Floor Statements

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resource Compact. I am deeply concerned that this compact would allow Great Lakes water to be defined as a product. By allowing water to be defined as a product, the compact would subject the Great Lakes to international trade agreements, such as the North America Free Trade Agreement or the World Trade Organization.

There is also no language in the compact that recognizes the Great Lakes waters held in trust. The public owns the water of the Great Lakes, and anything we pass should preserve this.

While the original intent of the Great Lakes Compact was to protect our water from diversion, the compact that the States have sent to Congress may unintentionally have the opposite effect and set a precedent that would open the door to diversions.

The Great Lakes Governors have spent more than 3 years addressing the local and State implications of the compact. Unfortunately, we have not done the same deliberative process. We have spent less than 20 legislative days since the introduction of this legislation. We have had no hearings in the House to consider the Federal or international implications. We are rushing to a vote when one of our Nation's most precious natural resources, the Great Lakes, is at stake.

Before we ratify the Great Lakes Compact, the following questions must be fully investigated. How does the compact's exemption of water in a container smaller than 5.7 gallons affect the Federal prohibition on diversions of water under the Water Resources Development Act?

Will creating a definition of Great Lakes water as a product subject it to international trade law or agreements such as NAFTA?

Would actions taken by the Great Lakes States to protect the Great Lakes against efforts by international commercial entities who seek to privatize the Great Lakes ever be subject to claims under the general agreements on tariffs and trade or to WTO?

I have asked these questions of the International Joint Commission, the United States Trade Representative and the Department of State before Congress adjourned for the August recess. While these agencies have acknowledged my request, they were unable to provide me with any substantive responses. This alone should be reason enough to vote on this legislation until we have the answers to my questions.

I cannot in good conscience vote to approve legislation that may unintentionally open the Great Lakes to diversions through privatization, commercialization and exportation. It is imperative that we take our time to ensure that the legal protections we seek to enact and preserve to restore the quality and quantity of the Great Lakes water be done properly.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on Senate Joint Resolution 45 so that we may fully address the questions and pass a compact that protects the Great Lakes.

In my 16 years here in the House of Representatives, I have fought to protect these Great Lakes. Why are we rushing now to do a compact that we have not had time to examine, when the State Department cannot answer our questions, when we don't have the answers?

After we pass this legislation, it will be too late to say, oh, we might have made a mistake here. Let's not open up our Great Lakes water to commercialization and to international agreements we have no control over. Let's get the answers before we pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

What assurance do we have that if we seek to amend the compact after this is passed that the States are going to go along with us?

But once the law is passed, you can't go back and amend it, unless the States take the initiative, because under WRDA and what you are verifying here, the States would have control over it. So even if the Congress wanted us to change the compact because they are diverting our water, we can't do it unless the States act first. You are giving up the right. You are ratifying this compact, and the only way you can only come back into this compact is through the States, and not necessarily the Federal Government.

Four of the five Great Lakes are international bodies of water where the States have no say over it. That's why the Federal Government must ratify it. If we continue to ratify this compact without getting our answers, you cannot go back and reopen the international agreement unless both sides agree, including the eight States and the two provinces of Canada.

I have one other inquiry: Why are we rushing this compact? There is no end date that it has to be done before the end of the year.

It's an open-ended commitment. Why can't we wait? What's the rush?

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 415, which would celebrate 75 years of effective state-based alcohol regulation since the repeal of Prohibition.

On May 5, 2008, I introduced H. Con. Res. 341 with the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, to recognize the 75th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition and to commemorate the effective state-based regulation of alcohol.

This legislation has 98 cosponsors.

In order to bring the resolution to the floor today, Mr. Coble and I re-introduced it as H. Con. Res. 415.

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for working with me on this important resolution.

In 1919, the 18th amendment prohibited ``the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors.''

During Prohibition, the United States experienced a dramatic increase in illegal activity including unsafe black market alcohol production, a growth in organized crime, and increasing noncompliance with alcohol laws.

