Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule which is a cynical attempt to provide political cover for Members of this body who have chosen to elevate partisanship and politics above American consumers and our economy.

Today, both everyday consumers and our national economy are suffering. Mr. Speaker, we are suffering because of this Democrat majority's mind-boggling unwillingness to increase the supply of domestically produced oil to reduce prices at the pump. That's why we are suffering. We are suffering because the policy here in this body in Washington, D.C., and you can read about it in articles in virtually every single paper across the country, and that is the leadership of this House of Representatives does not want to get the right thing done so consumers can have more energy and oil at the pump.

For weeks now, Republicans have been unified in a commonsense and comprehensive approach to bringing down the price of gasoline for consumers, only to have every single one of those plans and votes on the floor of this House of Representatives ignored by the Democrat majority in favor of an agenda that prioritizes legislation like naming historical trails and gaming the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to prevent the development of increased energy production in New England alone.

They are going out of their way to make sure that commonsense legislation that will help the free market and the energy companies, who should be our friends, to provide what consumers need and to produce a better economy.

These priorities completely ignore the wishes of the American people and will do absolutely nothing to bring relief to millions of Americans who are really suffering as a result of high energy prices. I think that if the American people knew that the plan, or part of the plan, was to sue OPEC, they would laugh just like Members of this body have done.

Rather than taking this opportunity to work in a constructive, bipartisan way, to address these domestic energy supply issues that have led to sky-high energy prices for consumers, today we are being asked outside of regular order, and with no opportunity for Members to offer their own good ideas to bring down the price of gasoline, to spend a whopping 40 minutes debating a fig-leaf legislation that wasn't even released to Republicans until late last night.

Republicans have already put forth a number of smart, innovative ideas to bring down gas prices like H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007, which would reduce the price of oil by opening new American refineries, investing in clean energy sources such as wind, nuclear, and captured carbon dioxide, and making available more American energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the Arctic energy slope and America's deep sea reserves.

But, of course, we know we can't get close to that. We also have H.R. 2279, the Expand American Refining Capacity on Closed Military Installations Act, which would reduce the price of oil by streamlining the refinery application process and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of setting new and reliable American refineries in place.

H.R. 5656, which would reduce the price of oil by allowing the entire Federal Government, not just the Department of Defense, NASA and our intelligence community, to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources such as oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid technology.

H.R. 2208, the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act, which would reduce the price of oil by encouraging the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology by authorizing the Secretary of Energy to engage and enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation and fuel; and, H.R. 2493, the Fuel Mandate Reduction Act, which would reduce the price of oil by removing fuel-blend requirements and onerous government mandates that contribute to unaffordable gasoline. In other words, red tape.

Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have the ability to bring each and every one of these already developed commonsense solutions up for a vote at any time, but they have chosen to ignore the American public in favor of a radical environmentalist agenda, and each one of these bills is also the subject of a discharge petition that would force their consideration. Every single Member of this body, even though they may agree or disagree with Speaker Pelosi on whatever her agenda might be, can take a commonsense approach and come down and sign a discharge petition that would bring this legislation to the floor of the House of Representatives.

I encourage every single Member of this body who agrees that this country needs to increase its supply of safe and reliable American energy to force this Democrat leadership to finally act by joining me in signing each and every one of these.

It's simple, by the way, for the new Members, as you hear this, all you have to do is walk down to the very front, sign these discharge petitions, and we could, this afternoon, be debating and voting on commonsense ideas to bring down the price of gasoline.

Instead, this Democrat majority, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has chosen to bring up redundant legislation that has been overtaken by events before it can even be considered. The Bush administration has already announced that a new round of leases will be held for the National Petroleum Reserve, making today's restatement of current policy as useless as the restatement of the current ``use it or lose it,'' or, said another way, making energy companies drill dry holes. So, what we need is commonsense activities that would bring commonsense prices down for the American public.

Perhaps the most galling of all is the inclusion of section 5 of today's legislation, which forces cumbersome requirements and restrictions on the construction of any new pipeline from Alaska to the rest of the United States simply on behalf of big labor bosses. While the inclusion of this requirement is no surprise coming from the Democrat majority that wants to take away a worker's right to a private ballot so that big labor bosses can more easily manipulate the outcomes, it is disappointing that this Democrat majority would blatantly include this requirement at a time when we can see that it should be addressed to make life easier for bringing down the cost of gasoline for all Americans.

