addition, there are some facts that have been thrown out that I want to mention, and then I will yield back my time.

Democrats are saying that 4.8 million barrels of oil per day and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day may be extrapolated from the oil company's Federally leased land that they already hold today. This is not true.

No Democrat, not Speaker Pelosi, Hoyer, Rahm, any of them can give us one source where they got that number, and it's been specifically requested by the Republicans in the Natural Resources Committee to ask them where they got that number and how they extrapolate it, and there's been nothing forthcoming. I can't imagine that they just made it up.

But the reality is if it is there, it has got to be found. If it has got to be found, there's going to be hundreds of millions of dollars spent to find it. And believe me, they're not going to waste their money. If it's there, they're going to go get it. And so this is simple stuff. And I hope the American people and the Members of this Congress know it's simple stuff.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I hope that everybody is listening in detail to what my colleagues are talking about here today.

You know, I spent a long time as a district judge and watching lawsuits. It is very fascinating, this sue OPEC argument that's out there, because as I understand it, the lawsuit would be you are not producing enough, therefore, you're fixing the price and we're suing you. And I would see a lawyer for the Saudi Arabians or whomever we had sued, they would say, well, wait a minute, you're not producing, therefore, you're influencing the price of oil; so I'm going to counter-sue you under this lawsuit, and now, America, let's see who's not producing the most.

I'm afraid we'd lose because we're not producing anything on the east coast, anything on the west coast, anything in half of the Gulf of Mexico and anything in a quarter of Alaska, where they can argue that they're producing everything they can pump. It's just how fast they turn up the pumps. So that lawsuit might turn its back on us right there, and that concerns me. But that's all speculation.

It's not speculation that that family's not getting to go on a vacation. You know, it's not speculation the people who worry about how they're going to get their children to their schools and their after- school activities come the start of school in the fall.

I talked to a lady two-and-a-half years ago when the Democrat minority, when we were in the majority, were criticizing us for $2.40 a gallon, $2.50 a gallon gasoline. They were criticizing us, and I went and pumped gas in a gas station for about 3 hours and talked to the people as I filled up their tank.

And the lady who told the most compelling story was the one who said, I have to get my kids to their various recitals, practices, after- school activities and make sure they get to school on time. They go to three different schools. I'm a single mom, with three kids in three different schools in three different parts of town. And I have to choose between what we eat or if we eat and whether I get to drive the car to get these kids.

That was at $2.50 a gallon of gas. We have now got $4.07 a gallon of gas, and I can't help but think about that lady every day and wonder-- I'd like to actually hear from her--wonder how she's doing.

Also, the trucker that hauled a load from Houston to San Diego and got paid $1,800, and his fuel costs were $1,700, how is that man going to make a living?

This is about making a living, living the American dream, just being good Americans, and we're being kept from that by the Democrats' energy policy. It's time to wake up and produce American energy for America.