It was not uncommon for consumers to fall victim to counterfeit or tainted alcohol, with disastrous results including blindness or brain damage.

For example, the patent medicine Jamaica ginger, or ``Jake,'' was often consumed by those desiring to circumvent the ban on alcohol. In response, the Treasury Department mandated changes in the formula to make it undrinkable.

In an attempt to fool government testing, unscrupulous vendors would sometimes adulterate their Jake with an industrial plasticizer. As a result, tens of thousands of victims suffered paralysis of their feet and hands--usually, this paralysis was permanent.

Other amateur distillers used old automobile radiators to distill liquor, and the resulting product was dangerously high in lead salts-- which usually led to fatal lead poisoning.

On December 5, 1933, the United States ratified the 21st amendment, repealing Prohibition and restoring the control of alcohol regulation to the States.

For 75 years, this regulatory system has allowed each state to adopt individual laws that fit the beliefs of the residents of each State.

State lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement officers, and public health officials in each State have developed and implemented effective policies that have protected consumers and encouraged safe and responsible consumption.

While the United States now enjoys the safest and most responsible alcohol distribution network in the world, cases of tainted or counterfeit alcohol continue to occur across the globe.

Just yesterday in the United Kingdom, a police raid found 1,100 bottles of fake vodka that may blind consumers, many using the SPAR Imperial label.

British officials believe it is likely that more of the vodka is on the market. Small shops and stores in particular have been told to be on the lookout.

The potential for counterfeit alcohol and unscrupulous vendors remains a threat throughout the world today, and presents a real danger to consumers.

The state-based system for regulating alcohol in the United States has served as one of the safest and most responsible systems for protecting consumers from tainted or counterfeit alcohol.

I think it is fitting to salute the State lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement officers, and public health officials that have made this regulatory system successful.

I'd like to thank the Judiciary Committee, specifically Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith, for their support in allowing us to consider this resolution today.

I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 75th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition, and in commemorating the effective state- based system of alcohol regulation.

Vote ``yes'' on this important resolution.

I thank the chairwoman for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008.

Since coming to Congress, I have made it my mission to protect and promote one of the Nation's most precious resources, the Great Lakes. I am a cosponsor of the Great Lakes Legacy Act and can speak personally on the positive impact it has had on my district.

Tannery Bay, located in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, suffered from pollution from byproducts left behind by the Northwestern Leather Company, which operated in the area from 1900 to 1958. On September, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency, through the Great Lakes Legacy Act program, completed remediation of the Tannery Bay industrial site. In total, the clean-up removed 880,000 pounds of chromium and more than 70 pounds of mercury from the bay and the wetland on Tannery Point.

Success stories such as these demonstrate the need for continued support for the Great Lakes Legacy Act. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that more than 850,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment has been removed since 2004. However, an estimated 75 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment remain in the Great Lakes.

This legislation would reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act for an additional 5 years and triple the authorized funding levels for remediation in the Great Lakes up to $150 million per year.

I strongly support H.R. 6460 and look forward to the continued success of this program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2339, a bill to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Alpena, Michigan, after LTC Clement C. Van Wagoner.

I would like to thank Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer for their support of this legislation.

Clement C. Van Wagoner, a native of Alpena County, is one of Michigan's most highly decorated veterans of WorId War II. He distinguished himself as commander of the A Co., First Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, serving 600 days of combat and returning to battle after being wounded five separate times.

Mr. Van Wagoner was one of only 32 survivors of the 1,800 soldiers who landed with the 1st Infantry Division at Omaha Beach on D-day.

He was the recipient of the Combat Infantry Badge, four Silver Stars, seven Bronze Stars, five Purple Hearts, the Soldier's Medal, and many others.

However, Mr. Van Wagoner's service did not stop after returning home. He continued to serve the State of Michigan and his country

honorably as a member of the Michigan Army National Guard. The governor requested that he re-establish and command an Army National Guard unit in Alpena, which he commanded until he retired in 1967.

Mr. Van Wagoner was an outstanding member of his community, a local hero, and a great American. His son, Clayton, has carried on the family tradition of national service as a member of the Army Reserve.