Today's bill is being brought forth by the Democrat leadership in a weak attempt and effort that does nothing more than restate current law and restate existing requirements that oil production on lands be developed while adding new restrictions to pipeline construction for the benefit of big labor bosses. I challenge anyone on either side of this aisle to produce a study other than the partisan and logically challenged report developed by the Democrat staff of the Natural Resources Committee that reapplying the so-called ``use it or lose it'' provision to the National Petroleum Reserve will create even one additional barrel of oil. This is a supply-side problem. This is a problem that the new Democrat majority has made happen, and this is a problem that the American people are asking each of us to solve.

So, the Republican Party is here on the floor of the House of Representatives on behalf of the American people asking all the Members of this body to please understand what we are doing. I think it's a cynical rule that we are debating now, as well as the underlying legislation. We need real legislation. We need to put the American people first. We are not just some country, we are America, and we can win.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's interesting, he says ``drill now,'' but we can't drill where the oil is. ANWR is 19 million acres. We need less acreage than is the size of one-ninth of Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport. We don't need the 19 million acres. We need one- ninth the size of DFW International Airport, or only 2,000 acres.

Oil companies would go drill in all these places, except they are dry holes. They want to drill where the oil is, and that's where the Republicans want to give them that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield for such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California from the Rules Committee, our ranking member, Mr. Dreier.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the favorite son of the Volunteer State, Mr. Duncan.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like the Democrat Party has an argument with themselves on this one. They're arguing with themselves.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished second baseman from the Republican championship baseball team, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to let the gentleman from Vermont know that our time allocation is out of balance now, and I would appreciate if the gentleman would use up that time and make it more equitable between us.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have one additional speaker, and I believe that the gentleman from Vermont has about twice as much time as we have. So I would like to inquire about his opportunity to utilize more of his speakers or to ask where he is in this process.

We reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, English economist John Maynard Keynes said, ``When the facts change, sir, I change my mind. What do you do?''

Well, it's obvious today that the facts have changed, and our friends in the new majority don't change their thoughts or ideas to adjust to the facts of the case.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Mr. Speaker, I will take from those words that the gentleman from Vermont has no further speakers and would be interested in me closing at this time.

Mr. Speaker, since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibilities to do constructive things to address the domestic supply issues that have created today's skyrocketing gas prices, diesel prices, and energy costs that the American families are facing. And today, once again, they are proving to Americans that they have a failure of leadership and vision.

Mr. Speaker, we'll see what happens when the August break comes around and our friends in the new Democrat majority head home to find out how much home fuel prices are going to spike with home heating fuel, and we will find out what happens in September when we come back from the break.

So to avoid that, Mr. Speaker, today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider in July, as opposed to September, real solutions to the rising energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for this House's consideration of H.R. 5984, H.R. 2208, H.R. 3089, H.R. 2493, H.R. 5656, and H.R. 2279.

Mr. Speaker, these may not be household understood names of bills, but in September, the new Democrat majority, after spending August at break, is going to find out they should have done something, rather than doing nothing.

Yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee, hours before Republicans were even given a copy of today's legislation, the same amendment was defeated by the Democrat majority by a party-line vote.

While I do not have a great deal of hope that this Democrat majority will provide a better outcome than the one provided by my Democrat Rules Committee colleagues, the vote on this previous question will allow every single Member of this body, especially those Members of the much- and often-reported bipartisan working group on drilling, to stand up for real solutions to this energy crisis--it's easier to do it in July than it will be in September--not just ineffective restatements of current policy that do absolutely nothing to increase the production of American energy for consumers.

I encourage everyone that believes that a comprehensive solution to solving this energy crisis and achieving energy independence includes increasing the supply of American energy to join me and to defeat this rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place this motion and extraneous material in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1350 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Res. 1350 provides that it shall be in order on the legislative day of Thursday, July 17, 2008, for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules relating to a measure concerning the domestic production of oil and natural gas.

The energy crisis that we face is real. It requires immediate attention and short and long-term action. As a Nation, we have in our reserves less than 2 percent of the proven oil and gas reserves in the world. But with 4 percent of the population, we consume nearly 25 percent of the world's oil. That's not sustainable over the long term.

We must take this opportunity now to provide relief immediately to people paying over $4 at the pump, $5 for home heating oil, and we need a commitment to a new energy future focused on creating clear and clean domestic alternatives.

Under suspension of the House rules, this body will take up later the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands bill. The bill promotes the responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas on the 20 million acres that make up the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. That would provide an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil, a higher estimate than the consensus estimate of oil that is available in ANWR.