Clement C. Van Wagoner passed away in 2007. It is fitting to honor him, his years of service, and his family by naming the Veterans Affairs clinic in Alpena the ``Lieutenant Colonel Clement C. Van Wagoner Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic.''

This legislation has been endorsed by the Michigan American Legion, Michigan VFW, Michigan AMVETS, Michigan DAV, Alpena County Board of Commissioners, City of Alpena, Township of Alpena, and Alpena County Veterans Council.

I would also like to thank the entire Michigan House delegation for their support on this legislation and Senators Stabenow and Levin for their work on S. 2339.

Mr. Speaker, back in 2003, congressional Republicans supported the Bush-Cheney energy bill that was written in secret by Big Oil. And, boy, are we paying.

Three years later, we have record prices for consumers and record profits for the oil companies. Since taking control of Congress last year, Democrats have worked hard to reverse these failed energy policies.

For the first time in 32 years, we increased the fuel efficiency standards for vehicles so they will be more efficient, which will save Americans about $1,000 a year. We also made a historic commitment to investing in biofuels and increasing domestic oil supply and drill responsibly.

This is a good start, but more needs to be done. That's why House Democrats brought eight pieces of legislation up in July to cut the high cost of gas, and Republicans opposed every one of those bills.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for House Republicans to work with us Democrats to provide the American people lower costs at the pump and lower costs in the grocery store by ending the excessive Wall Street speculation in our energy markets and increasing our energy and food costs. Mr. Speaker, it's time to end the manipulation of prices by Wall Street and the excessive speculation, to lower prices and save this American economy.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1260, a resolution in support of the goals and ideals of ``National Internet Safety Month''. This is an issue I have personally been working on for a number of years through the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Through the Subcommittee's investigation, we've been able to influence significant changes in the industry, including better filtering and reporting efforts among Internet Service Providers, social networking sites, and other content providers.

We have also discovered a number of alarming statistics, for example:

One in five children report receiving a sexual solicitation over the Internet, more than 3.5 million pornographic images of American children are in circulation on the Internet, and the sale of these images over the Internet represents a billion dollar industry.

The anonymity provided by the Internet to those that seek to exploit and harm children and the lightning pace data is transmitted provides a Congress with significant policy challenges.

While we've made some progress in the last few years, I feel that we've only begun to address the scope of this problem.

By recognizing National Internet Safety Month, we remind ourselves how important it is for Congress to remain committed and vigilant to ensure that the Internet is a safe place for children.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the Stupak/Barrow amendment No. 16 would prevent any funds appropriated or made available under this Act from being used to increase the deductible veterans must pay to receive their mileage reimbursement.

Currently, veterans driving to a Veterans Affairs facility for an examination, treatment, or other medical care receive a mileage reimbursement rate of 28.5 cents per mile. However, the 28.5 cents per mile benefit is subject to a $7.77 deductible for each one-way trip and $15.54 for a round trip with a maximum deductible of $46.62 per calendar month.

Now, in a vast rural area where I live, many of my veterans drive more than 100 miles for an examination or treatment. So if a veteran lives 70 miles round trip from a VA facility, they would file a request for reimbursement for $19.95 minus the $15.54 deductible. This would mean a veteran would receive a mere $4.41. Even today's most efficient vehicles cannot make a 17-mile round trip on $4.41 when the national average price for a gallon of gasoline is $3.96.

The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill, as it is currently written, would increase the mileage, and I'm appreciative of that. It would increase the reimbursement rate from 28.5 cents up to 41.5 cents per mile. And I support this increase, but the Act does not address the subsequent required increase in the deductible.

Under law, each time the mileage reimbursement rate is increased, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is required to proportionately increase the deductible veterans must pay to receive this benefit. The amendment offered by myself and the gentleman from Georgia would freeze the deductible and prevent the secretary from increasing it when mileage reimbursement is increased.

In these times of rising gas prices, it's hard to justify an increase in the deductible veterans are required to pay for mileage reimbursement they receive. While I support the mileage reimbursement included in the bill, we need to make sure that the required increase in the deductible doesn't eliminate the benefit the veteran would receive from this policy.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), the co-author of this amendment.

With that, I would yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, while Americans suffer pain at the pump, Republicans and President Bush continue every day to spew the same rhetoric about drilling, a move that would produce minimal savings in 10 years.

Democrats, on the other hand, are providing short-term and long-term solutions to America's energy crisis. We have repealed subsidies to profit-rich Big Oil, cracked down on price gouging, and invested in clean and renewable energy.

We realize that Americans are hurting now, and they can't wait 10 years for relief. So 2 months ago, Democrats forced President Bush to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Now we are urging the President to release oil from the Reserve, which would provide relief at the pump within 2 weeks.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, President Bush and House Republicans are more interested in doing the bidding of Big Oil than actually providing relief to the American consumer today. How else can you explain their fixation with giving Big Oil more land to drill on when they aren't using the 68 million acres they already have?

Democrats are taking our energy policy in a new direction, not one controlled by Big Oil.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Peterson for the time.

I rise in support of H.R. 6604, the Commodities Market Transparency and Accountability Act.

As the chairman said, for 3 years I have held hearings on speculators in the market, and here is what we have found. Since the Enron loophole became law in 2000, there has been a dramatic shift and physical hedgers continually represent a small portion of the market. The excessive speculation is a significant factor in the price Americans are paying for gasoline, diesel and home heating oil.

Since the Enron loophole, what we found as money was shifted in this market, it went from $13 billion to $260 billion in this market, a 1,900 percent increase of money flowing into this market. After the Enron loophole we saw that contracts on oil futures markets went from 700,000 to over 3 million contracts, 425 percent increase.

What we also found, the physical hedgers in 2000, had about 70 percent of the market. By 2008, April of 2008, they were down to about 29 to 30 percent of the market. In other words, those who have a bona fide reason to hedge, like airlines, truckers and others, against the increased costs in fuel have been squeezed out of the market by big money and lucrative contracts.

While the Peterson bill may not have had all the things I would like to see, and in my legislation to prevent the unfair manipulation of prices, the PUMP Act, it does take significant steps to rein in excessive speculation.

The legislation would improve the information available to the Commodity Future Trading Commission, significantly improving the CFTC's ability to monitor energy markets. Should the CFTC find excessive speculation on unregulated markets as a result, they can take the necessary steps to correct it.

Well, speculators are not the only factor. We have seen that this Congress is serious about acting to curb excessive speculation in the energy market, and the markets are responding accordingly. Curbing excessive speculation is part of the solution to high energy prices.

I thank Chairman Peterson and his staff for working with me and my colleagues to produce this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6604.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Stupak/ Ramstad resolution, House Resolution 1324. Our resolution would commemorate the 25th annual National Night Out event, which is sponsored by the National Association of Town Watch.

I would like to thank my Law Enforcement Caucus Co-Chair, Congressman Jim Ramstad, for introducing this legislation with me once again this year, and all members of the Law Enforcement Caucus who co-sponsored this resolution.

This bipartisan resolution has had strong Congressional support for several years running and I am pleased we have another opportunity to highlight this important event again this year.

National Night Out, an annual nationwide grassroots crime prevention event, will take place on Tuesday, August 5th.

The event brings together involved citizens, law enforcement agencies, and civic groups throughout the United States to heighten crime and drug prevention awareness and to strengthen neighborhood spirit and police-community partnerships.

Since its inception in 1984, National Night Out has become a crime prevention fixture that is enthusiastically supported by citizens, law enforcement and local officials.

It is the Nation's largest, most cost-effective crime prevention campaign. By building community watch groups and police partnerships at an average cost of about $27 per community, National Night Out allows local law enforcement to extend its reach without incurring additional costs.

Whether it is stopping illegal drug sales, making schools safer, locating missing children, or remaining vigilant against terrorism, local law enforcement officials depend on the support of community networks to succeed.