The DRILL Act, as it is called, will increase oil production and do it sooner than other alternative proposals. It will facilitate also the construction of existing pipelines within 5 miles of where they already are located. So its environmental footprint will be minimal, and engineering challenges also minimal. This will help move oil and natural gas to the market.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a brief remark.

The number of bills that were referred to by my friend from Texas, none of those, not a single one of those bills, will get supply out of the ground and into the gas tank in the foreseeable future. The legislation that we are going to be considering today is about getting supply as quickly as possible by taking advantage of something that's available and ready to be leased next to a pipeline.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to my colleague the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Congresswoman Sutton.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona, a leader in solar energy, alternative energy, Congresswoman Giffords.

I am always here to accommodate my friend from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield at this time 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, can you tell us the time allocation at this time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, a member of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. DeFazio.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas.

First of all, there is common agreement here. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this. People are suffering. They cannot afford spending more than $4 a gallon for gas, and folks in my part of the country, the cold weather region, are living with enormous anxiety about how they're going to pay $5 a gallon for home heating fuel. So the problem that we face is real and it is urgent.

I disagree with one of the authors of the energy policy that got us here, and that is the former senator from Texas, Phil Gramm, who is advising their Presidential candidate. And he recently announced that we really don't have a problem. He said, ``You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession.'' And he's saying that America is a nation of whiners.

You know what, people have a right to complain about an energy policy where they can't afford to fill up their gas tank. They're living in enormous anxiety when the fuel truck shows up to heat their home, and they have to make decisions between food and fuel, between medicine that they need and the fuel that's required to keep their home warm.

This is about rejecting the energy policy that has failed us and has brought us here.

You know, my friend from Texas made a statement that I agree with. He said the oil companies should be our

friends. That is right. Oil companies have been very good at what they do--exploring for oil, finding oil, refining oil, producing oil, and getting it to the market. But the policies that we've had in place since President Bush became the leader of this country have enriched the oil companies. But the oil companies, in turn, with over $500 billion in profits, have not reinvested that money into either producing where they can or moving to an alternative energy policy.

You know, one of the folks raised the question as to whether or not this is a ``fig leaf'' bill, whether there's rhetoric in this bill because we're talking about 20 million new acres that has a proven capacity of at least 10 billion barrels of oil. Is it a question of Congress not making lands available for drilling onshore and offshore when we know already there are 68 million acres onshore and offshore available, and this bill makes it clear we want to make 20 million acres more available? Is it a question of lands where there is oil available being denied access? Or is it a failure on the part of the oil companies to invest?

You know, ExxonMobil, in one quarter, made about $40 billion in profit; for 1 year, $40 billion in profit. Did they put that profit into new drilling technology, into exploiting some of the leases that they have, into getting oil out of the ground and into the market? No. They spent $32 billion buying back their own stock.

Basically what you're seeing is that the oil companies that have been doing extraordinarily well under this energy policy that's got us to this crisis have not been reinvesting their money, but they've put their capital on strike. They've been buying back shares and maintaining the value of their stock at the expense of exploiting the oil fields that they have immediate access to.

Well, I want to go through some of the arguments that my friend from Texas made. He accused the Democratic Congress of a mind-boggling refusal to increase production. That's just flat out wrong. You've got the 68 million acres where the oil companies right now have the legal right to go in and drill, and they haven't done it. That's not an act of Congress, that's a corporate decision made by the major oil companies.

Second, he said that the energy companies don't go there because they are ``dry holes.'' That's just flat out wrong. I mentioned earlier I actually do think the energy companies are good at what they do. They don't waste their money or their stockholder money. And when they decide to spend their money on purchasing a lease, it's because they've come to their own independent conclusion that it's worth that investment, that there is oil in the ground or under the sea.

So those oil companies have access to it. Why don't they drill? And also, why aren't there drills available, the drilling rigs for offshore drilling and drilling rigs on land? There's two reasons: one, the oil companies are doing great sitting on these leases; the longer that they wait, the more they make. If they bought a lease when oil was at $30 a barrel and then it goes to $75 a barrel and up to $130 or $140 a barrel, that's money in the bank. The longer they wait, the more they make.

A second reason is, they aren't willing to risk the profits in increasing production. As long as there is a shortage of supply, the price stays up. And their profits are exploding as we speak. So there is an enormous amount of responsibility that we have and expect from the oil companies.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the resolution.

I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend from Big D for yielding me time and for accurately pointing out the size that we are looking at exploring in an environmentally sound way in Alaska is the size of the Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport. I have often said the Dulles International Airport. It's a pretty small area, and I think we need to do that.

I just don't get it. I have enjoyed listening to a load of our newly elected friends from the other side of the aisle over the past hour and a half as we have debated the motion to instruct conferees come to the floor and talk about the need for us to increase exploration. Obviously these newly elected Members have been hearing from their constituents just like virtually everyone has.

I appreciate the fact that they have had their ear to the ground, and they have heard the hue and cry from the American people that we need to do everything we can to address this problem.

The thing is, this bill, as was correctly stated by my friend from Dallas, is nothing but a reaffirmation of current law, and it is called the DRILL Act. The thing that is very perplexing about this is that we are trying to have an all-of-the-above solution, which does include drilling in an environmentally sound way, and yet this bill, which was introduced late last night, just provided to members in the minority again very, very late last night, was cobbled together. We had a Rules Committee meeting yesterday, and no one knew what it was.

We offered, at that juncture, a bipartisan, and I stress a bipartisan, package of legislation which has been introduced, considered. A number of those measures are right here in the well with discharge petitions, and these measures are provided, having gone through an airing by Members of this body, and, yet, we are not given a chance to do that, to have a vote on it.

Now, again, this is called the DRILL Act, but fact of the matter is, the structure around which we are considering this measure should be we are afraid to vote on the potential for drilling act, is really what it is.

Why?

Because we know full well that this procedure, known as suspension of the rules, is really building on what is taking place in our House Appropriations Committee right now and virtually every other committee in this Congress; and that is, we are afraid to have any kind of debate, discussion or debate or vote on the issue of drilling.

Now, I am one who believes, as our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have said, that we need to pursue alternative energy sources, renewable energy, we need to do everything we can to encourage conservation, and we have a lot of very interesting proposals out there to do that.

But I think common sense says that, for the next few decades, even though we need to do everything we can to wean ourselves off of our reliance on fossil fuels, we have no choice. And so that is why, when I listen to my colleagues say that we should pursue the petroleum reserve and get 10 billion barrels, why don't we also look at ANWR to go for 10 billion barrels?

Again, I believe that the American people want us to come together to address this. As we listen to the horror stories of what has happened, one of the most telling came to me from a grandparent who said that, in one of our town hall meetings, they can't afford to pay for the gasoline to drive to visit their grandchildren from the San Gabriel Valley of California down to Long Beach. And the notion that this dramatic increase in gasoline prices is literally dividing families is something that I think we, as Democrats and Republicans, should come together to address.

Now, as we listen to our need to expand drilling and to encourage big oil to do that, I think we need to look at the fact that, for at least a decade and a half plus, we have been trying to encourage things like exploration in ANWR. And what has happened? Well, in the other body we had members of the Democratic Party filibuster this measure.

I also have to say that in 1995, 13 years ago, we all know that we were able to get through both Houses of Congress, through both Houses of Congress, a measure that would allow us to, in an environmentally sound way, explore that tiny area in Alaska. And what has happened as a by-product of that? Well, unfortunately, then-President Clinton chose to veto that measure.

USA Today, which is hardly a Republican publication, had an editorial just a few weeks ago in which they said that if that measure had been signed, rather than vetoed by President Clinton, we wouldn't be standing here having this discussion that we are now.

And so that is why we have come forward, and Mr. Sessions is going to move to defeat the previous question so that we will have an opportunity to make in order legislation like the very thoughtful proposal from our Democratic colleague, Mr. Boucher, the gentleman from Virginia, who has, as a hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, come up with a way in which we could proceed on this. A lot of thought has gone into this, a lot of work. And this was introduced a while back.

There are five other bills, along with Mr. Boucher's, that have been introduced. And all we are saying is, why don't we have a debate on those and have an up-or-down vote, so that we can, again, pursue what we describe as our all-of-the-above solution to what is obviously a very serious problem that is having a ripple effect across our entire economy, and, in fact, as we all know, across the global economy.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule so that we can come forward with a measure that will allow us to do what it is the American people want us to do; work together, Democrats and Republicans alike, for a solution to this very, very pressing problem.