The active involvement of citizens and the presence of local law enforcement in communities is a winning combination that makes and keeps neighborhoods safe.

Last year's National Night Out campaign involved citizens, law enforcement agencies, civic groups, businesses, neighborhood organizations and local officials from over 11,130 communities in all 50 states, U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, and on U.S. military bases worldwide.

In all, over 35.4 million people participated in National Night Out 2007.

National Night Out is an integral part of America's grassroots efforts to fight crime and create safer neighborhoods.

The Stupak/Ramstad resolution expresses Congress' support for community crime prevention and asks that the President focus Federal attention on the issue.

With this in mind, we hope that you will show your support for the community crime prevention efforts of citizens and police in your district, and across the Nation.

Vote for the Stupak/Ramstad National Night Out Resolution.

Offered By: Mr. Stupak

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 408. (a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated

or otherwise made available to the Secretary of Defense by

this Act may be used for a project for the construction,

alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or

public work unless all of the iron and steel used in such

project is produced in the United States.

(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case

in which the Secretary of Defense finds that--

(1) its application would be inconsistent with the public

interest;

(2) iron and steel are not produced in the United States in

sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a

satisfactory quality; or

(3) inclusion of iron and steel produced in the United

States will increase the cost of the overall project contract

by more than 25 percent.

(c) Public Building; Public Work Defined.--In this section,

the terms ``public building'' and ``public work'' have the

meanings given such terms in section 1 of the Buy American

Act (41 U.S.C. 10c) and include airports, bridges, canals,

dams, dikes, pipelines, railroads, multiline mass transit

systems, roads, tunnels, harbors, and piers.

Offered By: Mr. Stupak

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 408. (a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated

or otherwise made available to the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs by this Act may be used for a project for the

construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public

building or public work unless all of the iron and steel used

in such project is produced in the United States.

(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case

in which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds that--

(1) its application would be inconsistent with the public

interest;

(2) iron and steel are not produced in the United States in

sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a

satisfactory quality; or

(3) inclusion of iron and steel produced in the United

States will increase the cost of the overall project contract

by more than 25 percent.

(c) Public Building; Public Work Defined.--In this section,

the terms ``public building'' and ``public work'' have the

meanings given such terms in section 1 of the Buy American

Act (41 U.S.C. 10c) and include airports, bridges, canals,

dams, dikes, pipelines, railroads, multiline mass transit

systems, roads, tunnels, harbors, and piers.

Offered By: Mr. Stupak

Amendment No. 16: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 408. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to carry out section 111(c)(5) of title 38, United

States Code, during fiscal year 2009.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor one of the Great Lakes' most hallowed traditions: annual Chicago to Mackinac Race, the world's oldest and longest freshwater sailboat race. Each July, nearly 300 boats make the 333-mile trip to Mackinac Island in 2 to 3 days.

This year will mark the 100th anniversary of the race, commonly referred to by sailing enthusiasts as simply ``the Mac.'' Although the first race was held in 1898, several years passed between the first and second running of the race. In other years, the race did not occur because of the United States' entry into World War I. Two other years also did not count toward the total number of Mackinac races, as the race did not terminate at Mackinac Island, but at Harbor Springs, Michigan. This year, however, will mark the 100th time that the regatta will make the trek from Chicago, north up Lake Michigan, following the shores of Michigan's Lower Peninsula to finally land on historic Mackinac Island.

In the nautical world, the Mac is viewed by many as an outstanding test of sailors' skill, experience and sailing aptitude. Lake Michigan's volatile weather conditions can mean that the race challenges sailors' abilities. Despite the dangers and challenges of the Mac, there has never been a fatality and only one boat has been lost.

The weather challenges presented to those who sail in the Mac are well documented. In July 1925, 21 yachts started the race. Within 12 hours, six of the boats in the competition were blown back to Chicago. In 1937, sailors encountered winds with gusts up to 65 knots, or 75 miles per hour. In that race, only eight boats finished what 42 started. Mac enthusiasts refer to 1970 as ``the year of the big blow'' because a northerly wind blasted competitors in the race head on. Of the more than 160 yachts participating, more than half were forced to take refuge in safe harbor, crippled with shattered masts, torn sails and seasick crews.