Madam Speaker, on February 6, 2008, I was unable to vote on the following votes: rollcall No. 29: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 867. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 30: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 942. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'', and rollcall No. 31: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 943. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Madam Speaker, on February 7, 2008, I was unable to vote on the following votes: rollcall No. 32: On ordering the previous question for H. Res. 956. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 33: On agreeing to H. Res. 956. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 34: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 283, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 35: On motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4848, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 36: On agreeing to the amendment numbered 4 to H.R. 4137. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 37: On agreeing to the amendment numbered 5 to H.R. 4137. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 38: On agreeing to the amendment numbered 7 to H.R. 4137. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''; rollcall No. 39: On motion to Recommit H.R. 4137 with Instructions. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''; rollcall No. 40: On passage of H.R. 4137. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall

No. 41: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 947. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'', and rollcall No. 42: On agreeing to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5140. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, On March 11, 2008, I was unable to vote on the following vote: rollcall No. 111: On motion to adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, on April 14, 2008, I was unable to vote on the following votes: rollcall No. 183: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 886, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 184: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 994, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; and rollcall No. 185: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 3548, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, on May 5, 2008, I was unable to vote on the following votes: rollcall No. 240: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 952. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 241: On a motion to table the motion to reconsider H. Res. 952. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 242: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1011, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 243: On a motion to table the motion to reconsider H. Res. 1011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; and rollcall No. 244: On a motion to adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, on May 6, 2008, I was unable to vote on the following vote: rollcall No. 260: On motion to adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, on June 3, 2008, I was unable to vote on the following votes: rollcall No. 367: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 138, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 368: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 369: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1114. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, on July 17, 2008, I was unable to vote on the following votes: rollcall No. 510: On agreeing to the resolution to H. Res. 1350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''; rollcall No. 539: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1370, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

I certainly thank the third base coach for yielding the time.

I do think that there is a healthy thing that's going on here, and that is the Democrats are beginning to hear from their constituents that we've got to do something about foreign oil, and we've got to use our American resources. I think that's good.

I think this bill will probably pass. I don't actually know why we're debating it. It's pretty much a restatement of current law. I heard one Democrat say it's a ``drill now'' bill. You know, that's what they are doing right now. They're exploring these leases. These leases are very expensive. They don't buy them to sit on them and for the U.S. Congress to think. This is really ridiculous that they're sitting on land where there are great reserves of oil, but for some reason, they're not drilling there.

Come on, guys. This is a capitalist system. These companies are money hungry. They run after profit. If there were oil in these places, certainly they

would be working on it. If you want to give them a nudge, I'm all for it.

I plan to support the bill. I think it ought to be voice voted out on suspension. It's no big deal. It's a rhetoric bill. It's not a realistic bill.

What we do know is that 65 percent of our land resources are tied up and off-limits. We do know that, for example, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is the size of South Carolina in a State twice as big as Texas. And in this massive amount of land the size of South Carolina, there is a tundra area of about 2,000 acres which we believe would increase our domestic American oil supply 10 percent. It was vetoed by Democrat liberal President Bill Clinton 10 years ago. If it hadn't been vetoed by the Democrat liberal, special-interest President, we would have that oil today. It's too bad.

And then we hear so often from the Democrats, well, you know, if you open up ANWR and all of these places, it will be 10 years before we get the oil. Well, where are these electric cars? Where are these battery- operated cars? I mean, all of this alternative energy, which I certainly support and have been funding from the appropriations side, working very diligently on, that's going to be 10 and 15 years down the road as well.

We've got to do three things on our energy crisis: we have to have conservation, we have to have innovation, and we have to have exploration. It's that simple. But you have got to explore where their actually is oil. I concur with the gentleman from Texas. This is good because the Democrats are admitting that we have to open up more lands.

So we're going to pass this bill. Nothing is going to happen to the price at the pump. It's not going to be affected by this because it's basically current law, but I'm glad that you guys are slowly, reluctantly entering into the debate of drilling because we believe that in an environmentally safe fashion, you can drill in Alaska, and you can drill offshore.

I just want to say 108 oil platforms were damaged in the Gulf of Mexico during Katrina, and there was no pollution. All of the problems in the gulf, pollution wasn't one of them because now we have environmentally safe ways to extract oil from the bottom of the ocean or from land.

I want to say this. You know, we tied up the offshore in the day of the 8-track tape player. That was when you had an 8-track tape player in your GTO and you were the cool, edgy, high-tech guy. Today in the world of iPods and BlackBerrys and cell phones and everything else, technology has moved past the good old 8-track tape player. And the same thing has happened in medicine, the same thing has entered in entertainment, the same thing has happened in oil drilling. We have new technology, modern technology that will extract oil in an environmentally safe fashion.

I want to close with this. What is so sacred about protecting the American global environment but not the foreign global environment? The Democrats are fine if you are drilling offshore in your country or drilling on the land in your country, but not in America.