One of the most challenging Mackinac races in history occurred in 1911. That year, 11 boats holding 142 crewmembers set forth from Chicago to Mackinac. Overnight, temperatures dropped to freezing, the breeze turned into a blustering wind and then became a gale. To add to the discomfort, a rainstorm began. As night fell, the gale escalated to hurricane force, with gusts peaking at 80 miles per hour. The wind, rain and waves played topsy-turvy with the yachts and the race of 1911 ended with the loss of a legendary mahogany-hulled sail boat, by the name of Vencedor. The huge waves thrashed the boat mercilessly and plunged it between two boulders on one of the many Great Lakes reefs. Although the crew was rescued, the Vencedor was lost. Despite the terrible storm, all 142 men who sailed that regatta arrived safely ashore at Mackinac Island, showing once more the perseverance and determination of those who compete in the Mac.

The race is sponsored by the Chicago Yacht Club and this year begins there on Saturday, July 19. The continued support of the Chicago Yacht Club and--since 1937--the Mackinac Island Yacht Club has been critical to keeping the Mac going these many years. The U.S. Coast Guard has provided tremendous assistance for the race over the years, working to ensure the safety of the sailors and rescue boats when necessary.

Madam Speaker, there is great nautical history associated with the race and great personal pride among those who have participated. Sailors who have competed in more than 25 ``Macs'' are called ``Island Goats,'' a title they wear with pride and affection. There are various explanations for where the title ``Island Goat'' originates. Some say that the sailors who participated in the race smelled like goats when they completed their two- or three-day voyage from Chicago. Others claim that the title ``Island Goat'' is a reference to the unruly celebrations of the early sailors when they finally arrived at Mackinac Island. Regardless of where the term stems, those who are ``Island Goats'' are proud of this distinction and have even formed the Island Goat Sailing Society.

Madam Speaker, this July, for the 100th time, those on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan will once again be able to gaze out upon the Lake and watch as an impressive regatta of hundreds of vessels race north toward Mackinac Island. As all of us from the Great Lakes observe the 100th anniversary of the Mac, I ask that you, Madam Speaker, and the entire U.S. House of Representatives join me in honoring the great tradition of the Mac and in saluting the thousands of men and women who have maintained this great race over the past century.

Would the gentleman from Texas yield on that point?

I thank the gentleman.

I just want to make a couple of points. Mr. Westmoreland seems to indicate that if we would just increase drilling somehow, we would increase supply and everything would be wonderful. But as chairman of Oversight and Investigations, we saw articles earlier this year which indicated that refineries were cutting back on their production.

So myself and Mr. Shimkus from Illinois, the ranking member, we wrote to

the Energy Information Agency and asked them: What is our gas supply? Take a look at the first 3 months of 2008, compare it to previous years. Is it a supply-and-demand problem?

Now, it's not a Democratic issue or Republican issue. The Energy Information Agency puts forth these facts, and here's what they said.

Gasoline inventory actually peaked on March 7, 2008, of 22 million barrels more than March of 2007. Gasoline imports were higher than they've been in the last 5 years when we looked back. Gasoline demand in the U.S. is actually down eight-tenths of 1 percent. So you have more than adequate supply, the most we've ever had in this Nation's history, at 22 million barrels in March of 2007, more than what we're using, but yet the price has still skyrocketed.

Now, I think all of us, Democrats, Republicans, we're all willing to put more supply forward, trying to increase production, and in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, that Mr. Barton led that Energy Policy Act, I was a conferee on, we streamlined a way for refineries to produce more if they wanted to.

But you see from the Energy Information Agency, the first 3 months of this year, there's more than adequate supply. When it comes to diesel, we actually exported 335,000 barrels out of this country to Western Europe and Latin America.

I think the gentleman misunderstood. The diesel is produced here in this country. We could have used it here in this country because home heating oil took off. Home heating oil took off for the east coast. We could have used it, but to keep that price, to artificially inflate the price of home heating oil, we exported 335,000 barrels: 93,000 to Western Europe and 182,000 barrels per day to Latin America.

So, I mean, we refined it, we produced it, we had it all right here. But what did we say? We can get a bigger buck overseas than to provide a service to the American people. That's what happened, according to the Energy Information Agency, not me, Energy Information Agency.

Let me keep saying, could you articulate these new diesel standards which made diesel not usable in this country? What are those new diesel standards?

And when did those standards come in?

So, well, when the Republican Party was in control then, in other words? There's nothing I can think of we did recently, and as the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee knows, Mr. Barton and I have done a lot of work on this issue in the last 3 years. That's why I was surprised when you're saying new diesel standards. I wasn't aware of any so it must have been something that came back a couple of years ago when you-all were in charge.

I know Western Europe is very concerned about their diesel standards. In fact, they have the clean diesel, as we like to call it, here in Europe and that's why they rely more on diesel than gasoline. So when we export 92,000 barrels a day to Western Europe, obviously that diesel is meeting their standards, which are probably higher than ours. I'm making that assumption.

Very good. But the point being, on supply and demand, at least when we look back at least the first 3 months of this year, according to the Energy Information Agency, we had more than enough gasoline, we had more than enough diesel, and it was just that we had to get that price up so we exported it.

More than the previous year, more than March 2007, that's correct.

Sure.

And when you take a look at it, what we expect our refineries to do is refine enough for each day as we go along. And they did, and we had more than the previous 5 years ever. So if this supply crisis, as you seem to indicate there was, 5 years ago we should have seen it--4 years, 3 years, 2 years, 1 year. This is the most we've ever had, and they're claiming there's a supply problem?

Sure.

Sure.

Sure.

Sure. And I thank the gentleman for his comments because he's absolutely right. The refineries are getting squeezed. In fact, some of the smaller refineries are actually refining diesel and gasoline at a loss because the base price of crude has skyrocketed. And as the gentleman is well aware because he has attended the hearings we've held jointly when you were Chair, and now as I'm the Chair of O&I, it's the excessive speculation. I know that's the second half of our comments here tonight, so I look forward--but the gentleman is right. And that's why so many of the refineries and the Members who represent the oil patch parts of our Nation have supported my legislation, the PUMP Act, Prevent the Unfair Manipulation of Prices, that take out the excess speculation which is causing the base product, crude oil, to just skyrocket.

So I thank the gentleman for his comments. He's right. I would agree with him. And later on we'll get to talk about speculation, and I look forward to the comments.

I don't disagree with Mr. Westmoreland, what he had to say there. The only thing I would say is that's why we are saying we've got 68 million acres, let's drill or not.

You know, I come from northern Michigan; we have no oil, we have a lot of trees. And when you get a contract to cut timber on the Federal forest, you get your current year plus 5, if not, you lose that right. Because in order to grow our trees and have a prosperous forest, you've got to prune it out and we have to cut. Same thing with oil. If we want to access U.S. oil, why are they sitting on these leases when the leases have been approved for drilling and all the environmental standards have been met? And if supply is the problem, as you claim-- and I'll grant you, that's part of it--then let's do it. No more excuses, let's drill.

You've got 22.8 million acres in Alaska that can be drilled on right now, but instead we seem to be focused on ANWR. I'm not even talking about ANWR, I'm talking about the Alaska Petroleum Reserve area, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve area, National Petroleum Reserve area. In Alaska, 22.8 million acres we could actually drill on right now today, permits are approved, everything is ready to go. Do it. Use it or lose it.

Very briefly, I would just ask, whether it's ANWR or the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, would the other side, would the minority side agree and put into the legislation that all oil or gas discovered there or produced there would come strictly to the United States? Because what we see in ANWR and Prudhoe Bay, that oil goes around Laotian islands, it goes to Japan and China because it's actually closer and they get a higher price.

So will you say that the oil in Alaska will come for U.S. citizens to be used for American energy?